PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 1997
Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) allow a herd of free roaming horses in the Cape Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina; and (2) enter into an agreement with the Foundation for Shackleford Horses (a nonprofit corporation established under North Carolina laws) to provide for cost-effective management of such horses and adoption by the Foundation of those horses that the Secretary removes from the Seashore. Requires the Secretary to accommodate the historic population level of the free roaming horse herd (between 100 and 110 horses) in the Seashore. Prohibits the Secretary from removing or assisting in or permitting the removal of any free roaming horses from Federal lands within the Seashore unless: (1) the number of such horses exceeds 110; (2) there is an emergency or a need to protect public health and safety; or (3) there is concern for the persistence and viability of the horse population. Requires the Secretary to annually monitor, assess, and make available to the public findings regarding the population structure and health of such horses.
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: 105-229.
Became Public Law No: 105-229.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H6912)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H6912)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Mr. Jones moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 3214 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 3214 proposed by Senator Domenici for Senator Murkowski.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8532-8533)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 229.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-115.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-115.
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.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 416 - 6 (Roll no. 290).
House roll call 290 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 416 - 6 (Roll no. 290).
House roll call 290 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5544-5545)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Faleomavaega objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5501-5503)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 111.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-179.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-179.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks 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.765 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.765 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.765 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.765 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.