Calendar No. 1003 

IV TY)"I',\IlI.ISlI I.'E:l)l.:lO\l. S7'hSI)r\I~I)S ,\$II) ItK(;III,ATIOSS WIt l'IlE COX 

DIJCT OF (;r\>llS(; r\(TI\'ITI'S OX ISI)Ir\S I1lL5I~:lt\'r\'l'lOSS ,\XI) I.ANDS. 

AND Wit OTII1:lt I'UItI'OSILS 

SCITLMIII.~~ 24; iIi.~'~>li~t~v(. di~y. SI:I?CMII~:IL 2-11, l!l?ili -0rdrrcd to be printed 

Mr. ANDREWS. from the Sclcct Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

REPORT 

[To nccornpany H.R 19201 

[Including cost stimntc of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Select Committee on Indiatl Affairs, to which was referred 

the bill (H.R. 1920) to establish Federal standards and regulations 

for the -znduct of gaming activities on Indian reservations and 

lands, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 

bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of H.R. 1920 is to provide a statutory basis for the 

operation of gaming by Indian tribes and to establish a Federal 

regulatory program to guard against the intrusion of crime into 

tribal gaming operations in Indian country, while at the same time 

protecting the rights of tribes to conduct and regdate gaming operations as a means of generating needed tribal revenues and employment. H.H. 1920 was introduced in the House of Representa- tives by Mr. Udall on April 2, 1985. Companion legislation (S. 902) 

was introduced in the Senate by Senator DeConcini on April 4, 

1985. On June 16, 1986, Senator Laxalt introduced similar legislation (S. 2557) which was proposed by the Administration. 

There are significant differences in the three bills. However, 

each wvould establish a national Indian gaming commission with 

strang regulatory authority over the conduct of games and entry 

into the gaming activity by outside contractors. The most important difference in the three bills is in the role of tribes in the regu71-010 0 
lation and management of games. H.R. 1920 as passed by the 

House and as amended and reported out by the Select Committee 

on Indian Affairs recognizes a far stronger role to be played by the 

governments of the Indian tribes than would the legislation proposed by the Administration. 

The Administration proposal, by contrast, would preempt nearly 

every authority currently exercised by the tribes, including the establishment of days and hours of operation, setting of pot limits, 

awarding of cash or other prizes, employment of personnel, and requiring tribes seeking to operate an authorized game to obtain a 

Federal license renewable at three year intervals. 

Given the very strong role of the gaming commission established 

under the bill reported by Committee, and the lack of evidence of 

any significant crin~inal involvement in the operation of these 

games to date, the Committee does not believe that such a heavy 

Federal hand is appropriate at this time and has opted for continued tribal control, but subject to a strong Federal presence to 

assure the integrity of the games, and assurance that the tribes 

themselves derive the benefits from the operation of the games. 

H.R. 1920, as reported out by the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, does net rest on the criminal/prohlbitory;. civiUregulatory 

distinction in the law as developed in court decisions discussed in 

this report. The bill recognizes the need to provide a regulatory 

scheme for the conduct of games by Indian tribes and does this by 

stating that tribes may conduct certain defined games (bingo, lotto 

and cards) under the Federal regulatory frame-work, provided the 

laws of the state allow such games to be playzd at all. All other 

games are prohibited as a matter of Federal law unless a tribe 

agrees with a state for the application of the state regulatory and 

criminal laws respecting such gaming operation, including the licensing of such game. 

BACKGROUND 

Only in recent years has Indian gaming, become a significant 

economic activity. Indian gaming has for the most part been subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Indian tribes. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1924 adopted tribal gaming laws 

as Federal laws for purposes of its Code of Federal Regulation 

Courts. Generally, under current law, state laws are not applicable 

to Indian tribes without the consent of Congress and the Federal 

government, and the Indian tribes exercise jurisdiction over Indian 

matters to the exclusion of the states. States have not been provided with jurisdiction directly over Indian gaming by any specific 

Federal statute, and no Federal statute has comprehensively addressed gaming on Indian reservations. 

Indian gaming, particularly bingo has very recently become a 

significant economic activity. In testimony before this Committee 

on June 17, 1986, the Department of the Interior reported that 108 

tribes had gaming facilities, 104 of these were conducting bingo. Some tribes operate both bingo and card games, and a fev: tribes 

operate just card games. No tribes are known to curreiitly d~rate 

pari-mutuel dog racing, horse racing, or Jai-Alai. Receipts of'.aome 
tribes exceed $1 million annually, and the Department estimates 

that the combined receipts exceed $100 million annually. The growth and economic viability of tribal gaming is directly related to series of decisions by federal courts, beginning with Seminole u. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. dented, 455 

U.S. 1020 (1982). Seminole held that the Seminole tribe of Florida 

could operate its bingo enterprise free from state licensing and regulations. The Court based its decision on an analysis on P.L. 83-280 

which had transferred limited jurisdiction over Indian reservations 

to some states, including Florida. The key question was whether 

Florida's bingo law was civil/regulatory or criminal/prohibitory in 

nature. 

Only if the bingo law was criminal/prohibitory could the state 

apply it to the reservation. In order for a gaming law to be classified as criminal/prohibitory, the state must absolutely prohibit the 

gaming activity for any purpose by any person, organization, or individual. Florida's statute was held to be regulatory because it did 

allow some groups to operate bingo games. 

This same analysis has been utilized in non P.L. 83-280 states in 

determining whether a tribal gaming activity is legal under the Assimilated Crime Act, or the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. 

Only criminal/prohibitory state laws are assimilated. The Organized Crime Control Act, which is silent on its face concerning 

Indian tribes, makes gambling activities that violate the laws of 

the State, in which they are located, federal crimes. These Acts 

were not intended to apply to tribal bingo games. See U.S. u. 

Farris, 624 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1980) cert, denied, 449 U.S. 1111 

I1 ,----,. QR11 

Since forty-five states permit some form of bingo, and only five 

states prohibit the game completely, many tribes saw bingo as a 

means of generating revenues. 

The Seminole decision has been followed in Barona Group of the 

Capitan Grande Band v. Duffy, 694 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 19821, cert. 

denied, 461 U.S. 929 (1983); Langley u. Ryder, 778 F.2d 1092 (5th 

Cir. 1985); Oneida Tribe of Indians u. Wisconsin, 518 8. Supp. 712 

(W.D. Wisc., 1981); State of Washington u. Hatch, C-83-1518R (W.D. 

Wash., Aug. 14, 19841, appeal dismissed (9th Cir., Feb. 21, 1985); 

Mashantucket Pequof Tribe u. McGuigan, Civil No. H-85-210 (D. 

Conn. Jan. 9, 1986); Indian Country U.S.A. v. State of Oklahoma, 

No. 85-(2643-E (N.D. Ok., April 24, 1986); and Cubazon Eland of 

Mission Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Riverside, 783 F.2d 900 (9th ~irr 1986) prdbable jurisdiction noted 54 

U.S.L.W. 3809 (U.S. June 9, 1986). 

Only one federal appeals court case, US. u. Dakota, No. 85-1568, 

- F.2.-, (6th Cir. July 18, 1986) has reached a result somewhat 

different from ~-- ~ Seminole with res~ect to Indian garnina. Using a different analysis on a somewhat different, fact GtterG ~akora held 

that the Organized Crime Act of 1970, was violated by the operation of an individually owned but tribally licensed commercial 

gambling casino. A critical difference between Dakota and the 

above cases was that the "business" involved was a gambling casino, owned by individuals and run for personal profit as opposed 

to a game owned by the tribe which raised revenues for public pur- 
pose. H.R. 1920, as reported, does not permit the type of gaming involved in the Dakota case. 

Besides the favorable court decisions, it is clear that in these 

times of Federal budget reductions, many tribes, which have traditionally relied on Federal funding to conduct their tribal government operations, have found the revenues generated from on-reservation tribal gaming operations, to be a welcome source of funds to 

replace dwindling Federal dollars. As the Department of the Interior stated during its testimony before this Committee: 

Indian reservation gambling provides economic benefit 

to mmiy of the tribes involved, especially those with no 

valuable natural resources or other significant sources of 

income. Tribes have used their bingo income for a variety 

of purposes relating to the welfare of their members, including supplementing activities that are fmanced by the 

Federal Government. Examples include the Creek Nation's 

payment of contract medical expenses for tribal members; 

the Sycuan Band's use of the funds for emergency loans, 

home repairs, fuel for homes, fire department equipment 

and operation, road repairs, and flood control repairs; the 

San Juan Pueblo's funding of a senior citizens program; 

the Fond du Lac Band's use of the funds to supplement the 

Head Start and other programs and to aid the construction 

of a health facility, and maintain and improve school and 

other public facilities and roads; and the Shakopee or 

Prior Lake Sioux Community's use of the funds to build a 

community center, dental clinic and health facility, and 

purchase a fire truck. 

President Reagan's Indian policy statement includes the 

following passages which should be kept in mind in developing the Federal policy on Indian gambling: 

"It is important to the concept of self-government that 

tribes reduce their dependence on Federal funds by provid- ing a greater percentage of the cost of their self-government. Some tribes are already moving in this direction. 

