[Pages H114-H125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1645
AMENDING THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION
ACT OF 2010

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 681, I call up
the bill (S. 140) to amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights
Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the WMAT
Settlement Fund, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 681, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-54 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

S. 140

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. USE OF FUNDS IN WMAT SETTLEMENT FUND FOR WMAT
RURAL WATER SYSTEM.

(a) Authorization of WMAT Rural Water System.--Section
307(a) of the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights
Quantification Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291; 124 Stat.
3080) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by
inserting ``, (b)(2),'' after ``subsections (a)''.
(b) Funding.--Section 312(b)(2)(C)(i)(III) of the White
Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-291; 124 Stat. 3093) is amended by striking
the period at the end and inserting the following: ``,
including the planning, design, and construction of the WMAT
rural water system, in accordance with section 307(a).''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA LAND ELIGIBLE FOR
99-YEAR LEASE.

Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9,
1955 (commonly known as the ``Long-Term Leasing Act'') (25
U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended--
(1) by striking ``Indians,,'' and inserting ``Indians,'';
(2) by inserting ``Ohkay Owingeh pueblo,'' after
``Cochiti,'';
(3) by inserting ``the pueblo of Santa Clara,'' after
``Pojoaque,'';
(4) by striking ``the the lands'' and inserting ``the
land'';
(5) by striking ``lands held in trust for the Pueblo of
Santa Clara,''; and
(6) by striking ``lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh
Pueblo''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER.

Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
152) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or any Indian tribe,
or any enterprise or institution owned and operated by an
Indian tribe and located on its Indian lands,'' after
``subdivision thereof,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(15) The term `Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe,
band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community
which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and
services provided by the United States to Indians because of
their status as Indians.
``(16) The term `Indian' means any individual who is a
member of an Indian tribe.
``(17) The term `Indian lands' means--
``(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian
reservation;
``(B) any lands title to which is either held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or
Indian or held by any Indian tribe or Indian subject to
restriction by the United States against alienation; and
``(C) any lands in the State of Oklahoma that are within
the boundaries of a former reservation (as defined by the
Secretary of the Interior) of a federally recognized Indian
tribe.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided among and controlled by the chairs and ranking
minority members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and
the Committee on Natural Resources.
The gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

General Leave

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on S. 140.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 140, as amended, which consists
of three sections promoting Tribal self-governance and sovereignty over
their lands, resources, and businesses belonging to Indian Tribes.
Section 1 of S. 140 amends current law to ensure the completion of a
Tribal water system in Arizona. It makes a technical amendment to the
White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to
clarify that authority exists for any necessary cost overruns
associated with the Tribe's rural water system, provided it falls
within the existing authorization level.
This provision provides the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the
Department of the Interior certainty that there will be sufficient
funds to complete the rural water system.
Section 2 of S. 140 is identical to S. 249, a bill referred to the
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs, which I
chair. The Natural Resources Committee reported S. 249 favorably on
July 24, 2017, by unanimous consent.
Section 2 amends what is commonly known as the Long-Term Leasing Act,
to authorize two Indian pueblos in New Mexico to lease their restricted
fee lands for up to 99 years, subject to the approval of the Secretary
of the Interior.

[[Page H115]]

