49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–650 

RESTRICTING INDIAN GAMING TO HOMELANDS OF 

TRIBES ACT OF 2006 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. POMBO, from the Committee on Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 4893] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 4893) to amend section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act to restrict off-reservation gaming, having considered the same, 

report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes 

Act of 2006’’. 

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON OFF-RESERVATION GAMING. 

Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719) is amended— 

(1) by amending subsection (b)(1) to read as follows: 

‘‘(b)(1) Subsection (a) will not apply when lands are taken in trust for the benefit 

of an Indian tribe that is newly recognized, restored, or landless after the date of 

the enactment of subsection (f), including those newly recognized under the Federal 

Acknowledgment Process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the following criteria 

are met: 

‘‘(A) The Secretary determines that such lands are within the State of such 

tribe and are within the primary geographic, social, historical, and temporal 

nexus of the Indian tribe. 

‘‘(B) The Secretary determines that the proposed gaming activity would not 

be detrimental to the surrounding community and nearby Indian tribes. 

‘‘(C) Concurrence by the Governor in conformance with laws of that State. 

‘‘(D) Mitigation by the Indian tribe in accordance with this subparagraph. For 

the purposes of the Indian tribe mitigating the direct impact on the county or 

parish infrastructure and services, the Indian tribe shall negotiate and sign, to 

the extent practicable during the compact negotiations described in section 

11(d)(3), a memorandum of understanding with the county or parish governVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:30 Sep 15, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR650.XXX HR650

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
2 

ment. Such mitigation requirements shall be limited to the direct effects of the 

tribal gaming activities on the affected county or parish infrastructure and services. If a memorandum of understanding is not signed within one year after the 

Indian tribe or county or parish has notified the other party and the Secretary, 

by certified mail, a request to initiate negotiations, then the Secretary shall appoint an arbitrator who shall establish mitigation requirements of the Indian 

tribe.’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections: 

‘‘(e)(1) In order to consolidate class II gaming and class III gaming development, 

an Indian tribe may host one or more other Indian tribes to participate in or benefit 

from gaming conducted under this Act and in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by each invited Indian tribe and the State under this Act upon 

any portion of Indian land that was, as of October 17, 1988, located within the 

boundaries of the reservation of the host Indian tribe, so long as each invited Indian 

tribe has no ownership interest in any other gaming facility on any other Indian 

lands and has its primary geographic, social, historical, and temporal nexus to land 

in the State in which the Indian land of the host Indian tribe is located. 

‘‘(2) An Indian tribe invited to conduct class II gaming or class III gaming under 

paragraph (1) may do so under authority of a lease with the host Indian tribe. Such 

a lease shall be lawful without the review or approval of the Secretary and shall 

be deemed by the Secretary to be sufficient evidence of the existence of Indian land 

of the invited Indian tribe for purposes of Secretarial approval of a Tribal-State compact under this Act. 

‘‘(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Indian tribes identified in 

paragraph (1) may establish the terms and conditions of their lease and other agreements between them in their sole discretion, except that in no case may the total 

payments to the host Indian tribe under the lease and other agreements exceed 40 

percent of the net revenues (defined for such purposes as the revenue available to 

the 2 Indian tribes after deduction of costs of operating and financing the gaming 

facility developed on the leased land and of fees due to be paid under the TribalState compact) of the gaming activity conducted by the invited Indian tribe. 

‘‘(4) An invited Indian tribe under this subsection shall be deemed by the Secretary and the Commission to have the sole proprietary interest and responsibility 

for the conduct of any gaming on lands leased from a host Indian tribe. 

‘‘(5) Conduct of gaming by an invited Indian tribe on lands leased from a host Indian tribe under this subsection shall be deemed by the Secretary and the Commission to be conducted under the Act upon Indian lands—

‘‘(A) of the invited Indian tribe; 

‘‘(B) within the jurisdiction of the invited Indian tribe; and 

‘‘(C) over which the invited Indian tribe has and exercises governmental 

power. 

‘‘(6) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the gaming arrangement authorized by this 

subsection shall not be conducted on any Indian lands within the State of Arizona. 

‘‘(7) Any gaming authorized by this subsection shall not be conducted unless it 

is—

‘‘(A) consistent with the Tribal-State compacting laws of the State in which 

the gaming activities will be conducted; 

‘‘(B) specifically identified as expressly authorized in a tribal-State compact 

of the invited Indian tribe approved by an Act of the legislature of the State 

in which the gaming will be conducted; and 

‘‘(C) specifically identified as expressly authorized in a tribal-State compact 

of the invited Indian tribe approved by the Governor of the State in which the 

gaming will be conducted. 