This administration pledges to assist tribes in strengthening their governments by removing the Federal impediments to tribal self-government and tribal resource 

development . . . This Administration affirms the right of 

tribes to determine the best way to meet the needs of their 

members and to establish and run programs which best 

meet those needs. . . . "It is the policy of this Administration to encourage private involvement, both Indian and non-Indian, in tribal 

economic development. In some cases, tribes and the private sector have already taken innovative approaches 

which have overcome the legislative and regulatory impedimenb to economic progress. "Since tribal governmenta have the primary responsibil- ity for meeting the basic needs of Indian communities, 

they must be allowed the chance to sgcceed . . . $1 

The thrust of President Reagan's Indian Policy Statement, referred to above, hm committed the Administration, under the lead- 
ership of the Department of the Interior, and with the support of 

the Department of Justice, to support and further the development 

of Indian bingo, which is denoted as Class I1 gaming in H.R. 1920. 

As such, the Department of the Interior has approved tribal ordinances and resolutions establishing and regulating gaming activities; financed by grant or insured loans Indian bingo activities 

under the Indian Finance Act [a federal contribution of at least 11 

million dollars]; and issued guidelines and revised guidelines, under 

the requirements of U.S.C. # 81, for management contracts. In addition, both the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

and the Department of Health and Human Services [Administration for Native Americans] have provided financial assistance to 

developing tribal gaming enterprises. 

There is substantial agreement, between. the Executive Branch 

and the Legislative Branch, concerning the desirability of continuing tribal bingo as a viable economic tool of the tribes. Tribal governments, in effect, are doing what many state governments are 

doing, using gaming a9 a means of generating revenues to provide 

governmental services. 

There are significant concerns, however, that Congress, in preempting the Indian gaming field with a comprehensive statutory 

scheme, must adequately address the potential law enforcement concerns relative to high stakes Indian Gaming. The potential for 

criminal infiltration from organized crime has been a frequently expressed concern. According to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Indian gaming operations currently regulated by 

tribal governments, with limited federal supervision are not now infiltrated by Organized Crime. 

The conclusion that organized crime has not infiltrated Indian 

gaming operations is also reflected in the findings of the 9th Circuit 

Court of Appeals decision in Cabazon Band of Mission Indians and 

Morongo Band v. Riverside (1986), which stated that, in spite of the 

State's concerns about intrusion by organized crime in California, 

"There is no evidence whatsoever that organized crime exists on 

these reservations." The concern, has, therefore, focused on assuring 

that such infiltration does not occur in the future. 

Several proposals were considered by the Committee, including 

one creating a federal regulatory presence with unlimited discretionary power over Indian gaming. The Committee reviewed this proposal closely but chose instead to recommend a comprehensive regulatory system under which responsibilities are divided between tribal 

governments and a federal regulatory Commission. 

Another far reaching concern has been whether to allow states 

any jurisdiction over Indian gaming. One recommendation was to 

unilaterally transfer jurisdiction to states over all "hard core" 

gaming. "Hard core" gaming is defined as those games in the Class 

ZZZ section of HR. 1920. The rationale for this approach, was to 

avoid duplication and to subject these more serious forms of gambling to the pre-existing state regulatory systems. The Committee 

chose instead, to bar such gaming on Indian reservations, but to 

allow a tribe and a state to request, on a case-by-case basis, that a 

particular Class 111 tribul activity be allowed to operate under state 

law. This approach avoids impinging on the right of tribal self-gov- 
ernment, by providing for tribal consent before anv jurisdiction may 

be transferred. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR AMENDMENTS 

Section 5 authorizes the establishment of an independent, five 

member, National Indian Gaming Commission within the Department of the Interior. The Chairman and members of the Commission arc appointed by the President, subject to the consent of the 

Senate. Commissioners serve a term of three years and can only be 

removed for cause. 

The Chairman, subject to appeal to the Commission, has the authority to impose fines for violations of the Act, approve or disapprove Indian tribal gaming ordinances, and approve or disapprove 

of management contracts, pursuant to specified standards established in Sections 11 and 12, which condition and regulate gaming operations, and restrict who may be involved in such operations. 

Section 12 limits gaming management contracts, with Indian 

tribes, to a term of seven years and transfers the authority of the 

Secretary of the Interior, to approve of encumbrances of Indian 

lands (held in trust by the Unites States), to the Commission, when 

such encumbrances are the result of a gaming management contract with a tribe. 

In addition to bingo, "Class I1 gaming" includes, what the Committee considers to be, low stakes card games. Four states, which 

do not criminally prohibit card games, currently have some tribally operated card games operating within those states. Such card 

games would continue to be legal if they continue to be operated by 

the tribes in those states and remain within the same nature and 

scope as those card games are currently operating in that state or 

if they operate at a level which may, in the future, be authorized 

by state law. 

Section 11 conditions Commission approval of tribal gaming ordinances, upon the establishment of an adequate system for conducting background investigations on and oversight of primary gaming 

management officials. 

Class 111 gaming; which includes dog tracks, horse tracks and casinos, is made unlawful, on any Indian lands, unless a tribe and 

the state negotiate an agreement calling for a specific transfer of 

jurisdiction, to the state, and the Secretary of the Interior approves 

a request to transfer such jurisdiction to the state. A tribe may file 

an action in U.S. District Court, if it feels that a state has arbitrarily refused to negotiate a jurisdictional transfer, or license or otherwise authorize a tribe to engage in Class I11 gaming operations. It 

is the intent of the Committee that a legitimate state interest in 

denying a license, such as overcro:vding, would be sufficient to 

overcome an allegation of arbitrariness. 

This provision does not confer jurisdiction to the states over 

Class PIP gaming activities on Indian lands. Rather, it bans Class I11 

gaming on Indian lands, unless the respective tribes wish to voluntarily agree to state jurisdiction prior to engaging in such gaming operations. 

Section 14 authorizes the Chairman of the Commission to impose 

civil fines of up to $25,000 per violation against the tribal operator 
or management contractor of an Indian gaming operation; for violations of any provisions of the Act, its implementing regulations 

or the tribal gaming ordinance, cir resolution under which such 

game is operated. In addition to civil fines, the Chairman is further 

authorized to order temporary closure of an Indian gaming operation for substantial violations. Such temporary closure, upon 

notice and hearing, may be made permanent upon the majority 

vote of the Commission. 

Sections 15 and 16 give the Commission and other federal officials extensive subpoena authority and investigative powers to ascertain whether the provisions of the Act of other Federal, state or 

tribal statutes are being violated. 

Section 22 adds three new criminal sections to Chapter 53 of title 

18 of the United States Code, generally state, criminal and civil 

laws regulating gaming activities in the respective states, are made 

applicable to Indian lands, and assimilated as violations of federal 

law, unless such gaming is authorized under this Act. 

Additionally, criminal fines and imprisonment ranging from up 

to $100,000 and/or imprisonment up to a year through fines of 

$1,000,000 and/or imprisonment up to twenty years; are provided 

for any person who embezzles, steals, etc., money or property from 

an Indian gaming establishment. The severity of the maximum 

fine and/or imprisonment is determined by the value of what is 

taken, and whether the offender is an employee, or officer of the 

gaming operation, or a person unconnected with the gaming operation altogether. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 

H.R. 1920, introduced on April 2, 1985, by Representative Udall 

for himself and Representatives McCain, Richardson, Bates, Snowe, 

Seiberling, and McKernan, is similar to H.R. 4566 introduced by 

Mr. Udall in the 98th Congress. On June 19, 1984, the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee held hearings in the 98th Congress on H.R. 4566. 

In the 99th Congress, the House Committee held three days of 

hearings on H.R. 1920 and related bills, H.R. 2420, H.R. 3130, H.R. 

3745, and H.R. 3752. Hearings were held in Washington, D.C., on 

June 25, 1985; in San Diego, California, on September 13, 1985; and 

in Washington, D.C., on November 14, 1985. During these hearings, 

the Committee took oral testimony from the Departments of the 

Interior and Justice, and from both Indian and non-Indian public 

witnesses. In addition, the House Committee received numerous 

statements, submitted for the record, and extensive correspondence 

on the subject of the legislation. 

The House Committee marked up H.H. 1920 on December 4 and 

11, 1985. After extensive debate and amendments, the Committee 

ordered the bill reported on December 11, 1985, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

With further amendments, H.R. 1920 was psssed by the House of 

Representatives on April 21, 1986, it was received the same day in 

the Senate, and was referred to the Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 
A companion bill to H.R. 1920, S. 902 was introduced by Senator 

DeConcini on April 4, 1985. 

The Select Committee held one day of hearings on S. 902 on June 

26, 1985 and received testimony from over 40 Indian and nonIndian public witnesses. S. 2557 was introduced by Senators Laxalt 

and Hecht on June 16, 1986. On June 17, 1986, the Committee held 

an additional hearing on H.R. 1920, S. 902, and S. 2557. Representatives of the Department of the Interior and the Department of 

Justice, provided testimony as did an additional 30 Indian and nonIndian witnesses. In addition, the Committee received numerous 

statements on the subject of the legislation. 

The Committee marked up H.R. 1920 on September 15 and 17, 

1986. After extensive debate, the Committee on September 17, 1986 

adopted an amendment in nature of substitute and ordered the bill 

reported. 

COMMIlTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TABULATION OF VOTE 

The Select Committee on Indian Affairs, in open business session 

on September 17, 1986, with a quorum present, by a vote of six in 

favor and three opposed, ordered H.R. 1920 reported with an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute, with a recommendation 

that the Senate pass the bill as amended. Senators voting in favor 

were Senators Andrews, Goldwater, Murkowski, Abdnor, DeConcini 

and Burdick. Those opposed were Senators Gorton, Melcher and 

Inouye. 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS 

The Committee recommends an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute. A summary of the major amendments appears elsewhere in this report. 

Section I 

Section 1 cites the act as the "Indian Gaming Regulatory Act". 

Section 2 contains various congressional findings relating to the 

conduct of gaming activities on Indian reservations. Subsection (a) 

notes that a number of tribes have become engaged in or have licensed gaming activities on Indian lands as a means of generating 

governmental revenue. The record, developed by the Committee 

shows that many tribes, faced with severe cuts in Federal program 

aid supporting tribal government arid tribal programs, and lacking 

a tax base or other source of governmental revenue, have turned to 

gaming as a source of such revenue. In this respect, they are not 

unlike many State governments who have turned to State lotteries, 

or other forms of gaming to supplement their tax revenue. 

Subsection ib) finds that under existing law, state criminal laws 

are applicable in Indian country only to the extent that the Congress has provided by legislation that the States, rather than the 

Federal Government, should exercise jurisdiction over a particular 

subject matter. 

Subsection (c) finds that Federal and tribal governments exercise 

criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country, 

except in certain situations not generally related to gzmbling. 
Subsection (d) finds that Federal law sometimes assimilates the 

criminal laws of the States when there is no general Federal criminal statute on point. 

Subsection (el finds that several Federal courts have held that 

State criminal laws are assimilated by Section 13 of title 18 United 

States Code for enfgrcement by the Federal Government in Indian 

country; that State gambling enforcement statutes are regulatory 

laws which are not assimilated by Section 13 of title 18 United 

States Code, or made applicable to Indians or Indian tribes by Pub. 

L. 83-280, and, consequently, that the Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming which is not prohibited by Federal 

law and which is conducted in a State which does not, as a matter 

of public policy, prohibit such gaming. 

For criminal law jurisdiction there are two major types of reservations. The first are reservations where jurisdiction over Indian 

residents is shared between the Federal and tribal governments 

and state laws do not apply. The second are those where Congress 

by statutes, generally enacted in the 1940's and 1950Js, has allowed 

the states to exercise some or all criminal jurisdiction over Indians. 

(See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1162.) Even on the first type of purely "federal" 

reservation, however, some types of state laws have been adapted 

as federal law and made applicable to conduct by Indians through 

the Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 13) and 18 U.S.C. 1152. See 

United States v. Sosseur, 181 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1950); United States 

v. Marcyes, 557 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1977), but see United States v. 

Pakootu, No. 4777 (D. Idaho, N.D. 1963) and United States v. 

Quiver, 241 U.S. 602 (1916). Nevertheless, courts have held that 

only state criminal laws are assimilated and that state regulatory 

laws, even though enforceable by criminal penalties, do not qualify 

as criminal. Moreover, it has also been held that even on the 

second type of reservation, where the state criminal laws apply to 

Indians, state regulatory laws do not. 

The distinction between criminal and regulatory laws, while ambiguous, has been applied in sit~ations involving bingo where 

courts have held, that certain state laws involving such matters as 

hours of p!ay and the type of organizations that may profit from bingo, do not apply in Indian country. See Barona Group of Mission 

Indians v. Duffy, 694 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1982); Seminole Tribe of 

Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F. 2d 310 (5th Cir. 1981). Since there 

are no federal laws regulaticg these matters, the only regulation is that provided by the tribes themselves. 

Paragraph (6) states that Federal courts have held that section 

81 of title 25 United States Code requires the Secretary of the Interior to review of management contracts dealing with Indian 

gaming, but does not provide standards for approval of such contracts. A number of these cases have held that without Secretarial 

approval under Section 81, bingo management contracts are void 

and unenforceable. See Wisc. Winnebago Business Committee v. Koberstein, 762 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1985); U.S. ex rel. Shakopee Madewakanton Sioux Community v. Little Six Enterprises, 616 F. Supp. 1200 (D. Minn. 1985), on appeal Nos. 85-5279, 85-5280 (8th Cir.) 

Flandreau Indian Management Company v. Flandreau Santee 

Sioux Tribe, Civ. No. 84-4055 (D.S. Dak. unreported opinion, April 

11, 1984). Accordingly, the Department of the Interior has issued 
section 82 guidelines and tribes are submitting bingo management 

contracts to the Secretary or his designee for review. 

Subsection (0 finds that existing Federal law does not provide 

clear standards or regulations for the conduct of gaming on Indian 

lands. 

Subsection (g) finds that a'principal goal of Federal Indian policy 

is to promote tribal economic development, tribal self-sufficiency 

and strong tribal government. 

Section 3 

Declaration of Policy-Congress desires to provide a statutory 

basis for the operation of certain Indian gaming. It also desires to 

assure that such gaming is adequately regulated by an independent 

Federal regulatory authority. The Congress finds that such regula- tion is necessary to shield these gaming enterprises from organized 

crime and other corrupting influences and to assure both the players and the operators that the games are conducted fairly and honestly. Congress believes these concerns are well addressed by the 

establishment of a National Indian Gaming Commission with the 

power to license and oversee the daily operations of such gaming 

enterprises. 

Section 4 

Subsection (a) makes Indian gaming unlawful on any lands taken 

into trust by the Secretary of the Interior after the date of enactment of this Act, if such lands are located outside the boundaries of 

such tribe's reservation. It also provides, however, that for purposes of Oklahoma, where many Indian tribes occupy and hold title 

to trust lands which are not technically defined as reservations, 

such tribes may not establish gaming enterprises on lands which 

are outside the boundaries of such tribes former reservation in 

Oklahoma, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior, unless such 

lands are contiguo~is to lands currently held in trust for such 

tribes. Functionally, this section treats these Oklahoma tribes the 

same as all other Indian tribes. This section is necessary, however, 

because of the unique historical and legal differences between 

Oklahoma and tribes in other areas. Subsection (a) also applies the 

same test to the non-Oklah~ma tribes whose reservation boundaries have been removed or rendered unclear as a result of federal 

court decisions, but where such tribe continues to occupy trust land 

within the boundaries of its last recognized reservation. This section is designed to treat these tribes in the same way they would be 

treated if they occupied trust land within a recognized reservation. 

It is not intended to allow a tribe to take land into trust, for the 

purposes of gaming, on lands which are located outside the state or 

states in which the tribe has a current and historical presence. 

These limitations were drafted to clarify that Indian tribes should 

be prohibited from acquiring land outside their traditional areas 

for the expressed purpose of establishing gaming enterprises. Congress may, in the future, determine in specific situations that 

equity requires that a specific exemption to this rule be granted. 

The Committee feels, however, that such exe~nptions shouici be 

carefully considered on a case by case basis. 
Subsection (a) is also not intended to affect or diminish Secretarial authority to take land into trust for aon-gaming related purposes. Finally, this section does not apply to lands taken into trust 

as part of a settlement of a land claim or as part of the federal acknowledgement process. It is the intention of the Committee that 

nothing in the provisions of this section, or in this Act, will supersede any specific restrictions on gaming on Indian lands or any specific grant of Federal authority or jurisdiction to a state, which 

may be encompassed in another Federal statute. Examples of such 

statutes are the Rhode Island Claims Settlement Act (Act of September 30, 1978; 92 Stat. 813; P.L. 95-395) and the Maine Indian 

Claims Settlement Act (Act of October 10, 1980; 94 Stat. 1785; P.L. 

96-420) in which a specific provision was made for jurisdiction to 

be established by the states, the tribes and the United States. 

Subsection (b)(l) states that the prohibition against off reservation gaming described above, shall not apply if the tribe requesting 

the acquisition of such land in trust obtains the concurrence of the 

Governor of the state, the State legislature and the governing 

bodies of the county and municipality in which such lands are located. 

Subsection (b)(2) grants a specific exemption to section 3(a) for 

certain designated lands outside the boundaries of the Miccosukee 

Indian Reservation in Florida. The Miccosukee Tribe is unique in 

that its current trust lands are located within the Everglades National Wildlife Refuge and thus the possibility for economic development within the boundaries of the Reservation are extremely limited. The lands addressed here are in close proximity to the Miccosukee Reservation and would be contiguous to the reservation but for 

the fact that the Reservation is surrounded by a National Wildlife 

Refuge. The land taken into trust by the subsection shall be subject 

to all licensing regulatory provisions of this Act. 

Subsection (c) provides that relevant provisions of the Internal 

Revenue Code, such as section 3402(q) and chapter 35, title 26 

United States Code, concerning taxation and the reporting and 

withholding of taxes relating to the operation of gaming activities 

shall apply to tribal gaming activities as they apply to state operated gaming activities. 

Section 5 

Subsection (a) provides for the establishment of a National 

Indian Gaming Commission as an independent entity within the 

Department of the Interior. 

Subsection Ib) Daraera~h (1) ~rovides that the Commission shall ..& 

be con~posed of gve GeGbers. These members shall serve full-time 

and are subject to Presidential appointment with the advice and 

consent of the Senate. These members are composed of the following: a Chairman who may be recommended by the Secretary of the 

Interior and the Attorney General; one member, who may be recommended by the appropriate organizations or entities represent- ing the interest of the States; and three members, all of whom 

shall be enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. 