Such leases may be for a variety of nonmineral development purposes.
While current law generally authorizes Indian Tribes, subject to the
approval of the Secretary, to lease their trust and restricted lands,
the terms of the leases may not exceed 25 years.
This bill would authorize the pueblos of Santa Clara and Ohkay
Owingeh to lease their restricted fee lands for terms of up to 99
years.
Congress has amended the Long-Term Leasing Act more than 40 times to
adjust the terms and conditions of leases of Indian lands and to
authorize leases of specific Indian lands by their Indian owners for a
term of up to 99 years, subject to the approval of the Secretary.
While the Natural Resources Committee does not have jurisdiction over
section 3 of S. 140, I wish to express my full support for promoting
Tribal self-governance by giving Tribes parity with States and local
governments for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act.
Tribal self-governance, or sovereignty, means that a Tribe may make
its own laws and be governed by them. Since President Nixon launched
the era of Indian self-determination, Tribes have shown that when they
assume management and control over their affairs, they actually
outperform the Federal Government.
Thus, section 3 of S. 140 will continue and enhance the policies of
Tribal self-determination that have almost always enjoyed strong
bipartisan, bicameral support for these measures.
S. 140, as amended, is fully consistent with promoting this important
Tribal economic opportunity and freedom to do as they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, we are debating a bill package that follows a very familiar
playbook for House Republican leadership.
This bill package is just the latest attempt by my Republican
colleagues to push a highly partisan agenda by combining that divisive
proposal with noncontroversial items.
Today's bill includes two bills that passed Senate and House Natural
Resources Committee by unanimous consent.
One of these bills would make a technical correction to a previously
passed Tribal water settlement, and the other would clarify that two
pueblos in New Mexico should receive equal treatment when leasing their
lands.
Unfortunately, instead of quickly passing these bills and suspensions
and sending them to the President to be signed into law, House
Republican leadership has decided to take those two bills hostage and
combine them with a highly divisive bill that is likely not going
anywhere--H.R. 986, section 3 of this legislation--which I do not
support.
This political stunt seems doomed to fail. The only thing it will
accomplish is wasting everyone's time.
Meanwhile, a list of bills that are critical to Tribes across the
country sit in the Natural Resources Committee and are just ignored by
the majority.
For example, we could be moving legislation that would protect and
preserve Native American cultural artifacts, or legislation that would
address issues at Indian Health Service, or legislation to codify
meaningful and robust Tribal consultation process; or we could be here
today passing the bipartisan bill known as the ``clean'' Carcieri fix.
These bills deserve attention. They are promoted by not only Indian
Country, but many, many Members in a bipartisan fashion in this House.
I hope we can move past these petty political games soon, which
people are, rightfully, sick of having to see.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to change course
and stop blocking consensus bills from moving through this body by
conjoining them with divisive, contentious proposals.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of S. 140.
I strongly support this bill, but I want to speak today about one
particular piece of it--the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act--which I
helped introduce, along with Mr. Rokita.
Mr. Speaker, I often stand in this House to oppose interference from
the heavy hand of the Federal Government, and this is no different.
In 2004, the National Labor Relations Board, unilaterally, decided
that it needed to meddle in the affairs of Tribally owned businesses on
Tribal lands. This is a board that was set up to oversee union
elections but has become the bureaucratic arm of big labor.
By further expanding its jurisdiction, the National Labor Relations
Board threatened the foundation of Indian law, the principle of Tribal
sovereignty, and the limits of a small Federal Government.
Since the Obama administration implemented this incredible government
overreach, dozens of Tribes have supported legislation to clarify that
the NLRB's jurisdiction does not extend to Tribes. The conservative,
small government legislation we consider today would make that
necessary correction.
Native American Tribes around the country, and especially in my home
State of South Dakota, are plagued with grinding poverty, high
unemployment, substance abuse, and poor healthcare. They continually
seek economic development through self-determination, and the last
thing that they need, when trying to improve economic opportunities for
their citizens, is a Federal bureaucracy further meddling with their
efforts.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that subjecting Native American
Tribes to National Labor Relations Board rules is yet another sign that
some still want the Federal Government to interfere with Tribal
decisionmaking.
I have sponsored the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, and this House has
passed it multiple times.
I am proud that many South Dakota Tribes have long supported the
bill, including the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Oglala Sioux Tribe,
and the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association.
I urge my colleagues to withdraw the heavy hand of government and
again support Tribal sovereignty.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the
Education and the Workforce Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that
he may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 140.
As has been pointed out, buried in section 3 of this otherwise
noncontroversial water and lands bill is the text of H.R. 986, the
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. This nongermane provision would strip
thousands of employees of their rights and protections under the
National Labor Relations Act at Tribal enterprises located on Tribal
lands.
At issue in the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act are two solemn and
deeply rooted principles:
First, the right that Indian Tribes possess in matters of local self-
governance;
Second, the rights of workers to organize unions, bargain
collectively, and engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and
protection.
Rather than attempting to balance these two important principles, the
bill chooses sovereignty for some over the human rights of others. I
would note that the approximately 75 percent of workers employed at
Tribal casinos are not members of the Tribes running the casino, but
this bill would strip labor rights of hundreds of thousands of these
workers as well as those who are actually members of the Tribes.
In doing so, this legislation would abandon the carefully drawn
balance between Tribal sovereignty and workers' rights that was adopted
in the San

