PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Dec 1, 2011
Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, Currituck County, and the state of North Carolina to provide for the management of free-roaming wild horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge.
Requires that such agreement: (1) allow a herd of no more than 130 free-roaming wild horses in and around the Refuge; (2) provide for cost-effective management of such horses; and (3) provide for the introduction of a small number of free-roaming wild horses from the herd at Cape Lookout National Seashore as is necessary to maintain the genetic viability of the herd in and around the Refuge; and (4) specify that the Corolla Wild Horse Fund shall pay certain costs associated with the health, maintenance, removal, and placement of such horses.
Bars the Secretary from excluding free-roaming wild horses from any part of the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge unless: (1) it is found that the presence of such horses on a part of the Refuge threatens the survival of an endangered species for which such land is designated as critical habitat, (2) such finding is based on a peer-reviewed scientific assessment, and (3) a period of public notice and comment is provided on such finding.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the removal of any horse from the Seashore for introduction at the Refuge, except with the approval of the Foundation for Shackleford Horses Inc. and consistent with the memorandum of understanding between the National Park Service (NPS) and the Foundation and the management plan for the Shackleford Banks Horse Herd.
Prohibits anything in this Act from being construed as creating liability of the United States for any damages caused by the free-roaming wild horses to any person or property located inside or outside the boundaries of the Refuge.
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.
Referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.
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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H480)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H480)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 306.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H480-481)
Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 210.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-310.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-310.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.306 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.306 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.306 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.306 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.