PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-117.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 1, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Increases from 100 to a minimum of 110 the number of free roaming horses the Secretary of the Interior is required to permit in Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina, with a target population of between 120 and 130. Prohibits the Secretary from removing, assisting in, or permitting the removal of any free roaming horses from Federal lands, within the boundaries of the seashore unless removal is carried out as part of a plan to maintain the viability of the herd. Prohibits anything in such law from being construed to require the Secretary to replace horses or otherwise increase the number of horses within such boundaries where the herd numbers fall below 110 (currently, 100) as a result of natural causes, including, but not limited to, disease or natural disasters.
People & committees
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-117.
Became Public Law No: 109-117.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13056)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13056)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 246.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 109-154.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 109-154.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1375)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1375)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 126.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1375)
Mr. Jones (NC) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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 H.R.126 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 H.R.126 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 H.R.126 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 H.R.126 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.