‘‘(8) Host tribe compacts shall not be affected by the amendments made by this 

subsection. 

‘‘(f) An Indian tribe shall not conduct gaming regulated by this Act on Indian 

lands outside of the State in which the Indian tribe is primarily residing and exercising tribal government authority on the date of the enactment of this subsection, 

unless such Indian lands are contiguous to the lands in the State where the tribe 

is primarily residing and exercising tribal government authority.’’. 

SEC. 3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by paragraph (1) of section 2 shall be applied prospectively. Compacts or other agreements that govern gaming regulated by 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) on Indian lands that 

were in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act shall not be affected by the 

amendments made by paragraph (1) of section 2. 

(b) EXCEPTION.—The amendments made by section 2 shall not apply to any lands 

for which an Indian tribe, prior to March 7, 2006, has submitted to the Secretary 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
3 

or Chairman a fee-to-trust application or written request requiring an eligibility determination pursuant to section 20(b)(1)(A) or clauses (ii) or (iii) of section 

20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A), 

2719(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii), respectively); provided that such lands are located within— (1) the State where the Indian tribe primarily resides; and 

(2) an area where the Indian Tribe has a primary geographical, historical, 

and temporal nexus. 

(c) FURTHER EXCEPTION.—The amendments made by section 2 shall not affect the 

right of any Indian Tribe to conduct gaming on Indian lands that are eligible for 

gaming pursuant to section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

2719), as determined by the National Indian Gaming Commission, Secretary of the 

Interior or a Federal court prior to the date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS REQUIRED. 

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to implement section 20 of the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719). The regulations shall require tribal applicants for any of the exceptions listed in section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act to have an aboriginal or analogous historic connection to the lands upon which 

gaming activities are conducted under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 4893 is to amend section 20 of the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act to restrict off-reservation gaming. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In the late 1970s many Indian tribes, aware that there were no 

federal bans on Indian gaming, were involved in ‘‘high-stakes’’ bingo operations on their reservation lands. In 1987, the United 

States Supreme Court in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission 

Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) affirmed the rights of American Indian tribal governments to conduct gaming operations on their sovereign reservation lands. The next year Congress passed the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA, Public Law 100–497, 25 

U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) to provide a regulatory framework for the implementation of the Cabazon case. In the years following, the Indian gaming industry exploded in terms of the number of facilities 

and the amount of gaming revenue. For example, the revenue from 

Indian gaming increased from $5.45 billion in 1995 to nearly $23 

billion in 2006. In 2006, there were over 400 Indian gaming facilities on Indian lands throughout the United States. 

IGRA consists of 24 sections designed to provide clear standards 

and regulations for the conduct of gaming on Indian lands. Prior 

to enactment of IGRA, there were no uniform standards for federal 

and State governments to follow when engaging with federally-recognized Indian tribes on the construction, conduct, and regulation 

of casino gaming. IGRA made it clear that the role of the federal 

government was strictly limited to that of ensuring that the Indian 

tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation and to promote a federal Indian policy of tribal economic development, tribal 

self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government functions. To help 

protect Indian gaming revenue for tribal purposes only, IGRA also 

established the National Indian Gaming Commission to ensure 

that tribal gaming would continue to be a function of the Indian 

tribal government, and to act as the ultimate authority for establishing federal standards for gaming on tribal lands. 

The Congressional purpose of enacting IGRA was to protect and 

regulate Indian gaming on lands that are located within or contigVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:30 Sep 15, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR650.XXX HR650

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
4 

1 25 U.S.C. 2719(a). 

2See Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indian v. United States Atty., 198 F. Supp. 

2d 920, 937. 3 Id. 

uous to the boundaries of the Indian tribe’s reservation prior to October 17, 1988,1 and IGRA generally prohibits gaming on lands acquired in trust after that date. However, Section 20 of IGRA also 

contains several exceptions to this general rule which over the 

years has led to controversy and conflict between individual tribes, 

and State, local, and federal governments. Instead of seeking to 

bring economic development to the Indian reservation, many tribes 

since 1988 have sought to bring the Indian reservation to the economic development. Currently there are over 50 applications on file 

with the Department of the Interior for approval to build an Indian 

casino elsewhere than on lands that are located within or contiguous to the boundaries of a Indian tribe’s reservation as it existed 

prior to 1988. 

