PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-376.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 6, 1995
Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Act of 1995 - Establishes the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve to provide for the preservation, restoration, and interpretation of the Spring Hill Ranch area of the Flint Hills of Kansas. Considers the Preserve a designated unit of the National Park System, including for purposes of charging entrance and admission fees under specified provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and submit to specified congressional committees a general management plan for the Preserve. Authorizes the acquisition of real property and improvements thereon, and rights-of-way on roads that are not owned by Kansas, within the boundaries of the Preserve. Sets forth provisions regarding payments to local governments in lieu of taxes for such real property. Prohibits: (1) such property from being acquired without the owner's consent; and (2) U.S. acquisition of fee ownership of any lands within the Preserve other than these lands. Establishes the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary and the Director of the National Park Service on the development, management, and interpretation of the Preserve. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [R-KS] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-376.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 104-376.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 600.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5427-5428)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.695 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.695 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.695 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.695 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.