Paragraph (2) states that no more than three members of the 

Commission shall be of the sai,le political party. 
Paragraph (3) states that the one member representing the interest of the states and one of the three Indian members will each 

serve two year terms. All other Commission members will serve 

three year terms. Thereafter, all succeeding appointments will be 

for a term of three years. 

Paragraph (4) prohibits any person who has been convicted of a 

felony or gaming offense, has any management responsibility far a 

gaming activity regulated under the Act, or has a financial or 

other interest in a management contract from being appointed to, 

or, continuing to serve on the Commission. 

Paragraph (5) states that during a Commissioner's term of office, 

he or she may be removed only for cause. It also provides that vacancies occurring on the Commission shall be filled in the same 

manner as the original appointment and that a member of the 

Commission may continue to serve after the expiration of his or 

her term until his successor has been appointed unless he or she 

has been removed for cause. 

Subsection (d) states that 3 members of the Commission shall 

constitute a quorum. 

Subsection (e) states that the Commission shall select, by majority vote, one member who shall serve as Vice-Chairman and who 

shall preside over the Commission meetings in the Chairman's absence. 

Subsection (0 states that the Commission shall meet at the call 

i 

I 

of the Chairman or a majority of its members. 

Subsection (g) states that Chairman of the Commission shall be 

I paid at a rate equal to that of level IV of the Executive Schedule (5 

U.S.C. 5316). It further states that all other Commission members 

shall be paid at a rate equal to that of level 5 of the Executive 

Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5316) and all members shall be reimbursed for 

I reasonable travel, subsistence and other expenses incurred by them 

i in the performance of their duties. 

Section 6 

Subsection (a) specifies the powers of the Chairman subject to the 

i approval of the Commission. These include the power to appoint a 

1 General Counsel, to select, appoint and supervise Commission staff, 

and order a temporary closure of an Indian game for a substantial I violation of the provisions of the Act or the regulations of the ComI mission. While permanent closure of a tribal game requires a vote 

I of not less than three of the Commission members, the temporary 

I closure authority to the Chairman allows for a quick and uncomplicated shutdown of any establishment found to be operating illegalIY. 

Subsection (b) details the powers of the Chairman which are subject to an appeal to the Commission. These include the power to 

I levy and collect fines, the power to approve tribal gaming crdinances and resolutions and the power to approve management contracts. These specific powers are discussed in more detail in later 

sections of the Act. 

Subsection (c) states that the Chairman shall have such other 

powers as may be delegated by the Commission. 

Subsection (d) states that the decisions of the Chairman and the 

Commission under subsections (a) and (b) above shall be considered 
fino1 agency decisions for ~II~IH)WH of np b". nl to the a proprinte .. . #' Fedcrnl district courts purnu~~tlt tothe A mrnrstrnt~ve rocedures 

Act, title 5, United Stah Code. 

Scct~on 7 

Subsection (n) states thnt the Commission shall have the following power% which are not subject to delegation: the power to ap 

prove ib annual budget, the power to ndopt regulations for the asscssalent and collection of civil fines not to exceed 525,000 per violotion ogainst tile tribal operntor or management contractor of an 

Indion garne for violation of this Act or the Commission's regulations; by a vote of not less than three Commission members, adopt annual nsessment fees ngainst tribal games to pay for the operat 

ing expenses of the Commission (such fees are discussed in more 

detail in section 17); nnd by a vote of not less than three Commission members nuthorize the Chairman to issue subpoenas for wit 

neses nnd ph sical evidence relative to he operation of an Indian 

game. The su poena power is discussed in more detail in Section 

15. 

t . 

Finally, by a vote of not less than three Commissioners, after a 

full hearing, the Commission may make permanent a temporary 

order of the Chairman closing a gaming operation. Subsection (b) details the other powers of the Commission. These 

include: the power to monitor Indian gaming activities on a continuing basis; to inspect and examine all premises where Indian 

gaming is conducted; to conduct or cause to be conducted such 

background investigations as may be necessary on persons affiliated with tribal games; to demand access to and inspect, examine, 

photocopy and audit all papers, books and records respecting the 

gross income of gaming activity; and all other matters necessary to 

the enforcement of the Act; the power to use the U.S. mail in the 

same manner as other departments and agencies of the U.S.; to 

procure supplies and services by contract; to enter into contracts 

with Federal, state and tribal and private entities for activities necessary to the discharge of the duties of the Commission; and, to the 

extent feasible, to contract with Indian tribes for the enforcement 

of the Commission's regulations, the power to hold hearings; to administer oaths and affirmations to Commission witnesses; and to 

promulgate such regulations as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of this Act. 

Section 8 

Subsection (a) authorizes the Chairman, with the approval of the 

Commission to appoint a General Counsel with a backmound in 

Indian Affairs adestablishes a maximum rate of pay fo; such PCP 

sition. 

Subsection (b) provides that the Chairman ma appoint other authorized staff of the Commission without regar i to laws governing appointments in the competitive service and with regard to the pay provisions of title 5 U.S.C., except that no one so a pointed can be 

paid in excess of the rate of pay established for a G&-1'7. 

Subsection (c) authorizes the Commission to procure temporary and intermittent services as provided in Section 31009(b) of title 5, 

United States Code. 
Subscction (dl nuthorizm, ut tlre request of the Chairman, other 

fJcdcrn1 ngc~iciee to detail pereonno1 to tho Commission, unlcss othcrwim prohibited by law. 

Subsection (e) providca that the Secretary or the Administrator 

of GSA, slrall provide ndminiatrotivo eupport txrvices to the Commission on a reittrbumoble basis. 

Srrlion 9 

Section 9 authorizm the Corninission to r uest, and heads of 

Federal agencies or departments to provide in "E ormation necessary 

to enable it to carry out thia Act if not otherwiw prohibited by 

Pedernl Inw. 

Seclion 10 

&tion 10 directs the Secretary to promptly provide staff and 

support assistance. to provide interim regulations, and to provide 

on orderly trnnsition to the Commission until such time as the 

Commission is formally appointed and can become organized. 

Section 11 

Subscction (a), paragraph (1) provides that Class I gaming, defined in Section 19 as social and traditional Indinn gaming, shall 

rernnin in the exclusive jurisdiction of Indian tribes and shall not 

be subject to this Act. At3 with most cultures, most Indian tribes 

engage in traditional gambling nctivities. The "stick" or "bone" 

game, with variations, was and is played among many Indian 

tribes, usually in conjuction with tribal ceremonies or feasts. It is 

these kinds of nctivities which would not be covered under this legislation. 

Paragraph (2) provides that Class I1 gaming shall remain within 

the jurisdiction of Indian tribes, subject to the provisions of this 

Act, when two conditions are met: the state within which the tribe 

is located permits such gaming; and such gaming is not otherwise 

prohibited by Federal law. 

This paragraph recognizes that the jurisdiction of Indian tribea 

over Class I1 gaming has not been previously addrd by federal 

statute and, as such, tribal inherent governmental power or juris- diction over such gaming has not been divested or transferred by 

an prior Acts of Congress. 

'!'he first condition. "where such Indian gaming ki located within 

a state that permits such gaming for anypurp&e by any penwn 

organization or entity," is premised on the Seminole ilh'be line of 

cases. There are five states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi, 

and Utah) that completely bar the playing of bingo, and as such 

the statutory scheme of the Act bars any Indian tribe within those 

states from operating such gaming. In the other forty-five states, 

some form of bingo is permitted and where Indian tribes and 

Indian lands exist in those states, such tribea would be permitted 

to operate bingos as otherwise regulated by this Act. (Card games, 

the other form of Class I1 gaming are permitted by far fewer states 

and are subject tn additional requirements, see ll(bX2XG) below). 

The language "for any purpose by any person, organization or 

entity," makes no distinction between charitable, commercial or 
governmental gaming, or the nature of the entity conducting such 

gaming. 

The second condition "not otherwise prohibited by federal law" 

refers to any federal statute that would specifically prohibii; a defined gaming activity on Indian lands. Except for section 1175, title 

15, United States Code which prohibits mechanical gambling devices on Indian lands, there currently are no such statutes. It is not 

the Committee's intent that general Federal laws, such as the Organized Crime Control Act, section 1155, title 18, United States 

Code, or the Assimilated Crimes Act, section 13, title 18, United 

States Code be construed to bar Class I1 gaming on Indian lands. It 

is the intention of the Committee that nothing in the provisions of 

this Section, or in this Act, will supersede any specific restrictions 

on gaming on Indian lands or any specific grants of Federal authority or jurisidiction to a State, which may be encompassed in 

another Federal statute. Examples of such statutes are the Rhode 

Island Claims Settlement Act (Act of September 30, 1978; 92 Stat. 

813; P.L. 95-395) and the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (Act 

of October 10, 1980; 94 Stat. 1785; P.L. 96-420) in which specific 

provision was made for jurisdiction to be exercised by the States, 

the Tribe, and the United States. 

Subsection (b) provides that net tribal revenues from the gaming 

activity may only be used to fund tribal government operations or 

programs; provide for the general welfare of its members; promote 

tribal economic development; donate to charitable organizations or 

to help fund local government agencies. It further states that, if 

the funds are used to make per capita payments to tribal members, 

such payments will be subject to Federal taxation. It is not intended that this be the case if any of such revenue is taken in trust by 

the United States, in which case the provisions of the Act of 

August 2, 1983 (97 Stat. 365) would be applicable. 

