PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-157.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 6, 1999
Intergovernmental Gaming Agreement Act of 1999 - Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to revise provisions concerning tribal-State compacts governing the conduct of Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. Authorizes such activities on Indian lands only if they are authorized by such a compact approved by the governing body of the Indian tribe with jurisdiction. Permits (current law requires) a tribe to request a State to negotiate such a compact. Sets deadlines for the State to respond and for the commencement and conclusion of negotiations. Directs the Secretary of the Interior, at the request of a tribe, if agreement has not been reached on the compact within a prescribed period, to initiate a mediation process to: (1) conclude a compact; or (2) provide for the issuance of gaming procedures by the Secretary. Permits a State to: (1) elect to participate in the mediation; or (2) decline to participate, in which case the Secretary shall issue such procedures. Sets forth provisions concerning: (1) selection of a mediator; (2) the process by which such mediator will submit to the Secretary recommendations for the operation and regulation of gaming; (3) the deadlines by which the Secretary shall make a final determination and issue gaming procedures; and (4) jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over challenges of the Secretary's gaming procedures or decisions to complete a compact or initiate mediation and over actions to enforce compact provisions or to enjoin gaming activities conducted in violation of a compact. Prohibits: (1) any compact or procedures from requiring that a State undertake any regulation of gaming on Indian lands unless the State consents and the State's laws permit such regulation; and (2) the Secretary from approving a compact that requires State regulation of gaming without the State's or tribe's consent. Directs the National Indian Gaming Commission to monitor, regulate, and license gaming consistent with an approved compact.
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. 106-157.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4907-4908)
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.985 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.985 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.985 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.985 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.