PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 28, 2008
Common Sense Indian Gambling Reform Act of 2008 - Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to revise requirements for the exemption of Indian land from gaming prohibitions.
Requires: (1) the governor and the legislative body of the state in which a gaming activity is proposed to concur with the Secretary of the Interior's determination that the activity would be in the best interest of the tribe and not have a negative impact; and (2) the land to be land within a state in which the tribe is primarily located and land on which the primary geographic, social, and historical nexus is located.
Adds as conditions for class II or class III gaming that it be conducted on: (1) lands that were Indian lands before enactment of this Act; or (2) land taken into trust for an Indian tribe after enactment, but only if the application requesting that the land be taken into trust stated the tribe's intent to conduct such gaming activities on the land.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission to: (1) approve the involvement in a gaming activity of any one of the ten persons or entities that have the highest financial interest in the activity; (2) investigate gaming activities and conduct background investigations of such persons or entities; and (3) audit and inspect class III gaming on Indian lands. Requires tribal ordinances to provide the Commission will conduct background investigations on tribal gaming commissioners, key tribal gaming employees, primary management officials, and key employees of the gaming enterprise.
Revises the cap on the total fees to be paid to the Commission during any fiscal year by gaming operations conducting regulated class II and III gaming activities.
Requires Indian tribes, before using lands for class II or III gaming, to: (1) submit to the Secretary an environmental impact statement; and (2) obtain the Secretary's consent with respect to the change in use of the lands.
People & committees
Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA] · R–LA
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.
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 14, 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.2676 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.2676 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.2676 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.2676 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.