[[Page H116]]

Manuel decision by a Republican-led National Labor Relations Board in
2004. Perhaps prompted by litigation, the board ruled that the National
Labor Relations Act will only apply if it does not impact the exclusive
rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters or abrogate
rights guaranteed by treaties.
The San Manuel decision is based on legal principles governing
Federal laws of general applicability with respect to Indian Tribes
that have been upheld by appeals courts for over 30 years. That is why
courts have ruled that Tribes must comply with labor and employment
laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Occupational Safety and
Health Act; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA; and the
employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act.
Yet this bill singles out the National Labor Relations Act on the
grounds that Tribes must be given parity with State and local
governments which statutorily are exempt from the NLRA. Maybe States
and localities should have been considered, but the statutes are clear
that they are exempt.
This is not a reason why Tribes should be exempt from an otherwise
generally applicable law. Furthermore, State and local governments are
covered under title VII of the Civil Rights Act; whereas, Tribes are
expressly exempt.
For employees of Tribal enterprises, therefore, unions are the sole
protection under Federal law against discrimination, including sexual
harassment, because they can negotiate a collective bargaining
agreement that enforces employees' rights to be free from such conduct.
Democrats and Republicans together have insisted that our trading
partners abide by and enforce basic labor rights anytime we do a trade
deal. And Congress has repeatedly required these obligations in trade
agreements, but today the House will vote on a bill that takes away the
assurance that employees have for the freedom of association if they
are employed in many Tribal casinos.
This creates a fair question: Would this legislation place the United
States Government in breach of any of the trade agreements that are now
in effect? According to the International Labor Organization, in an
opinion on a similar bill a few years ago, it would, in fact, put us in
breach of trade agreements.
We should be able to fashion compromises that, frankly, protect both
workers' rights and Tribal sovereignty, but what is before us today
fails that test. There is no principled basis for stripping hundreds of
thousands of workers from the right to join a union and negotiate
better wages simply because they happen to work in a commercial
enterprise on Tribal lands.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding and for his work on this bill.
As he mentioned in the opening statements, there is a provision in
the bill that allows the Santa Clara Ohkay Owingeh 99-year leasing
program to move forward. That is in resolution to the long-standing
problems that we face there. So just a significant provision that
affects these two units but also the underlying concept that we are
going to recognize the sovereignty of our Tribes.
As many people know, some of the Tribes are faced with just very
difficult poverty conditions throughout the history of their Tribes
since they have been on the reservations, and I work with close friends
of mine who are trying to solve these problems and to find resolution
to long-term prosperity on the Indian reservations.
So when the National Labor Relations Board reversed its long-standing
status of recognizing the sovereignty of our nations--70 years they had
recognized that. In 2004, they simply reversed it without much
explanation, without any warning, and certainly without precedent.

{time} 1700

It has caused things to be much more difficult, especially in States
like New Mexico. So the Tribal leaders are saying: We should be
sovereign. We should be allowed to make these sorts of decisions
ourself without the Federal Government coming in and putting the
bureaucracy there.
The underlying concept of the bill is one that simply says we want
prosperity on Native American lands, we want their sovereign actions to
take care of themselves, to move themselves forward. That is what the
entire Nation says is the American Dream. Let's let that occur for the
Native Americans in this country. I think the provisions of the bill
are very important.
We have been working for 6 years now in Native American housing,
another way to help move prosperity into Native American lands. Again,
I support the concept of the bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

January 10, 2018, on page H116, the following appeared: from the
Northern Marianna Islands

