S. 1131 (119th)Bill Overview

Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve Establishment Act

Public Lands and Natural Resources|Advisory bodiesEmployee hiring
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Mar 25, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This bill redesignates the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park as Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and establishes the Ocmulgee Mounds National Preserve in Georgia, with boundaries shown on a specified map.

It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land from willing sellers (no eminent domain), requires a management plan developed with an advisory council including tribal representatives, provides tribal hiring preference, places about 126 acres of tribal-owned land into trust, allows hunting and fishing consistent with laws, and authorizes appropriations as needed.

Passage45/100

Technocratic, locally targeted public‑lands bill with tribal consultation and safeguards; funding and local opposition are main obstacles.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well‑structured substantive change that integrates with existing law and specifies many operational mechanisms (designation, acquisition authority, management plan, advisory council, tribal trust conveyance). Key legislative mechanics are present, but fiscal specificity and certain operational triggers are left vague.

Contention65/100

Progressives emphasize tribal restoration and cultural preservation benefits.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Federal agencies · Local governmentsFederal agencies
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersDesignation likely increases regional tourism and related employment from expanded visitation and services.
  • Federal agenciesFederal management provides stronger protection for cultural resources, burial sites, and sacred landscapes.
  • Local governmentsTribal hiring preference and trust land status may increase tribal employment and local economic benefits.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesEstablishment and land acquisition create ongoing federal costs requiring additional appropriations.
  • Targeted stakeholdersTaking 126 tribal acres into trust creates Indian country with jurisdictional and taxation implications.
  • Targeted stakeholdersNew unit designation and management could constrain nearby development and land use planning.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize tribal restoration and cultural preservation benefits.
Progressive90%

Likely strongly supportive.

The bill advances federal protection for Indigenous cultural sites, formalizes tribal consultation, and returns tribal land to trust status.

It emphasizes preservation, cultural access, and tribal involvement in management.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Generally favorable but pragmatic and cautious.

The bill protects cultural resources while limiting eminent domain, includes state consultation on hunting/fishing, and creates an advisory council.

Concerns focus on costs, timeline, and local impacts.

Leans supportive
Conservative30%

Skeptical to opposed.

Concerns will focus on federal land expansion, increased federal administrative authority, and placing land into trust changing jurisdiction.

Hunting/fishing allowances and prohibition on eminent domain reduce some objections.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood45/100

Technocratic, locally targeted public‑lands bill with tribal consultation and safeguards; funding and local opposition are main obstacles.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • No congressional budget or cost estimate included
  • Level of local and State support or opposition
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize tribal restoration and cultural preservation benefits.

Technocratic, locally targeted public‑lands bill with tribal consultation and safeguards; funding and local opposition are main obstacles.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well‑structured substantive change that integrates with existing law and specifies many operational mechanisms (designation, acquisition authority, management pl…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis