To amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to provide that the Secretary of the Interior shall not approve a Tribal-State gaming compact under that Act unless the State involved has a State law providing for a gaming master plan that has been approved by the Secretary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 6, 2006
Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to provide that Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are located in a state with a state law providing for a gaming master plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
Authorizes the Secretary to approve a Tribal-state compact under such Act only in such a state.
Allows the Secretary to approve a state gaming master plan only if the plan contains, at a minimum, certain specified elements.
Considers a state gaming master plan approved by the Secretary if the Secretary does not approve or disapprove it within 30 days after its submission for approval.
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.5125 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.5125 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.5125 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.5125 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.