The online version has been corrected to read: from the Northern
Mariana Islands

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 140 because it
includes H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017.
The effect of this legislation would be to strip employees who work
at businesses owned and operated by an Indian Tribe and located on
Indian lands of the protections afforded by the National Labor
Relations Act.
I am a Chamorro, one of the native people of the Northern Marianas,
and I fully appreciate the importance of Tribal sovereignty for Native
Americans. However, this legislation does not properly reconcile the
competing interests between sovereign rights and the rights of workers.
At least 75 percent of employees at Tribal casinos are not Tribal
members. In some cases, as few as 1 percent of the employees are
members of the Tribes operating the casino. These workers have no say
in the decisionmaking of Tribal governments.
Workers have the right to organize, to collectively bargain, and to
protect their right to fight for a safe workplace, fair pay to provide
a living for themselves and their families, and good benefits. They
should not be stripped of these rights simply due to the geography of
the workplace.
Federal law and Tribal sovereignty should be able to coexist at
Tribal casinos without stripping workers of their rights under the
National Labor Relations Act.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 140, which would strip
protections from workers who are employed by a Tribally-owned business
but are not Tribal members. This includes protection from harassment
and discrimination in the workplace.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from
discriminating against employees, does not apply to Tribal enterprises.
A non-Tribal worker employed by a Tribally-owned casino, for example,
cannot file a harassment or discrimination claim in Federal court or
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Instead, collective
bargaining agreements fill the gap by including provisions that enforce
their right to a fair workplace.
By stripping their collective bargaining rights, this legislation
eliminates the only recourse that these workers have against
discrimination and harassment. This is one of the many unacceptable
consequences of this bill.
Now, I have two letters. One from the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters and one from the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, both of which raise strong objections to the
majority's attempt to exclude workers from the rights enshrined in the
National Labor Relations Act.
Mr. Speaker, I include these letters in the Record.
International Brotherhood

of Teamsters,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am again
writing to

[[Page H117]]

express our strong opposition to H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor
Sovereignty Act. This legislation would exempt all Tribally-
owned and -operated commercial enterprises on Indian lands
broadly defined from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
We urge you to vote no when the House considers this
legislation.
If H.R. 986 were to become law, hundreds of thousands of
workers at these enterprises, including Teamsters, would be
stripped of their protections and rights under the NLRA,
including the right to organize and collective bargaining. It
would deprive both Tribal members and non-member employees of
the right to form or join unions and to bargain collectively
for better wages, hours, and working conditions. We should be
working to expand the rights and ability of workers to earn a
decent living for themselves and their families and to secure
a safe and healthy workplace.
While Tribal casinos have been the focus of discussion,
this legislation affects not just casino workers. Since the
1980's Tribes have expanded business interests beyond
casinos. They now operate many different revenue producing
commercial enterprises--construction companies, mining
operations, and power plants, to hotels, water parks and ski
resorts, to name a few.
In 2004, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (in San
Manuel) ruled that Tribal casino workers should have NLRA
protections. Shortly after the San Manuel decision,
legislation, in the form of amendments, was twice offered to
block the NLRB from enforcing the San Manuel decision.
These amendments were rejected. Since then, the NLRB has
proceeded in a measured fashion asserting jurisdiction on a
case-by-case basis. The NLRB will not assert jurisdiction
where it would interfere with internal governance rights in
purely intramural matters or abrogate treaty rights.
Otherwise, the NLRB will protect workers' rights at tribally
owned enterprises by asserting jurisdiction. With its case-
by-case approach, San Manuel takes a careful approach to
balancing of tribal sovereignty interests with Federal labor
law.
It should be noted that other important federal laws that
protect workers apply to Indian businesses, such as the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Indeed, courts
have denied attempts to gain exemptions on numerous occasions
ruling commercial tribal enterprises should not be excluded
from such laws. NLRA rights and protections should not be
treated differently.
Proponents assert that they are seeking the same exemption
as state and local governments. However, this is inaccurate,
The NLRA only exempts actual government employees and not
private sector employees performing contracted out government
functions. Also, a substantial majority of workers at these
enterprises are not Indian or Tribe members, and thus have no
ability to influence tribal governance, since non-tribal
members are prohibited from petitioning a tribe.
The bill could also undermine enforcement of existing labor
contracts and the decision workers made to organize and
bargain collectively. When a collective bargaining agreement
expires, a Tribe could unilaterally terminate the
relationship with the union without consequence under the
NLRA. The employer's obligation. to bargain could be
eliminated.
Employees of tribal enterprises have no constitutional
rights to protect against employers. Only the NLRA gives them
free speech rights. Absent the NLRA they have no protection.
Workers cannot be left without any legally enforceable right
to form unions and bargain collectively just because they are
employed at tribally owned enterprise.
Finally, the United States requires its trading partners to
implement and abide by internationally recognized labor
standards, while H.R. 986 deprives workers at these tribal
enterprises of these core rights--the right to organize and
bargain collectively.
To focus solely on the NLRA raises the question of the true
motivation for this legislation. It is regrettable that the
principle of tribal sovereignty is being used to cloak an
attack on the basic rights of workers to organize and bargain
collectively. The Teamsters Union respects tribal
sovereignty. However, we do not believe that this principle
should be used to deny workers their collective bargaining
rights and freedom of association. We urge you to oppose the
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act and to VOTE NO on H.R. 986 when
the legislation comes to a vote in the House of
Representatives.
Sincerely,
James P. Hoffa,
General President.
____

