PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-20, Pt.1.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 10, 1999
Indian Gaming Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999 - Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to revise definitions and to repeal: (1) provisions regarding the review of tribal gaming ordinances and management contracts; and (2) provisions requiring the Secretary of the Interior to continue to exercise authorities relating to the supervision of Indian gaming. Requires Indian tribes, with respect to class II gaming, and tribes or States (or both), with respect to class III gaming, in a manner that meets or exceeds the minimum Federal standards established under this Act, to: (1) monitor and regulate that gaming; (2) conduct background investigations; and (3) establish and regulate internal control systems. Directs the National Indian Gaming Commission to promulgate regulations for such minimum Federal standards. Revises tribal gaming ordinance provisions to require the approval of any tribal ordinance or resolution concerning the conduct or regulation of class II gaming on the Indian lands within a tribe's jurisdiction if such ordinance or resolution provides that: (1) all contracts for certain supplies, services, or concessions for a contract amount in excess of $100,000 (currently $25,000) annually relating to such gaming shall be subject to annual outside independent audits; and (2) there is an adequate system which includes the issuance of a separate license by the tribe for each place, facility, or location on Indian lands at which such gaming is conducted. Repeals the requirement permitting certain tribes which operate a class II gaming activity to petition the Commission for a certificate of self-regulation and replaces it with a requirement permitting any tribe that operates a class III gaming activity directly or with a management contract to petition the Commission for a fee reduction if the Commission determines that the tribe has complied with specified conditions, including meeting minimum Federal standards. Requires the Commission to establish a schedule of fees to be paid to the Commission annually by each gaming operation that conducts a class II or class III gaming activity.
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.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-20, Pt.1.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1417-1418)
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 20, 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.399 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.399 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.399 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.399 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.