PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3182-3184)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 25, 2004
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments of 2004 - Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to define a regulated person or entity to be a Indian tribe, a tribal operator of an Indian gaming operation, or any related management contractor or associated person, including certain concessionaires.
Revises procedures for filling vacancies on the National Indian Gaming Commission and the powers of the Chairman.
Directs the Commission to monitor, inspect, and access records of class III gaming. Authorizes it, in the case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey any subpoena issued to, any person, to request the Attorney General to invoke the jurisdiction of any U.S. court to compel compliance.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Commission to accept gifts on its behalf, subject to specified prohibitions.
Requires the Commission to develop a nonbinding minimum five-year regulatory plan to carry out its activities.
Adjusts the salary of the General Counsel to the Commission and of other staff.
Requires Commission Chairman approval of any tribal gaming ordinance that provides for a system ensuring background investigations and continuing oversight of tribal gaming commissioners and key tribal gaming commission employees (as well as primary management officials and key employees of a class II gaming enterprise, as under current law).
Allows an Indian tribe to enter into a management contract for the operation and management of a class III gaming activity, subject to specified requirements currently applicable to class II gaming management contracts.
Revises the authority of the Chairman to levy and collect appropriate civil fines up to $25,000 per violation to specify up to $25,000 per violation, per day. Authorizes the Chairman to issue orders: (1) requiring accounting and disgorgement, including interest; and (2) of reprimand, censure, or the placement of limitations on gaming activities and functions of any regulated person or entity for violations of Federal law or Commission or tribal regulations or ordinances.
Requires the Commission to provide the regulated person or entity (currently, the tribal operator of an Indian game or a management contractor) with a written complaint if the Commission has reason to believe that such person or entity is engaged in specified activities.
Authorizes Federal court enforcement of Commission subpoenas.
Limits the schedule of fees to be paid to the Commission by each gaming operation that conducts a class II or class III gaming activity during any fiscal year to 0.080 percent of the gaming revenues.
People & committees
Sen. Campbell, Ben Nighthorse [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3182-3184)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3182)
Introduced in Senate
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 18, 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 S.2232 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 S.2232 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 S.2232 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 S.2232 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.