Failed
236 Yea188 Nay7 Not voting2/3 required
HR-504-119
The Chair directed the Clerk to notify the Senate of the action of the House.
Sponsored by Carlos Gimenez (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Miccosukee Reserved Area Act to officially add the Osceola Camp — a specific area within Everglades National Park — to the Miccosukee Reserved Area (MRA). It would also require the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Miccosukee Tribe, to take actions within two years to protect structures in the Osceola Camp from flooding.
Who benefits
Members of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, who would gain formal recognition of the Osceola Camp as part of their reserved area and receive federally funded flood protection for structures there. The National Park Service, which would have clearer legal boundaries for the MRA. Miami-Dade County, which would receive official map filings clarifying land designations. Tribal cultural preservation interests broadly, as the Osceola Camp holds historical and cultural significance for the Tribe.
Who is hurt
Everglades National Park visitors or recreational users who may face adjusted access to the Osceola Camp area following its formal incorporation into the MRA. Federal taxpayers who would bear the cost of flood mitigation work, though the bill does not specify an appropriated dollar amount. The National Park Service may face administrative and resource burdens in implementing the flood protection requirement within the two-year deadline.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Miccosukee Tribe has a longstanding, legally recognized presence in the Everglades and that formally including the Osceola Camp in the MRA corrects an administrative gap that leaves tribal structures and cultural sites without adequate federal protection. They contend that the federal government has a trust responsibility to tribal nations, and that mandating flood protection fulfills that obligation for a community facing real and documented flood risk in a low-lying wetland environment.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding the MRA boundary and imposing an unfunded flood protection mandate on the Secretary of the Interior sets a precedent for open-ended federal spending obligations without a defined appropriation or cost estimate, leaving Congress without clear fiscal accountability. They contend that incorporating additional land into a tribal reserved area within a national park may restrict public access to federally managed lands and that such boundary changes warrant a more comprehensive environmental and public-use review process.
Constitutional context
No clear constitutional tension exists under the provided civil rights framework. Congress has broad authority to manage federal lands and fulfill treaty and trust obligations to tribal nations under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2) and the Indian Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), though these provisions are outside the civil rights context provided. No Equal Protection, Section 5, or First Amendment issues are directly implicated.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of the Interior) gains a new mandatory duty to implement flood protection, subject to the two-year statutory deadline set by Congress; congressional oversight and appropriations authority serve as the primary checks on implementation.
Historical precedent
The original Miccosukee Reserved Area Act (Public Law 105-313, 1998) established the MRA framework this bill amends, providing a direct statutory predecessor for congressional designation of tribal use areas within Everglades National Park.
Failed