H.R.4893 - Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006 Sponsor: Richard Pombo / 109th Congress

Title
109th Congress - To amend section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to restrict off-reservation gaming.
Summary
This bill creates additional regulations for off-reservation gaming. (by MAPLight.org)
Status
The bill was voted on in the House on September 13, 2006

Contributions for January 2006 - February 2006

Organization of contributorInterest Group of contributorPosition of organizations in the interest groupAmountDatesort iconLegislator (recipient)
JICARILLA APACHE NATIONIndian GamingOppose$1,0001/3/2006Cardoza
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$-5001/4/2006DeFazio
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBEIndian GamingOppose$-1,0001/4/2006DeFazio
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$-1,0001/5/2006Saxton
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATIONIndian GamingOppose$1,0001/5/2006Lewis
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$9001/6/2006Abercrombie
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBEIndian GamingOppose$-1,0001/7/2006Lowey
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$-2,5001/9/2006Pomeroy
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$1,0001/9/2006Cardoza
PUEBLO OF ISLETAIndian GamingOppose$9001/14/2006Wilson
PUEBLO OF ZIAIndian GamingOppose$1,0001/14/2006Wilson
PUEBLO OF SANDIAIndian GamingOppose$9001/14/2006Wilson
FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATIONIndian GamingOppose$-1,0001/17/2006Renzi
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$-2,0001/17/2006Pomeroy
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA TRIBEIndian GamingOppose$-5001/18/2006Kennedy
ST CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSINIndian GamingOppose$2,1001/25/2006Kind
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBEIndian GamingOppose$2,0001/27/2006Issa
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$9001/27/2006Issa
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$2,1001/27/2006Issa
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBEIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/7/2006Obey
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$5002/18/2006Farr
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/20/2006Kildee
TULE RIVER TRIBEIndian GamingOppose$2,0002/21/2006Nunes
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATIONIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/22/2006Becerra
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATIONIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/23/2006Grijalva
PUEBLO OF SANDIAIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/24/2006Wilson
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGSIndian GamingOppose$3002/27/2006Walden
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGSIndian GamingOppose$1,7002/27/2006Walden
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIAIndian GamingOppose$2,0002/27/2006Woolsey
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDAIndian GamingOppose$4002/28/2006Pallone
MANDAN HIDATSA ARIKARA NATIONIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/28/2006Pallone
KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITYIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/28/2006Pallone
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITYIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/28/2006Pallone
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMAIndian GamingOppose$9002/28/2006Pallone
TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND/MISSION INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$9002/28/2006Pallone
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$1,0002/28/2006Pallone
SPOKANE TRIBEIndian GamingOppose$5002/28/2006Pallone
SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$4002/28/2006Pallone
SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANSIndian GamingOppose$6002/28/2006Pallone
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDAIndian GamingOppose$9002/28/2006Pallone
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDAIndian GamingOppose$1,1002/28/2006Pallone

Contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)

Comments RSS feed

And the Indians win! by Milan Sundaresan, Jul 31, 2008 (7:27pm)

Facing tremendous opposition from several Indian tribes, H.R. 4893 sought to authorize the National Indian Gaming Commission to regulate Class III gaming and to limit lands eligible for gaming, amongst other provisions. The bill would have prevented tribes from crossing state lines and would not allow tribes that already had lands eligible for gaming from obtaining more land not contiguous to their reservations for casinos. The bill also required tribes to first receive the approval of their local community. Since the bill failed, the law stands as it was before- tribes must negotiate gaming compacts with states but do not need counties’ permission. Ultimately the stringent regulations were not put in place allowing the tribes to celebrate a clear victory.

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close