PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 7, 1997
Fair Indian Gaming Act - Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to shift the burden of proof from a State to an Indian tribe in a compact negotiation-related action initiated by a tribe. (Sec. 3) Includes, under provisions for determining whether gaming activities on newly acquired Indian lands are to be allowed, consideration of communities across State borders that would be seriously affected, as well as consultation with officials of such communities. Transfers primary authority to make such determinations from the Secretary of the Interior to the Governor and the State legislature. Authorizes gaming for newly acknowledged or restored tribes under specified circumstances. (Sec. 4) Requires an individual's physical presence in order to participate in class II or class III gaming on Indian lands. (Sec. 5) Sets forth class II and class III gaming restrictions. (Sec. 6) Excludes video bingo from the definition of class II gaming. Includes video bingo and any other forms of electronic video games or devices within the definition of class III gaming. (Sec. 7) Establishes a two-year moratorium on new class III gaming. (Sec. 8) Specifies that in a State whose constitution specifically authorizes class II or class III gaming such gambling on Indian lands shall be subject to the same laws, terms, and conditions as the State's gambling. (Sec. 9) Increases the membership of the National Indian Gaming Commission. (Sec. 10) Subjects Indian gaming establishments to specified reporting and bookkeeping requirements. (Sec. 11) Directs the Attorney General to conduct related background investigations. (Sec. 12) Amends Federal criminal law to extend current State authority in specified States to gaming violations on Indian lands. (Sec. 13) Amends the Act to prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the Commission. Increases gaming fee limits for Commission funding.
People & committees
Rep. Solomon, Gerald B. H. [R-NY-22] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to House Judiciary
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House 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: Aug 21, 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.334 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.334 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.334 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.334 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.