IGRA contains four exceptions to the general rule prohibiting 

such ‘‘off-reservation’’ gaming. These exceptions contained in Section 20(b)(1) are: (1) the two-part determination; (2) the land claim 

exception; (3) the restored land exception; and (4) the initial reservation exception. Each of these exceptions allows a tribe to construct a gaming facility on lands that are not within or contiguous 

to a reservation existing on October 17, 1988. The controversies 

surrounding these exceptions were the focus of six oversight and 

legislative hearings before the Committee on Resources where testimony was taken on the impact of gaming activities on local communities. 

As ordered reported, H.R. 4893 would significantly revise the exceptions in Section 20(b)(1) of IGRA. First, the legislation eliminates the two-part determination and the land claim exceptions. It 

should be noted that eliminating the land claim exception does not 

affect the power of Congress to settle land claims in any appropriate and Constitutional manner through a separate Act of Congress. Second, the bill allows newly recognized, restored, or landless tribes to conduct gaming on lands acquired in trust, but only 

when the following criteria are met: (1) the Secretary of the Interior determines the lands are located in the State in which the 

tribe primarily resides and exercises jurisdiction; (2) the lands are 

within the primary geographic, social, historical, and temporal 

nexus of the tribe; (3) the Secretary determines the proposed gaming activity would not be detrimental to the surrounding community and nearby Indian tribes; (4) the Governor of the State where 

the proposed gaming is to be conducted concurs in accordance with 

the State’s laws; and (5) the tribe signs a memorandum of understanding with the county or parish in which the tribe and its facility are located in order to mitigate direct impacts from the proposed gaming facility. 

The nexus requirement is derived from case law on IGRA’s restored land exception.2 Case law has so far suggested that restored 

lands cannot be all lands with which a tribe has had minimal contact. A tribe must have a historical nexus to the land and that the 

restoration be sufficiently close in time to the date of the recognition.3 The Committee believes that this nexus requirement extends 

beyond the circumstance of restored lands and should also be apVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:30 Sep 15, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR650.XXX HR650

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
5 

plied to lands designated as an initial reservation by the Secretary 

for newly recognized tribes as well as for tribes that do not currently have lands taken into trust by the Secretary for the purposes of gaming. Under this standard, both a historical and temporal requirement should be used to prove that the tribe has both 

a past and present, modern-day connection to the proposed land acquisition. In addition, the tribe must have a significant geographic 

link to the proposed lands to be taken into trust for the purposes 

of gaming. Under H.R. 4893 as ordered reported, all three requirements (historical, temporal and geographic) must be present in a 

tribal fee-to-trust application for the purposes of gaming. 

In addition to the new Section 20(b)(1), H.R. 4893 also adds a 

new Section 20(e)(1) to the bill which would authorize a federallyrecognized Indian tribe to partner with another tribe on existing 

Indian lands as they existed prior to October 17, 1988, for the purposes of building a gaming facility. The criteria for an invited tribe 

to partner with another tribe on its existing Indian lands are as 

follows: (1) the host tribe and invited tribe must sign a lease that 

will charge no more than 40% net revenue per year for the entire 

term of the lease; (2) the invited tribe must show it has a geographic, social, historical and temporal nexus to the tribe it wishes 

to partner with; (3) the invited tribe must obtain a gaming compact 

expressly authorizing the gaming partnership from the Governor 

and have that compact ratified in the State legislature; (4) the invited tribe must be deemed by the Secretary and the Indian Gaming Commission that it will have the sole proprietary interest and 

responsibility for the conduct of any gaming on lands leased from 

the host tribe; and (5) each invited tribe must have no interest in 

any other gaming facility on any other Indian lands. 

It should be noted that H.R. 4893 affects only tribal gaming regulated by IGRA. H.R. 4893 does not affect gaming not regulated by 

the IGRA and thus would not impede the ability of tribes to operate State-licensed and regulated commercial business enterprises 

on non-reservation land. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4893 was introduced on March 7, 2006, by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R–CA). The bill was referred to 

the Committee on Resources. Two hearings were held on the bill: 

one on March 15, 2006, and the other on April 5, 2006. On July 

26, 2006, the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 

Mr. Pombo and Ranking Member Nick J. Rahall II (D–WV) offered 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment required the concurrence of the Governor in conformance with the 

laws of the State, deleted both the tribal veto provision and the 

tribally-financed local referendum and added a grandfather provision to Section 2 of H.R. 4893. The requirement of concurrence of 

the State legislature was perceived as a problem by Members because the intention behind IGRA was for the Governor of a State 

to be a primary actor when deciding whether to concur with off reservation fee-to-trust petitions. Many Members felt that concurrence 

by both the Governor and the State legislature was too big a 

change in federal Indian policy. Another requirement in the introduced version of H.R. 4893 that received questions from Committee 

