PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 23, 1993
Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (the Act) to revise conditions under which a tribe may receive certification for certain types of gaming activities on Indian lands. Allows a State the option to consent to enter into negotiations with a tribe to enter into a class III gaming certification compact. Repeals the current mandate to do so. Allows a tribe to apply to the National Indian Gaming Commission (the Commission) for a class III gaming certificate if a State fails to consent to Federal court jurisdiction or raises a defense against such jurisdiction, or the Federal court finds it lacks such jurisdiction, for any reason not curable by the tribe. Directs the Commission to approve the application if such gaming will be conducted in accordance with a tribal ordinance or resolution and will be located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose, by any person, organization, or entity. Authorizes the Commission to add regulatory or licensing provisions as a condition of such approval and to impose annual fees to defray reasonable costs of regulation. Considers an application approved if the Commission fails to act upon it within a specified time.
People & committees
Rep. Torres, Esteban Edward [D-CA-34] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Native American 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: Jan 2, 2025. 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.1028 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.1028 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.1028 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.1028 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.