Subparagraph (c) requires that outside, independent. audits be 

conducted annually on the gaming activity and be made available 

to the Commission. 

Subparagraph (d) provides that all contracts for supplies, services, or concessions in excess of $25,000, except for legal or accounting services, be subject to such audits if related to the gaming activity. This language is to insure that ancillary services related to a 

gaming activity are subject to open audits as the Committee is advised that criminal elements often target such activities for infiltration. 

Subparagraph (e) provides that the tribal ordinance shall provide 

that the gaming activity will be conducted in a way which would 

protect the environment and public health and safety. It is not intended by this provision that the tribal gaming activity be subject 

to general Federal laws relating to the environment unless it 

would be so subject under existing law. 

Subparagraph (0 provide that background checks be conducted 

on key officials of the tribally operated gaming enterprise to protect the integrity of such game; The responsibility for the system resides with the tribe. It is the Committee's intent that the Commission should disapprove of a tribe's gaming ordinance if its 

system is inadequate. 
Subparagraph (g). Card games as permitted in Class 11, may not 

exceed the same nature and scope of existing Indian games operat- ed as of September 1, 1986, or the nature and scope which may in 

the future be authorized by state law. It is the Committee's intent 

to allow those currently operating Indian card games to continue to 

cperate, and any new tribal card game within those states could 

not go beyond the nature and scope of the existing games. Only 

those types of card games permitted by state law can i.e. blackjack, draw poker, etc. can be operated. Nature and scope specifically 

refers to pot sizes and bet limits of the existing games. It is the understanding of the Committee that tribally operated card games currently exist in only the states of North Dakota, Michigan, Montana and California. 

Paragraph (3). It is the intention of the Committee that Class I1 

games be operated by the Tribes for the benefit of the Indian Community and not for individuals. Two exceptions are provided: An 

individual may be licensed to operate a game if such individual or 

entity could be state licensed and operates in conformity to state 

law; including days of operation, pot limits and use of funds. (2) A 

few individually owned Indian games that are tribally licensed in 

Oklahoma and Washington are allowed to continue to operate. 

Subsection (c), Paragraph (1) provides that Class I11 games are 

prohibited by law unless the tribe and the state consent to a transfer of jurisdiction to the states for a particular Class 111 enterprise. Paragraph (2) provides the mechanisms for t.he exemption from 

the Class I11 prohibition. When two conditions are fulfilled, the Secretary of the Interior shall transfer jurisdiction to the State. The 

first condition involves the trust obligation of the United States to 

the Tribe. This is fulfilled by review and approval of the tribal ordin.ance or resolution pursuant to Section 11 and review and approval of any management contract pursuant to Section 12. The Commission is delegated the responsibility to certify this trust function 

to the Secretary of the Interior. The second condition is the consent 

of both the tribe and the state to the jurisdiction transfer. The Secretary effects the transfer by a notice in the federal register. It is 

the intent of the Committee that state criminal and civil laws governing the regulations of gambling within the state, specifically including the issuance of licenses, shall then apply to the Class 111 

Indian gaming activity. 

Subsection (b) vrovides that the prohibition against mechanical 

games devices in-Indian country would be lifted-for such Class I11 

gaming. If state law permitted such gaming, and the Indian Class 

I11 were operated pursuant to this subsection. 

Subsection (c) provides that a Federal Court is authorized to 

order the issuance of a license if it finds that a state has withheld 

such a license arbitrarily. It is the intent of the Committee that a 

legitimate state interest in denying a license, such as overcrowding 

would be sufficient to overcome an allegation of arbitrariness. It is 

not the Committee's intention to require a state to license an 

Indian tribe to operate a Class I11 gaming enterprise if the state 

has a legitimate public purpose for refusing the license and the 

state would in fact not license the same operation if the application 

was from a non-tribal entity. Tribes are to be held to the same 

standards as other applicants. 
Subsection (dl provides that the Chairman shall within 90 days approve ordinances where they meet the statutory standards. 

Section 12 

Section 12 requires approval of management contracts. The Commission must obtain the name of anyone having a financial interest or management responsibility in such a contract, and for any such person complete backgrounds, descriptions of previous tribal 

gaming, or other gaming involvement, and complete financial 

statements. Management contracts are required to provide that: 

adequate accounting procedures are required and that verifiable financial reports are available to the tribal council on a monthly 

basis; there is daily access and daily verification of income by ap propriate tribal officials; there is a minimum guaranteed payment 

to the tribe that has preference over retirem~nt of development or 

construction costs; there is an agreed to ceiling for repayment of 

development costs; there is a 7 year limit on the contract; and that 

the grounds and mechanisms for terminating such contract are 

specified. Contracts may not be approved where any management 

party: is an elected member of the tribal council on the other side 

of the contract; is convicted of a felony or gaming offense; has 

knowingly and willfully provided materially false information to 

the Commission or the tribe; or has been determined to be a person 

whose activities, crininal record, etc. pose a threat to the public interest or the effective regulation or control of gaming or enhance 

the dangers of unsuitable, unfair or illegal practices. Contracts 

shall also not be approved where: the contractor has or attempted 

to unduly interfere or influence for its gain, any decision of the 

tribal council relating to the gaming activity; the management contractor has deliberately or substantially failed to comply with the 

contract or gaming ordinance or resolution; a trustee utilizing the 

skill and diligence that a trustee is commonly held to would not 

approve the contract. Management contracts may be modified or 

voided for violations; and no management contract may by inference transfer any real property interest. Percentage fees may be 

approved if they are reasonable, but may not exceed forty percent of net revenues. 

These standarcis were derived from the actual experiences of 

tribes in their dealings with management contractors. Many of the 

provisions come from actual contracts. The Committee feels that 

implementation of these provisions would cure most, if not all, of 

the problems that have surfaced with Indian gaming. 

Section 13 

Subsection (a) provides that as soon as possible after organization 

of the Commission, the Chairman shall notify any tribe or management contractor who, prior to enactment of this legislation adopted 

a tribal ordinance or entered into a contract on Class I1 or I11 

gaming that such ordinance or contract must be submitted for his 

review within 60 days. Subsection (b) provides that the Chairman, within 90 days after 

submission of a Class I1 ordinance :inder subsection (a) shall aDprove it if it conforms to section ll(b). If he determined that it does 

not, he shall advise the tribe of necessary modification and the 
tribe will have 120 days to come into compliance by making the 

necessary modifications. 

Subsection (c) provides that the Chairman, within 180 days after 

sub~nission of a management contract pursuant to subsection (a), 

shall subject such contract to the requirements and process of section 12. If he determines that the contract and the management 

contractor meet the requirements of section 12, he shall approve the contract. If he determines that they do not, he shall provide notice to the tribe and to the contractor of necessary modifications 

and they shall have 180 days to come into compliance. The subsection also provides that, where the Secretary of the Interior or his 

representative has previously approved a contract submitted pursuant to subsection (a), such contract shall be deemed in compliance with the provisions of the Act and no further action shall be required. While the Committee intends that contracts previously approved by the Secretary shall be deemed in compliance with this 

Act, it is not intended that this would work to cure any legal insufficiency in such contract or approval under any other applicable 

tribal or Federal law. 

Section 13 is a recognition by the Committee that there are numerous legal Indian gaming operations now being conducted on 

Indian lands and that those operations should be brought into compliance with the provisions of this law in a deliberate manner. It is 

not intended that those operations be affected by the provisions of 

this Act prior to the implementation of section 13. 

Section 14 

Subsection (a) provides that the Commission shall have authority 

to authorize the Chairman to levy and collect civil fines, not exceeding $25,000 per violation, against Indian gaming activities or 

management contractors for violations of the provisions of this Act 

or regulations adopted pursuant to the Act. It also provides that 

parties against whom the Chairman levies a fine shall have an op- portunity for an appeal and hearing before the Commission. 

Subsection (b) provides that the Chairman shall have power to 

temporarily close-a ganiing act,ivity covered by this Act forsubstantial violation of the act or regulations adouted bv the Commission. 

The Indian tribe or contractor involved shall Lave a right to a 

hearing, within 30 days after an order of temporary closure, before 

the Commission to determine if the order should be made permanent. The Commission may order permanent closure after such 

hearing only upon an affirmative vote of not less thari three of its 

members. 

Subsection (c) proAdes that final decisions of the Commission 

under subsection (a) and (b) shall be appealable to the appropriate Federal district court under the Administrative Procedures Act of 

title 5, United States Code. 

Section 15 

Subsection (a) provides the Commission with the power to issue 

subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 

protection of documents. 

Subsection (b) provides that the Attorney General may enforce 

the Commission's subpoenas. 
Subsection (c) Courts of the United States shall have the authority to enforce Commission subpoenas through their contempt 

powers. 

Subsections (d), (e) and @--The Commission is provided with the 

power to take depositions, under oath, and witnesses shall be entitled to the same fees as provided in the courts of the United States. 

Section 16 

Subsection (a). Information obtained by the Commission is confidential under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act law 

enforcement and trade secrets exemptions. 

Subsection (b). The Commission shall refer information indicatkg a statutory violation to appropriate law enforcement officials. 

Subsection (c). The Attorney General is authorized to investigate 

activities associated with gaming which rnay violate federal law. 