American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2018.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to urge to oppose S. 140, as
currently amended to expand the exemption of employers under
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
S. 140, as amended, is Just another attempt at passing the
so-called Tribal Sovereignty Act, which would deny protection
under the NLRA to many workers employed by tribal-owned and -
operated enterprises on Indian land. A great majority of
these workers are not Native Americans and in recent years
there has been a substantial expansion of enterprises that
would be impacted by this legislation, including not only
casinos, but mining operations, power plants, saw mills, ski
resorts, high-tech firms, hotels, and spas.
AFSCME supports the principle of sovereignty for tribal
governments, but does not believe that this principle should
be used to deny workers their collective bargaining rights
and freedom of association. We oppose any effort to exempt on
an across-the-board basis all tribal enterprises from the
NLRA, without regard to a specific review of all the
circumstances, as is currently provided by National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) standards. Workers must not be left
without any legally enforceable right to form unions and
bargain collectively, especially in instances where they are
working for commercial operations competing with other
businesses.
AFSCME strongly urges you to oppose S. 140, as amended,
when it comes before the House for a vote.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this
legislation.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in summary, this Federal Government has had a very
spotty record over the many decades of its treatment of Native American
Indian Tribes in this Nation, and for us to not act in order to
countermand what the National Labor Relations Board has done on its own
would be a mistake. It would be wrongheaded, in that if we are going to
have the types of relations, these government-to-government relations
with Indian Tribes in this country, that level of respect, then
Congress needs to act, Congress needs to maintain that relation.
So for local governments, State governments to have this protection
from the NLRA and the Tribes not to, then we would be making a severe
mistake to not take action here today with this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for all portions of S. 140 today,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I respect and support Tribal sovereignty. I also support workers'
rights to unionize and collective bargaining to improve their workplace
and the lives of their families. Those rights must be balanced, but
they are not in this bill.
Union members have a collective voice to fight for higher wages,
better benefits, safer workplaces, fewer injuries, fewer deaths, lower
rates of gender-based violence.
After Unite Here, a union, found that 58 percent of hotel workers and
77 percent of casino workers in the Chicagoland, where I am from, had
been sexually harassed, they won a contract that includes panic buttons
to protect workers.
Labor rights are fundamental, but under this bill, workers at
Tribally-owned businesses, casinos and hotels, construction, and other
industries would lose those rights.
Remember, three out of four workers employed in Tribal casinos are
not Tribal members. Those workers could end up with no way to bargain
for fair wages, appeal unfair disciplinary action, or act against
sexual harassment.
Looking at a similar bill in the last Congress, the International
Labour Organization stated: ``It would appear likely that an exclusion
of certain workers from the National Labor Relations Act and its
mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers
their fundamental freedom of association rights absent any assurances
that there were Tribal labor laws that provide the same rights to all
workers.''
Mr. Speaker, there is no such requirement in this bill. Protect
workers. Reject this unfair and unbalanced bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the opinion from the
International Labour Office.

International Labour Office,

Geneve 22.
Mr. R.L. Trumka,
President, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Trumka: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated
22 October 2015 requesting an informal opinion and guidance
from

[[Page H118]]

the International Labour Organization in respect of a Bill
being considered by the United States Congress.
In particular, you have raised concerns about the Tribal
Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 511) which you state would deny
protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of a
large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and tribal-
operated enterprises located on tribal territory and ask for
the informal opinion of the Office as to whether such an
exclusion of workers employed on tribal lands would be in
conformity with the principles of freedom of Association
which are at the core of the ILO Constitution and the ILO's
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
In conformity with the regular procedure concerning
requests for an informal opinion from the International
Labour Office in respect of draft legislation and its
possible impact on international labour standards and
principles, the views set out below should in no way be
considered as prejudging any comments or observations that
might be made by the ILO supervisory bodies within the
framework of their examination of the application of ratified
international labour standards or principles on freedom of
association.
Your links to committee reports of the congressional
majority and minority and other background information have
enabled the Office to consider the views of the parties both
for and against the proposed amendment and they all appear to
confirm recognition of the United States' obligation to
uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining.
While the proponents of the Bill assert that this can be
achieved through the labour relations' regimes autonomously
determined by the tribal nations, the opponents--and you
yourself in your request--maintain that excluding tribal
lands from the NLRA will in effect result in a loss (or at
the very least inadequate protection) of their trade union
rights. Not only do you refer to tribal labour relations
ordinances which in your view provide inadequate protections
in this regard, but you also refer to instances where there
are no tribal labour relations ordinances at all.
While elements of indigenous peoples' sovereignty have been
invoked by the proponents of this Bill, the central question
revolves around the manner in which the United States
Government can best assure throughout its territory the full
application of the fundamental principles of freedom of
association and collective bargaining. From an ILO
perspective, while the variety of mechanisms for ensuring
freedom of association and collective bargaining rights may
differ depending on distinct sectoral considerations or
devolution of labour competence, it is critical that the
State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility
for ensuring respect for freedom of association and
collective bargaining rights throughout its territory.
As you have indicated, the 2004 San Manuel Indian Bingo and
Casino decision assures possible recourse to the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an overarching mechanism aimed
at ensuring the protection of freedom of association, while
also maintaining deference to the sovereign interests of the
tribal nations so as to avoid touching on exclusive rights of
self-governance.
Full abdication of review via an exclusion from the scope
of the NLRA for all workers employed on tribal lands as
described might make it very difficult for the United States
Government to assure the fundamental trade union rights of
workers. In cases like those mentioned where there are no
tribal labour relations ordinances, undue restrictions on
collective bargaining, excessive limitations on freedom of
association rights or lack of protection from unfair labour
practices, workers on tribal territories would be left
without any remedy for violation of their fundamental freedom
of association rights, short of a constitutional battle.
Furthermore, the exclusion proposed, with no avenue for
federal review or overarching mechanism for appeal should
there be an alleged violation of freedom of association,
would give rise to discrimination in relation to the
protection of trade union rights which would affect both
indigenous and non-indigenous workers simply on the basis of
their workplace location.
Given the concerns that you have raised, it would be
critically important that, at the very least, a complete
legal and comparative review be undertaken to support
assurances that all rights, mechanisms and remedies for the
full protection of internationally recognized freedom of
association rights are available to all workers on all tribal
lands. In the absence of such assurances, it would appear
likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and
its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to
these workers their fundamental freedom of association
rights.
In accordance with ILO procedure concerning requests for
informal opinions on draft legislation, this communication
will also be brought to the attention of the United States
Government and the representative employers' organization,
the US Council for International Business.
Yours sincerely,