Members was the tribal veto of tribal fee-to-trust petitions for gamVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:30 Sep 15, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR650.XXX HR650

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
6 

ing purposes. Members felt that the tribal veto was unnecessary 

and raised several possible legal concerns that did not justify keeping the provision in the bill. Finally, many Committee Members 

scrutinized the tribally-financed local referendum in the introduced 

bill. Members felt that the local referendum provision would only 

encourage casino developers to finance this very expensive referendum provision and would ultimately exacerbate and not diminish controversy between tribes and local communities. 

The Committee was informed by both the Arizona Congressional 

delegation and by several Arizona Indian tribes that the gaming colocation provision located in subsection (2)(e)(I) of the introduced 

bill would destroy the unique multi-party, Tribal-State compacting 

arrangement that was approved by the people of the State of Arizona in 2002. Therefore, under the amendment, the tribes located 

in the State of Arizona will not be able to take advantage of the 

gaming co-location provisions in subsection (2)(e)(1). The final 

change in the amendment to H.R. 4893 is the addition of a grandfather provision. Many Members of this Committee reported that 

they had constituent tribes who had already filed fee-to-trust petitions for the purposes of gaming with the Department of Interior 

and are currently awaiting consideration. Concerns were voiced 

that many of these tribes who have invested substantial resources 

into complying with existing Department rules regarding proposed 

gaming projects would be unfairly eliminated should H.R. 4893 be 

enacted into law. The amendment allows the Department consider 

any tribal fee-to-trust application for the purposes of gaming under 

the current law as long as the tribe has a geographic, historical 

and temporal nexus to the proposed parcel it intends to place into 

trust. 

Congressman Don Young (R–AK) offered an amendment to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute which stated that H.R. 

4893 shall not affect the right of any Indian tribe to conduct gaming on Indian lands that are eligible for gaming under Section 20 

of IGRA. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

Congressman Dale Kildee (D–MI) offered two amendments to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. The first, which created 

a new Section 4 to H.R. 4893, would require the Secretary to promulgate regulations on the implementation of Section 20 of IGRA 

within 180 days, was agreed to by voice vote. The second, which 

would have struck the majority of Section 1 of H.R. 4893 and replaced it with a mandatory Secretarial determination that a proposed fee-to-trust petition for the purposes of gaming must have a 

primary geographic, social, historical, and temporal nexus of the 

Indian tribe, was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 10 ayes and 23 

noes, as follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
7 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 7 here HR650.001
8 

The following amendments to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute were offered and withdrawn: 

An amendment by Congressman Dennis A. Cardoza (D–CA) that 

would have excluded H.R. 4893 from applying to any tribe that was 

restord to federal recognition by judicial stipulation entered in 

Hardwick v. United States. An amendment by Congressman Ron Kind (D–WI) which would 

have grandfathered any tribal-State gaming compact that expressly 

authorized certain trust lands to be used for gaming. 

An amendment by Congressman Jim Costa (D–CA) which mandated that each State create a Tribal Slot Master Plan, setting an 

official State cap on slot machines at Indian casinos before approving any tribal-State gaming compacts. 

An amendment by Congressman Dan Boren (D–OK) which would 

have eliminated the memorandum of understanding provision between the tribe and the State and substituted the provision with 

a informal consultation process with the State, local, and tribal officials. 

An amendment by Congressman Jay Inslee (D–WA) which would 

have overturned a series of court decisions and mandated that 

States negotiate with tribes for gaming compacts. 

Congressman Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D–AS) offered an amendment to the amendment which would have excluded H.R. 4893 

from applying to lands taken into trust as part of the settlement 

of a tribal land claim that either appeared on the list of such 

claims published by the Secretary on March 31, 1983, or were asserted by the affected tribes in court or administratively before October 17, 1988. The amendment was not adopted by voice vote. 