Section 17 

Subsection (a), paragraph (1) provides that not less than three 

quarters of the Cornmission's annual budget shall be derived from 

assessments of Indian gaming activity of not to exceed two and one 

half percent of gross revenues. 

Paragraph (2) provides ihat the Commission, by an affirmative 

vote of not less than three of its menxbers, shall annually adopt the 

rate of assessment which shall be uniformly applied to all gaming 

activities and payable on a quarterly basis. 

Paragraph (3) provides that failure to pay the assessment shall 

be grounds for revocation of any approval or license of the Commission required for the operation of a gaming activity. 

Paragraph (4) provides that funds assessed in one year and not 

expended shall be carried over and credited on a pro rate basis 

against assessments for the succeeding year. 

Paragraph (5) defines gross revenue, for purposes of this sect~on, 

as total wagered monies less amounts paid out as prizes. 

Subsection (b), paragraph (a) provides that the Commission, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior and in conjunction 

with the Federal fiscal cycle, shall annually adopt the budget for 

the Commission. 

Paragraph (2) provides that the Commission may request Federal 

appropriations, as provided in section 18, which not exceed more 

than onethird of the total assessment authorized and collected in 

the preceeding fiscal year. 

Paragraph (3) provides that the Commission's appropriation requeat shall be subject to the Secretary's approval and included in 

the budget request of the Department of the Interior. 

Section 18 

Subsection (a) provides that, subject to section 17, there is authorized to be appropriated for the expenses of the Commission 

such sums as may be necessau-. 

Subsection (b) provides that, notwithstanding section 17, there is 

authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $2,000,000 to fund the 

Commission in the first fiscal year after enactment. 
Paragraph (3) provides that failure to pay the assessment shall 

be grounds for revocation of any approval or license of the Commission required for the operation of a gaming activity. 

Section 19 contains definitions of various terms used in the Act. 

Section 20 pro- ides that, consistent with the provisions of the 

Act, Section 1307 of title 18, United States Code, shall apply to 

tribal gaming activities. It is intended that gaming activities of an 

Indian tribe, whether operated directly by the tribe or under any 

management contract, would be treated the same as a State-owned 

gaming activity. 

Section 21 contains a severance clause providing that the invalidation of any provision of the Act shall not operate to invalidate 

the remaining provisions. 

Section 22 provides for the creation of two new federal crimes: 18 

U.S.C. 1167. Theft from Licensed Bingo Establishments (for amounts 

$1,000 or under, penalties of fines up to $100,000 or imprisonment of 

up to one year, or both; for amounts in excess of $1,000, penalties of 

fines of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 

10 years, or both); and 18 U.S.C. 1168. Theft by Officers or Employees 

of Licensed Bingo Establishments (for amounts $1,000 or under, 

penalties of fines up to $250,000 or imprisonment of up to five 

years, or both; for amounts in excess of $1,000, penalties of fines of 

not more than $1,000,000, or imprisonment of not more than 20 

years, or both); and 18 U.S.C 1168. Theft by officers or Employees 

of Licensed Bingo Establishments (for amounts $1,000 or under, 

penalties of fines up to $250,000 or imprisonment of up to five 

years, or both; for amounts in excess of $1,000, penalties of fines of 

not more than $1,000,000, or imprisonment of not more than 20 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS 

The cost. estimate for H.R. 1920, as amended, as provided by the 

Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 22, 1986. 

Hon. MARK ANDREWS, 

Chairman, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 

US. Senote, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHARIMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has pre- pared the attached cost estimate for H.R. 1920, the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act. 
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to 

provide them. 

With best wishes, 

Sincerely, 

RUDOLPH G. PENNER, Director. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE 

1. Bill number: H.R. 1920. 

2. Bill title: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

3. Bill status: As amended and ordered reported by the Senate 

Select Committee on Indian Affairs on September 1'7, 1986. 

4. Bill purpose: This bill establishes the National Indian Gaming 

Commission and the criteria by which it is to regulate Indian 

gaming. It also delineates the composition, compensation, and 

duties of the commission. 

5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: 

Estimated authwizalion level ............................................................... 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Eslimaled outlays .............................................................................. .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 p~ - p~ 

Note: The mls nl this bill tall within Mgel lu~ti 450. 

Basis of Estimate: 

The bill specifies that the commission shall receive at least 75 

percent of its funding through assessments on gross gaming revenues, with the remaining funding to be appropriated. Gross gaming 

revenues are defrned as the difference between total revenues and 

payouts. The assessment is limited to no more than 2.5 percent of 

gross revenues. The Bureau of Indian Affairs currently estimates 

annual gross revenues to be about $100 million. This implies annual assessments of up to $2.5 million and a maximum annual 

commission budget of $3.3 million, up to about $0.8 million of 

which may be appropriated. 

The estimate of the costa of H.R. 1920 is based upon these figures, which assume that gross revenues remain constant over time. 

Any change in gross revenues would be reflected in the annual 

funding of the commission, which would increase or decrease accordingly, with the limitation that, in the first fscal year following 

the enactment of this bill, total appropriations shall not exceed $2 

million. CBO estiaates that gross revenues would have to increase 

tenfold in order for the commission to reach the $10 million to $15 

million annual funding for gaming commissions in Nevada and 

New Jersey. 

6. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None. 

7. Estimate comparison: None. 8. Previous CBO estimate: CBO provided an estimate of H.R. 

1920 as amended and ordered reported by the House Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs, December 11, 1985. CBO estimated 

annual appropriations and outlays of $0.5 million for the Housereported version, about $0.3 million less than those estimated for 

the Senate-reported version. The difference is the result of increased estimated gross gambling revenues. 
9. Estimate prepared by: Paul M. DiNardo. 

10. Estimate approved by: C.G. Nuckolz (for James L. Blum, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis). 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT 

Paragraph 1103) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the 

regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in carrying out the bill. Implementation of H.R. 1920, as amended, will require development of regulations to establish standards for review 

of adequacy of tribal ordinances; standards for review and approval 

of management contracts and contractors; information to be provided for background checks on management contractors and key op 

erating personnel; and criteria or standards for audits. There 

should be little need for promulgation of regulations after the initial governing regulations are developed. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS 

The Committee received prepared statements and testimony 

from the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice 

at its hearing on June 17, 1986. In addition, the Committee received the following communication from the Department of Justice. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, August 12, 1986. 

Hon. MARK ANDREWS, 

Chairman, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, US. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that the Committee 

plans to convene on Wednesday, August 13, to mark-up Indian 

gambling legislation. Based upon a review of a staff draft bill that 

is expected to be the vehicle of the mark-up session, I must respect- fully advise that the draft bill is, in our view, an anti-law enforcement measure which fails to accomplish the needed regulation of 

high-stakes gambling on Indian land. We must, therefore, vigorously oppose legislation based substantially upon the draft bill or 

H.R. 1920. 

Representatives of the Department are available to meet with 

Senators or staff in an effort to develop a consensus bill that could 

be processed in the few remaining days of the 99th Congress. Such 

a compromise must, however, seek to balance law enforcement interests with the economic interests of tribes in gambling operations. 

The staff draft falls far short of anything approaching a true 

compromise of these competing interests. Rather, it represents a rejection of the Administration bill in favor of virtually unrestrained 

gambling on Indian land. Enclosed is a statement which sets out 

our objections in more detail. 

While we are prepared to work with you to develop consensus 

legislation in this area, we believe the scheduled mark-up of the 

staff draft would be a clear repudiation of the serious concerns 
voiced by federal, state and local law enforcement officials. Should 

the Committee proceed to report out the staff draft, even with 

some amendments, the result will be a product which the Administration could not, in good conscience, accept. 

Sincerely, JOHN R. BOLTON, 

Assistant Attorney General. 

Enclosure: 

This memorandum contrasts some of the major differences between S. 2557, a bill the Administration strongly supports, and 

H.R. 1920, a bill the Administration vigorously opposes. It will also 

mention some aspects of a draft bill given to the Department of 

Justice on August 11, 1986, which apparently will be used as the 

vehicle for the Committee mark-up on August 13th. While we have 

not had an opportunity to study this draft in detail, it appears to 

consist of the provisions in H.R. 1920 with at most sorr'e cosmetic 

changes. Since it apparently corrects few, if any, of the serious 

flaws we have noted in H.R. 1920, we find .this draft equally unacceptable. 

Initially, S. 2557 was drafted jointly by the Departments of Justice and Interior and strikes what we believe to be the proper balance between the interests of law enforcement in asserting some 

measure of control over a high stakes gambling operation and the 

equally legitimate interests of the tribes in preserving bingo as a 

revenue source. By contrast, neither H.R. 1920 nor the draft bill is 

adequate to ensure that tribally operated gaming remains free of 

criminal influences. 

S. 2557 accommodates tribal interests and the interests of state 

and federal law enforcement. The bill preserves a valuable tribal 

asset by subjecting it to federal regulation reasonable and appropriate for the nature of the enterprise. Since the Administration submitted its bill, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 

the case of Cabazon Band of Mission Indians et al. v. County of 

Riverside and State of California U.S. , 54 Law Week 3809 

(June 9, 1986). The case will likely decide whether Indian gambling 

can be conducted free from state law requirements. While it is certainly within the power of the Congress to enact legislation in this 

area and thus allow Indian gambling to continue even if the Supreme Court rules against the tribes involved in the Cabazon case, 

you should be aware that H.R. 1920 essentially freezes the law concerning Indian gambling as it now is-with almost total control 

over gambling left to the many tribes-and would, in effect, overturn in advance a potential decision of the Supreme Court against the tribes. S. 2557 would also overturn a possible decision of the 

Court holding that tribes must abide by state bingo laws, but the 

key difference between it and either H.R. 1920 or the draft bill is 

that S. 2557 would impose the type of controls and safeguards necessary for high stakes gambling. The other bills simply do not do 

so. 

