PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 25, 2004
Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to define initial reservation (geographical area) and consultation (with State, local, and tribal governments within 50 miles of land proposed to be taken into trust for a gaming facility).
Revises consultation requirements for an exception to gaming restrictions on certain land. Specifies that the State or local governments or nearby Indians tribes with which the Secretary of the Interior is required to consult on a proposed gaming establishment must have jurisdiction over land located within 50 miles of the land proposed to be taken into trust for the establishment. Declares as a favorable determination alternative to the currently required best interest of the Indian tribe and its members, with no detriment to the surrounding community, that the gaming establishment would not have a negative economic impact on businesses, governments, or Indian tribes within a 50 mile radius of the land proposed to be taken into trust.
People & committees
Rep. John, Christopher [D-LA-7] · D–LA
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 the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1281)
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: 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.4734 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.4734 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.4734 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.4734 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.