The Pombo-Rahall amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 

amended, was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a rollcall vote 

of 27 ayes and 9 noes, as follows: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
9 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 here HR650.002
10 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in 

the body of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United 

States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not 

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does not 

authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 4893—Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act 

of 2006 

H.R. 4893 would amend provisions in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) related to off-reservation Indian gaming. Specifically, the legislation would add new restrictions on tribes operating 

Indian gaming outside their existing reservations. Based on information from the Department of the Interior (DOI), CBO estimates 

that implementing H.R. 4893 would not have a significant impact 

on the federal budget. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues 

or direct spending. 

H.R. 4893 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would 

limit the ability of tribes to operate gaming on land put in trust 

after 1988. Because both the outlook for gaming on these lands 

under current law and the impact of the changes made by the bill 

are very uncertain, CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate 

cost to tribes would exceed the annual threshold established in 

UMRA ($64 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

of the next five years. The bill contains no private-sector mandates 

as defined in UMRA. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
11 

The bill would amend Section 20 of the IGRA, which generally 

prohibits gaming on lands placed into trust after October 17, 1988 

(IGRA’s enactment date). Section 20 includes a number of exceptions to that rule, but this bill would narrow those exceptions, further limiting tribes’ opportunities to operate gaming. One exception 

now allows tribes to operate gaming if they receive a special determination from DOI and approval of the state’s governor. H.R. 4893 

would eliminate these ‘‘two-part determinations’’ for all but those 

tribes that had an application pending before March 7, 2006. It 

also would add new conditions even for tribes that submitted their 

applications before that date. In addition, the bill would impose 

new conditions to the exceptions for newly created or restored 

tribes, including requirements that these tribes gain the governor’s 

approval and mitigate the direct effects of gaming on local governments. Finally, the bill would completely eliminate the exception 

for land acquired through the settlement of a land claim. 

The costs of these new mandates would include the lost earnings 

of any tribe unable to operate gaming under IGRA because of these 

changes, as well as any additional expenses tribes might incur to 

mitigate the effects of gaming on the local communities. Based on 

information provided by DOI, CBO estimates that the new conditions imposed by this bill would affect, at least to some extent, 

about 50 applications from tribes seeking approval from DOI for 

gaming on recently acquired lands. It is difficult to predict how 

many of those, if any, would be approved in the next five years 

under current law, or how many of that group would be eliminated 

or delayed as a result of this bill, but the lost earnings from even 

one gaming operation could be substantial. A number of existing 

Indian gaming operations have annual revenues of more than $100 

million. CBO also cannot predict how much more tribes would pay 

to local communities as a result of this bill, in part because tribes 

often agree to make similar payments under current law. 

Some provisions in H.R. 4893 would benefit Indian tribes, as well 

as local governments. The bill would allow tribes to create partnerships, where one tribe would host a gaming facility for another 

tribe. Also, requiring tribes to make payments to local governments 

would benefit those governments. 

On May 17, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 2078, 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 2006, as ordered reported by 

the Senate Committee on Inldian Affairs on March 29, 2006. Both 

pieces of legislation would restrict off-reservation gaming; however, 

the Senate bill contains additional provisions related to the National Indian Gaming Commission. 

The staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew Pickford (for 

federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the impact on state, local, 

and tribal governments). This estimate was approved by Peter H. 

Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

The Congressional Budget Office was unable to determine whether this bill exceeded the threshold for reporting an intergovernmental mandate under Public Law 104–4. The analysis of this 

mandate is contained in the cost estimate included in this report. 

The bill provides no authorization of appropriations or any direct 

spending authorization. The Commitee intends that the intergovVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:30 Sep 15, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR650.XXX HR650

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
12 

ernmental mandate be entirely unfunded. The Committee is unaware of any specific existing sources of federal assistance to cover 

direct costs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 20 OF THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT 

GAMING ON LANDS ACQUIRED AFTER ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT

SEC. 20. (a) * * * 

ø(b)(1) Subsection (a) will not apply when—

ø(A) the Secretary, after consultation with the Indian tribe 

and appropriate State and local officials, including officials of 

other nearby Indian tribes, determines that a gaming establishment on newly acquired lands would be in the best interest 

of the Indian tribe and its members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, but only if the Governor 

of the State in which the gaming activity is to be conducted 

concurs in the Secretary’s determination; or 

ø(B) lands are taken into trust as part of— ø(i) a settlement of a land claim, 

ø(ii) the initial reservation of an Indian tribe acknowledged by the Secretary under the Federal acknowledgment 

process, or 

ø(iii) the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is 

restored to Federal recognition.¿ 

(b)(1) Subsection (a) will not apply when lands are taken in trust 

for the benefit of an Indian tribe that is newly recognized, restored, 

or landless after the date of the enactment of subsection (f), including those newly recognized under the Federal Acknowledgment 

Process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the following criteria 

are met: 

(A) The Secretary determines that such lands are within the 

State of such tribe and are within the primary geographic, social, historical, and temporal nexus of the Indian tribe. 

