PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 11, 2017
This bill instructs the Department of the Interior to allow for the introduction of a small number of free-roaming wild horses from the Cape Lookout National Seashore in North Carolina as necessary to ensure the genetic diversity of the wild horse population in and around Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, consistent with the laws applicable to the refuge and seashore and the December 2014 Wild Horse Management Agreement.
Interior may enter into an agreement with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund to provide for the cost-effective management of the horses in and around the refuge while ensuring that its natural resources are not adversely impacted. Such agreement shall require the fund to pay the costs associated with:
conducting a periodic census, and inspecting the health, of the horses;
maintaining records of the horses living in the wild and in confinement;
conducting the removal and placement of horses and monitoring horses removed from the Currituck County Outer Banks; and
administering a viable population control plan for the horses.
People & committees
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1095 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.1095 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.1095 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.1095 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.