S. 2557, drafted as a result of months of negotiations between Interior and Justice during which all points of view on this subject were fully heard, creates a three-member Commission with the authority to regulate bingo through the issuing of licenses to tribes 
and individual employees of bingo establishments, 'the power to 

issue regulations, the right to conduct inspections, and the authority to impose sanctions on licensees who do not comply with Commission rules. By contrast, H.R. 1920 and the draft bill establish 

larger Commissions with a requirement that the majority of the 

Members be chosen from a list of names submitted by the very tribes operating gaming (in the case of H.R. 1920) or be enrolled 

tribal Indians (in the case of the draft bill). The Commission Ereated by H.R. 1920 and the draft bill wbuld have much more limited 

regulatory powers than would the Commission created by S. 255'7, 

and would not have authority to license individual employees or to 

conduct the necessary background checks associated with such licensing. Moreover, it does not even require a tribe to obtain a license to run a bingo establishment. Rather, H.R. 1920 and the 

draft bill require only that a tribal ordinance authorizing gaming be submitted to the Chairman who must approve the ordinance if 

it meets the minimum standards set out in the bill. Thus, H.R. 

1920 and the draft bill contain a very serious defect in not allowing the Commission to exercise real judgment and discretion over the 

factors that go into operating a high stakes gambling operation. 

Nor is it realistic, as the proponents of H.R. 1920 apparently believe, to expect the tribes themselves to assert the type of control 

necessary to keep out undesirable elements. While some may possi- bly be able to do so, it is important to keep in mind that high 

stakes bingo is more closely akin to casino gambling than it is to 

the game played at churches and fire stations. The states of 

Nevada and New Jersey both have very active Gaming Commissions that try to keep their casinos free from criminal infiltration. 

Even so, they are not always successful. It is hardly reasonable, 

therefore, to expect that the tribes running bingo, some of which 

have fewer than 100 members and none of which remotely approach the two casino states in law enforcement expertise, can somehow successfully defend this revenue source against any number of criminals waiting in the wings to come after it. Thus, 

the concept of H.R. 1920 and of the draft bill that allows high 

stakes gambling to be conducted free of all state regulation and 

with, at best, very weak federal control and supervision is so seriously flawed that these bills are not acceptable to the Administration. 

In our testimony before the Committee on H.R. 1920 and S. 2557, 

we pointed out a number of other aspects in which S. 2557 was 

clearly superior. Of these differences perhaps none is more striking 

than the way the Commissions established by the two bills would 

be funded. S. 2557 provides that the only costs to the taxpayer for 

its Commission will be small one-time start-up costs and the salaries of the three Commissioners. All other expenses would be defrayed by assessing the tribes operating bingo a percentage of their 

revenue. H.R. 1920, and the draft bill provide that up to one quarter of the Commission's budget be paid out of appropriated funds, thus imposing an additional burden on the taxpayers. It also unreasonably limits the ability of the Commission to le-vy assessments 

on the tribes so that it is by no means certain that even three 

quarters of its budget will be derived from the tribes. Thus, even 

more than one fourth of the budget may ultimately come from the 
federal treasury. We believe it is highly irresponsible to create 

such an organization with no real idea of what it will cost year 

Finally, we cannot discern what the draft bill does with respect 

to tribally run gambling other than bingo, other than define it as 

"Class 111 gaming." H.R. 1920 leaves up in the air the question of 

tribally run gambling-pari-mutuel wagering, for example-other 

than bingo. It would allow tribes operating such gambling on January 1, 1986, to continue to do so for four years during which a 

study of these operations will be undertaken. 

During that period, the Commission would have to draft regulations for these other types of gaming-like horse and dog racingsubstantially equivalent to those of the state wherein such gaming 

is conducted. This is a completely impractical, crazy-quilt, provision 

that will require the federal government to become deeply involved 

in areas like horse racing that have traditionally been areas of 

state control and in which the federal government has limited experience and expertise. It is the firmly held position of this Administration that the federal government should intrude less, not 

more, into the concerns of the states. Consequently, S. 2557 would 

aliow state laws to control all forms of gambling other than bingo 

and purely social gambling. (Social gambling, of course, would be 

regulakd by the tribes.) Thus, the Commission established by S. 

2557 call concentrate on the difficultenough task of regulating 

bingo without wasting its energies in attempting to regulate other 

forms of gambling which are producing little, if any, tribal reveThe Committee should carefully consider this information, the 

Administration's testimony on H.R. 1920 and S. 2557, and the other 

materials we have submitted comparing the two bills. As indicated, 

it appears that key provisions of the draft bill were either taken 

directly from H.R. 1920 or were inserted with only minor changes. 

ADMINISTRATION INDIAN GAMBLING BILL 

Treatment of Gambling on Reservations 

Commercial bingo will be federally regulated where authorized 

by a tribe, except in five states which ban bingo. 

Bingo will be authorized only on reservations, not on off-reservation trust lands taken by Interior specifically for bingo, except for 

five specifically "grandfathered" sites already in operation. 

Ceremonial gambling will be tribally regulated. 

All other forms of gambling will be subject to state regulation 

and iicensing. State authority is made explicit to enforce in its own 

courts its laws concerning gambling other than ceremonial (which 

is to be regulated by the tribes) 

1 It is worth noting that both the draR bill and H.R. 1920 define bingo so broadly as to include 

instant lotteries and numbers games. Thus, in the guise of allowing the tribes to run high stakes 

bingo, they also allow the tribes to run lotteries, even in states where lotteries (but not bingo) 

are made illegal as a matter of state law. 
Federal Bingo Regulation 

Bingo will be regulated by a full time Commission located in the 

Department of Interior. 

Two of the Commissioners will be appointed by the Secretary of 

the Interior and be subject to removal by him. The third Commissioner will be appointed by the Attorney General and subject to removal by him. They can be "political" or career employees. The 

Secretary will select. one of his appointees as Chairman. 

The Commission will be directly responsible to the Secretary, 

will not be under the BIA, and will exercise rulemaking, licensing 

and investigative authority. 

The Commission will have only a small staff. Most of its background investigation and inspection functions will be contracted. 

The Commission will have its own General Counsel separate 

from the Interior Solicitor's Office. 

Commission Powers 

The Commission will have the power. toissue rules subject to the approval of the Secretary and judicial reviexx; 

issue, deny, suspend, and revoke licenses to operate or work 

in bingo establishments, subject to Secretarial approval and to 

judicial review; 

issue judicially enforceable mandatory and injunctive orders, 

and subpoenas for testimony and documents; 

inspect premises, and have access to examine equipment and 

records, an.? to require independent audits; 

contract with federal, tribal, state and private agencies, on a 

reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis, for services, such as 

audits of ongoing operations and background investigations for 

licensing. 

Rulema::ing Power 

The Commission will have the power to make rules, consistent 

with the Act, onthe need for licenses; 

criteria for licensing; 

fees and assessments; 

hours and conditions of play; 

prizes and operating cost limits; 

admission and exclusion criteria; 

credit policy; 

alcohol (subject to tribal and State ordinance); 

management contracts. 

Tribal authority 

Tribal authority to adopt and enfo~ce regulations not inconsistent with the Act or Commission regulations is recognized. 

Managemcrit Contracts 

Contracts will be permitted, subject however toCommission approval; 

intense background investigation; 
lirllitntion of profib to a rcamnablc amount; 

n p~nrnnteed fair return to the tribe; 

fitrict accounting and auditing requirenienk. 

firnditlg of the Commission 

Tho gaming operations will fund the Commission's activitiesStart.up costa and Commissioners' mlaries will, however. be 

funded by appropriations; 

Applicnnte, including tribea alrendy operating bingo, will be 

nswscd the cost5 of processing their licensing applications, including background checks; 

Operations of the Commission will be otherwise funded by 

assessments upon the licensed operators' revenues. 

hfismlloneous 

Criminal justiceNew offenses for depredations against licensed operations 

are added to the criminal code; 

Violations of state gambling laws will generally be prosecuted by the state. 

Civil ~spctsThe Department of Justice will represent the Cornn~imion in 

court upon request of the Secretary. 
MINOItITY VIEWS 'I'O A(:COMPANY ti.%. 1920 

are not applied uniformly in all areas, not just in all are- except Indian reservations. Nevertheless, the fact that some tribea are de 

riving revenue from their gaming operations. principally bingo, 

(28) 
caused us to support a compromise between returning to complete 

state control and the virtually complete tribal control that now 

exists and to a large extent that would be perpetuated by H.R. 