(B) The Secretary determines that the proposed gaming activity would not be detrimental to the surrounding community and 

nearby Indian tribes. 

(C) Concurrence by the Governor in conformance with laws of 

that State. 

(D) Mitigation by the Indian tribe in accordance with this 

subparagraph. For the purposes of the Indian tribe mitigating 

the direct impact on the county or parish infrastructure and 

services, the Indian tribe shall negotiate and sign, to the extent 

practicable during the compact negotiations described in section 

11(d)(3), a memorandum of understanding with the county or 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
13 

parish government. Such mitigation requirements shall be limited to the direct effects of the tribal gaming activities on the 

affected county or parish infrastructure and services. If a 

memorandum of understanding is not signed within one year 

after the Indian tribe or county or parish has notified the other 

party and the Secretary, by certified mail, a request to initiate 

negotiations, then the Secretary shall appoint an arbitrator who 

shall establish mitigation requirements of the Indian tribe. 

* * * * * * * 

(e)(1) In order to consolidate class II gaming and class III gaming 

development, an Indian tribe may host one or more other Indian 

tribes to participate in or benefit from gaming conducted under this 

Act and in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by 

each invited Indian tribe and the State under this Act upon any 

portion of Indian land that was, as of October 17, 1988, located 

within the boundaries of the reservation of the host Indian tribe, so 

long as each invited Indian tribe has no ownership interest in any 

other gaming facility on any other Indian lands and has its primary geographic, social, historical, and temporal nexus to land in 

the State in which the Indian land of the host Indian tribe is located. 

(2) An Indian tribe invited to conduct class II gaming or class III 

gaming under paragraph (1) may do so under authority of a lease 

with the host Indian tribe. Such a lease shall be lawful without the 

review or approval of the Secretary and shall be deemed by the Secretary to be sufficient evidence of the existence of Indian land of the 

invited Indian tribe for purposes of Secretarial approval of a TribalState compact under this Act. 

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Indian tribes 

identified in paragraph (1) may establish the terms and conditions 

of their lease and other agreements between them in their sole discretion, except that in no case may the total payments to the host 

Indian tribe under the lease and other agreements exceed 40 percent 

of the net revenues (defined for such purposes as the revenue available to the 2 Indian tribes after deduction of costs of operating and 

financing the gaming facility developed on the leased land and of 

fees due to be paid under the Tribal-State compact) of the gaming 

activity conducted by the invited Indian tribe. 

(4) An invited Indian tribe under this subsection shall be deemed 

by the Secretary and the Commission to have the sole proprietary 

interest and responsibility for the conduct of any gaming on lands 

leased from a host Indian tribe. 

(5) Conduct of gaming by an invited Indian tribe on lands leased 

from a host Indian tribe under this subsection shall be deemed by 

the Secretary and the Commission to be conducted under the Act 

upon Indian lands— (A) of the invited Indian tribe; 

(B) within the jurisdiction of the invited Indian tribe; and 

(C) over which the invited Indian tribe has and exercises governmental power. 

(6) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the gaming arrangement authorized by this subsection shall not be conducted on any Indian 

lands within the State of Arizona. 

(7) Any gaming authorized by this subsection shall not be conducted unless it is—


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
14 

(A) consistent with the Tribal-State compacting laws of the 

State in which the gaming activities will be conducted; 

(B) specifically identified as expressly authorized in a tribalState compact of the invited Indian tribe approved by an Act of 

the legislature of the State in which the gaming will be conducted; and 

(C) specifically identified as expressly authorized in a tribalState compact of the invited Indian tribe approved by the Governor of the State in which the gaming will be conducted. 

(8) Host tribe compacts shall not be affected by the amendments 

made by this subsection. 

(f) An Indian tribe shall not conduct gaming regulated by this Act 

on Indian lands outside of the State in which the Indian tribe is 

primarily residing and exercising tribal government authority on 

the date of the enactment of this subsection, unless such Indian 

lands are contiguous to the lands in the State where the tribe is primarily residing and exercising tribal government authority. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING