PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 247 - 171 (Roll no. 439).
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 13, 2006
Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006 - Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to revise requirements for gaming on lands taken in trust for the benefit of a newly recognized, restored, or landless Indian tribe.
Allows one Indian tribe to host another, invited tribe to participate in or benefit from consolidated class II and class III gaming within the boundaries of the host tribe's reservation.
Requires the Indian tribe, in order to mitigate the direct impact of gaming activities on the affected county or parish infrastructure and services, to negotiate and sign, during negotiations for a tribal-state gaming compact, a memorandum of understanding concerning mitigation with the county or parish government. Requires the Secretary to appoint an arbitrator to establish mitigation requirements if such a memorandum is not signed within one year after a request to initiate negotiations has been made.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides that any gaming authorized by this Act shall not be conducted unless it is: (1) consistent with the tribal-state compacting laws of the state in which the gaming activities will be conducted; and (2) specifically identified as expressly authorized in a tribal-state compact of the invited Indian tribe approved by an Act of the legislature and the Governor of the state in which the gaming will be conducted.
States that host tribe compacts shall not be affected by the amendments made by this Act.
Prohibits an Indian tribe from conducting regulated gaming on Indian lands outside the state in which the Indian tribe is primarily residing and exercising tribal government authority upon the enactment of this Act, unless such lands are contiguous to those in the state where the tribe is primarily residing and exercising such authority.
Declares that the gaming arrangement authorized by this Act shall not be conducted on any Indian lands within the state of Arizona.
People & committees
Rep. Pombo, Richard W. [R-CA-11] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 247 - 171 (Roll no. 439).
House roll call 439 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 247 - 171 (Roll no. 439).
House roll call 439 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6460-6461)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4893.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6446-6453; text of measure as reported in House: CR H6446)
Mr. Pombo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 386.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-650.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-650.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 9.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: Apr 7, 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.4893 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.4893 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.4893 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.4893 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.