1920. We would be willing to allow the Indian tribes to continue to 

enjsy their present exemption from state laws for bingo and for 

somewhat sixnilar games such as punch boards, pull tabs, and tip 

jars, provided these games are subject to meaningful federal control and supervision. This would preserve these games as a source 

of tribal revenue reqardless of what the Supreme Court does in the 

Cabazon case. This is also the position of the Administration. The 

Departments of Justice and Interior prepared legislation which 

would have established a three person Commission in ;he Department of the Interior. Two of the Members of the Ccmmission. including the Chairman, would have been a pointed by the Secretary 

of the Interior and one by the Attorney 8 eneral. That Commission 

would have been given bioad licensing; inspection, and disciplinary 

powers similar to those exercised by the bodies responsible for reg- ulating casino gambling in Nevada and New Jersey. In our viev 

the high stakes bingo being played on Indian reservations is more 

akin to casino gambling than it ia to bingo as conducted by religious or fraternal organizations and, accordingly, it needs to be 

eubject to the same type of regulation that the casino states have 

found to be necessary. Unfortunatelv. H.R. 1920 in no wav ~rovides for these controls. It 

is a dangerousiy deceptive bill be&&e, while it may appear to 

some to set out meaningful federal supsrvision over tribal gaming, it actually merely ratifies the status quo and leaves the tribes free 

to do about what they are already doing in this area. 

H.R. 1920 establishes a five person commission with certain 

powers with respect to tribally operated or licensed "Class 11 

" a term which will be discussed subsequently. The Memfz%?the Commiasion are to be appointed by the President, with 

the advice and consent of the Senate. The Chairman is to be recommended by the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General 

and one member is to be recommended "by the appropriate organi- zations or entities, representing the interest of the States." That is 

one of the many undefined, ambiguous terms that are peppered throughout H.R. 1920. In any event, the three remaining Commissioners have to be enrolled members of Indian tribes, thus ensuring 

a working majority will come from the very groups being regulated. Should these Commissioners be members of tribes engaged in 

gaming activities, which is likely, this would be equivalent to a requirement that a majority of the Nevada Gaming Cammission be 

chosen from a list of names submitted by the casino operators' 

trade association. 

For a Presidentially a~winted body, the Commission is extremely weak and is actuaily sibservient, h many respects, to the tribes 

which operate gambling. For example, the Commission has no 

power to issue licenses to tribes desiring to engage in gambling op erations or to key employees of those operations, two critical control mechaiiisms in any effective gaming regulation scheme. 

Rather, section 11 provides that the tribes themselves may engage in or license Clase I1 gaming provided the Chairman of the Commission approves a tribal ordinance or resolution concerning the 
activity.' Approval of a tribal ordi~iance does not provide anywhere 

near the type of authority needed to prevent corruption of the op: eration by outside management personnel and it does nothing at 

all to prevent one or two corrupt tribal officials from altering the 

operation from a tribal business to one operated for their own personal profit. We do not claim that tribal officiais are particularly 

likely to do so but it is important to keep in mind that high stakes 

bingo can involve huge amounts of cash and very valuable peripheral service contracts that present a perfect opportunity for corruption and dishonesty. The nature of gambling operations requires 

careful screening of persons or organizations about to engage in it 

and rigorous inspections and examinations after they have begun. 

Both the screening and inspection functions must be carried out by 

a neutral, outside body with the independence, expertise, and inclination to accomplish these tasks in a way that does more than 

"rubber-stamp" tribal decisions. 

H.R. 1920's treatment of management contracts is also a cause 

for grave concern. Unlike when a tribe proposes to start a gaming 

operation without the use of a management contractor, H.R. 1920 

at least purports to provide for some pre-screening of operations 

that will use a management contractor. It does this by requiring in 

section 12 that the Chairman approve a management contract. Actually, however, this section merely delegates to the entire Commission the power already possessed by the Secretary of the Interior under existing law (25 U.S.C. 81) to approve management contracts. Under section 6(b)(3) the Chairman s decision whethe? to ap 

prove a management contract is subject to an appeal to the Commission. Accordinelv. - ", H.R. 1920 effectivelv shifts control over managernent contracts from the Secretary to ihe Commission, a majority of whom are to be Indians. Even if the Commission disapproved 

a proposed management contract there is nothing in H.R. 1920 to 

prevent a tribe from beginning operations on its own, for example 

by hiring as its employees the very employees of the management 

contractor whose background caused the management contract to 

be disapproved. 

While our most serious objections to H.R. 1920 relate to the 

abovedescribed law enforcemekt problems that will probably result 

from the weak Commission it creates, we also oppose the bill's allowing forms of gambling like lotteries, card games and, possibly, 

parimutuel wagering in ways that run directly contrary to state 

laws and policies. Initially, the bill defines "Class I1 gaming" to include "card games" and "pull-tabs, punch boards, tip jars, and 

other similar games," as well as bingo. Pull tabs and punch boards 

are a form of lottery. H.R. 1920 would allow the tribes to run lotteries, even in states that outlawed them, provided the state allowed some form of bingo. Since lottery tickets are typically sold at 

numerous locations-gas stations and restaurants, for example- 

'At first glance, it would appear the provision giving the Chairman alone the power to ap 

prove tribal ordinances might reduce the ekt of the guaranteed majority of three Indians and 

allow ior some measure of independent judgment over tribal gamin ordinances and regulations. However, thia provision must be read in conjunction with section 6&~3) which provider, thet the 

Chairman's power to approve tribal gaming ordinances or resoluiions is "subject to M appeal to 

the Commission." In our view, this is but one examDle of the type of confusing draliamanship in 

H.R. 1920 designed to disguise the true measure of control left with the tribes. 
lottery regulation presents an entirely different set of problems from those associated with controlling bingo. Because we are aware 

that some tribes are profiting by pull tabs and punch boards, we 

were willing to compromise and allow such games to be played in a 

bingo hall during bingo hours, as a sort of ' instant bingc." However, H.R. 1920 as reported goes well beyond this and allows wide 

open lottery games with tickets sold anywhere in Indian country at 

all hours of the day or night. 

With respect to card games, section 11@)(1)(G) of H.R. 1920 as reported allows tribes to authorize these operations, provided only that "card games may not exceed the same nature and scope as 

any tribally operated or regulated card games which are operative 

within such tribe's state on September 1, 1986, or may in the 

future be authorized by state law." The "nature and scope" phrase is unclear. It may have been intended to mean that if, on Septemquirement that only tribal members participate in such games and 

the italicized phrase is particularly unclear. Arguably, if betting on 

horse races were a "traditional" form of gaming for a particuiar 

tribe, that tribe, at least, could authorize several days of pari- mutuel wagering on horse racing "in connection with" a tribal 

H.R. 1920 defines "Class 111 gaming" as everything not included 

in Class I or 11. It would clearly include such things as casino gam- bling and any pari-mutuel wagering not included in Clms 1 

gaming. The bfll states that Class I11 gaming shall be illegal in 

Indian country unless, pursuant to a confusing provision in section 

ll(c), the Secretary of the Interior, acting in accordance with a 

tribal request, transfers jurisdiction over a Class 111 gaming enterprise to the state. Whether or not a tribe would have to obtain a 

state license for, say, dog racing is unclear. 

The ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding tribal, as opposed 

to state, control over card games and all forms of pari-mutuel wagering in H.R. 1920 as reported should be contrasted with how the 

Administration's bill covered these subjects. That bill did not ban 

these types of gaming in Indian country, but it required the tribe 

or anyone else wishing to engage in such an activity to comply 
with all state laws, including any state licensing requirements. 

This simple, straight-forward approach gave the tribes the same opportunity as any other group or association of persons to obtain a 

racing license and thus derive revenue, and at the same time 

would not have created potential gaps in the way the states regulate pari-mutuel racing, an area in which many states have developed great expertise. 

There are several other are= in which H.R. 1920 is seriouslv defective. For example, section 17 provides that at least three quarters of the Commission's operating budget is to be derived from assessments on the tribes' gaming operations. However, it limits the 

assessments to two and one-half percent of a tribe's gross gaming 

revenues. It is not clear what would happen if this limitation prevented the Commission from raising three quartrers of its needed 

revenues, and, in any event, one quarter would apparently be paid 

out of general appropriations. In contrast, the Administration's bill 

would have required all expenses of the Commission except small, 

one ti~ne start-up costs and the Commissioners' salaries to be paid 

for by the tribes profiting by gaming. (The payment of the Commissioners salaries was to avoid the appearance of impropriety resulting from the regulators being paid by the entities they were regulating.) 

Another fiscally irresponsible provision in H.R. 1920 is a provision in section 803) allowing the Chairman to appoint the staff of 

the Commission without regard to normal civil service rules and 

with no limitations on pay other than a provision limiting a staff 

member's pay to that of a GS-17. There is no reason why most 

Commission employees such as accountants and secretaries should 

not be hired in accordance with civil service provisions and paid 

under a pay schedule appropriate for their work. Section 803) is an 

unjustifiable provision that invites the appointment of unqualified 

persons at inflated salaries. 

In sum, H.R. 1920 is bad legislation. It does not provide the type 

of control needed over tribal gaming. It in no way balances tribal 

interest against either serious law enforcement concerns or against 

state gaming policies. It is extremely poorly drafted, and the Commission it creates will be yet another drain on the federal treasury. 

We hope that when the full Senate begins debate on this bill, these 

problems can be considered in depth so that all Senators may consider its effect on their states and make an informed decision. In 

our view, if the Senate is determined to act on this issue in advance of the Supreme Court decision in the Cabazon case, the Administration's bill is greatly to be preferred to H.R. 1920. 

DANIEL INOUYE. 

SLADE GORTON.