Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006
Latest action. On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the yeas and naysThe constitutional right of one-fifth of those present to force every member's vote onto the public record. The mechanism behind every roll call you can look up.Read the full definition (opens a new tab): (2/3 required): 247 - 171 (Roll no. 439).
Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006 - Amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to revise requirements for gaming on lands taken in trust for the benefit of a newly recognized, restored, or landless Indian tribe.
Allows one Indian tribe to host another, invited tribe to participate in or benefit from consolidated class II and class III gaming within the boundaries of the host tribe's reservation.
Requires the Indian tribe, in order to mitigate the direct impact of gaming activities on the affected county or parish infrastructure and services, to negotiate and sign, during negotiations for a tribal-state gaming compact, a memorandum of understanding concerning mitigation with the county or parish government. Requires the Secretary to appoint an arbitrator to establish mitigation requirements if such a memorandum is not signed within one year after a request to initiate negotiations has been made.
Provides that any gaming authorized by this Act shall not be conducted unless it is: (1) consistent with the tribal-state compacting laws of the state in which the gaming activities will be conducted; and (2) specifically identified as expressly authorized in a tribal-state compact of the invited Indian tribe approved by an Act of the legislature and the Governor of the state in which the gaming will be conducted.
States that host tribe compacts shall not be affected by the amendments made by this Act.
Prohibits an Indian tribe from conducting regulated gaming on Indian lands outside the state in which the Indian tribe is primarily residing and exercising tribal government authority upon the enactment of this Act, unless such lands are contiguous to those in the state where the tribe is primarily residing and exercising such authority.
Declares that the gaming arrangement authorized by this Act shall not be conducted on any Indian lands within the state of Arizona.
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Reported to House with amendment(s)" stage on September 13, 2006. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
This bill failed the vote the record describes below. A measure that fails is not revived; the same text has to be introduced again as a new measure.
The record's latest action, on September 13, 2006: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 247 - 171 (Roll no. 439).
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
RICHARD POMBO (R-CA) introduced it on March 7, 2006, and 5 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They are 5 Republicans.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseDid not advance · September 13, 2006
- SenateNot reached
- PresidentNot reached