Corinne Vargha,

Director of the
International Labour Standards Department.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 140, the Tribal
Labor Sovereignty Act, a provision in the pending legislation that will
end the National Labor Relations Board's alarming overreach into
businesses operated on sovereign Tribal lands.
In March of 2017, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and
Pensions, which I have the privilege of chairing, held a hearing on
this legislation and heard from Native American business leaders on how
the NLRB's arbitrary use of its jurisdiction had been harming
businesses large and small on Tribal lands.
Leaders of the Native American community testified before the
subcommittee on how the NLRB had meddled in the day-to-day operations
and management of Native American businesses, often dragging out
matters for years.
To make matters worse, the proceedings led by the NLRB are creating
burdensome legal costs for businesses who are seeking to provide high-
quality goods and services to Native American communities.
While members of the NLRB have changed and have begun to make great
progress in reversing some of the Board's most damaging decisions,
Congress needs to make it clear that Tribal labor sovereignty must be
safe from future Washington overreach.
The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act will clarify the National Labor
Relations Act and reverse the troubling encroachment of the Federal
Government on Tribal lands.
Congress has the opportunity here to stand up for sovereign rights of
Native Americans and the businesses they own and operate on their
lands. These Tribes have created their own system of labor protections
for employees and employers consistent with their lands and traditions,
and it is not for Washington bureaucrats to tamper with those
protections.
I urge my colleagues to support the sovereignty of all Native
American Tribes and pass the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill before us that
takes away National Labor Relations Act protections for hundreds of
thousands of workers.
I support Tribal sovereignty. In my home State of Wisconsin, I am
proud the Ho-Chunk Nation is in my district. Potawatomi, Oneida,
Menominee, St. Croix, Stockbridge-Munsee, Lac du Flambeau, Lac Corte
Oreilles, Red Cliff, Bad River, and other Tribes all reside in my home
State, and I am glad to support the autonomy of those Tribal nations.
But this bill isn't about Tribal sovereignty. It is about going after
workers' rights.
Look at the track record of the majority in this Congress. The
Republicans have continued to go after workers' rights, as they have so
far. They have repealed the rule that required companies seeking large
Federal contracts to disclose violations of labor law. They made it
harder for people whose jobs are shipped overseas to get unemployment
insurance. They have made it harder for workers whose employers don't
offer retirement plans to save for retirement. They have repealed an
OSHA rule requiring employers to maintain accurate records of serious
workplace injuries for 5 years, while the administration drastically
reduces the number of OSHA inspectors.
This bill isn't about meaningful sovereignty. It is about selective
sovereignty, because it only goes after labor rights.
If this were a bill about sovereignty, it would include a number of
other areas that Tribes are compelled to follow in addition to the
National Labor Relations Act: the Occupational Safety and Health Act;
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA; the Family and
Medical Leave Act; and the public accommodations of Americans with
Disabilities Act, just to start.
If this bill was about sovereignty, it would exempt OSHA and ERISA
and the FMLA and the ADA, for starters. But it doesn't do that. This
bill only exempts labor protections for hundreds of thousands of
workers, Tribal members and nonmembers, because the majority in this
Congress isn't really worried about sovereignty. It is concerned

[[Page H119]]

about taking away the rights of workers, and that is what this bill is
really about.
Mr. Speaker, if this body wants to help Tribes, I am here to help.
Bring a bill to the floor that covers all exempted areas, and that is a
bill that I could support. But that is not what is in front of us
today.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of opposition from the
International Union of Operating Engineers, the United Auto Workers,
United Food and Commercial Workers, and Unite Here.
International Union of

Operating Engineers,

Washington, DC, January 8, 2018.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The International
Union of Operating Engineers opposes the Tribal Labor
Sovereignty Act, legislation contained in S. 140 (115-54)
that would eliminate the labor protections currently
guaranteed to hundreds of thousands of American workers.
Indeed, if enacted into law, this bill would constitute the
biggest rollback in labor law since the passage of the Taft-
Hartley Act in 1947.
The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
represents nearly 400,000 men and women across North America.
Members of the International Union of Operating Engineers
maintain and operate Native American and non-Native American
gaming facilities around the United States, from Connecticut
to California, and this legislation would have a dramatic
effect on their lives and livelihoods. The IUOE is the
second-biggest union in the hospitality sector. But this
legislation extends beyond casinos and gaming. IUOE members
work in mining and energy facilities on Native American lands
in a number of locations, and those workers eventually could
lose their rights as a result of this legislation.
In a few short words, this bill changes current law by
exempting the National Labor Relations Act from tribal
enterprises on tribal lands. Today, the National Labor
Relations Board (Board) implements a case-by-case review of
whether labor law applies to tribal enterprises.
The precedent-setting case that comes from the San Manuel
Band of Mission Indians is instructive. The Tribe operated a
92,000-sq.ft. casino (over two acres), with 1,400 employees.
Only five of the workers were Native American. The Board
determined that this large commercial establishment should
not receive the exemption from labor law provided to states
and local government because its operations were
fundamentally different than a government. The San Manuels
were not providing a public good to members of the tribe.
They were not behaving like a government. Instead, the Board
determined that when the tribal operation in question is
commercial in nature, employs significant numbers of non-
Indians, and caters to a non-Native American clientele, ``the
special attributes of sovereignty are not implicated.'' The
Board determined that private labor law applies to the San
Manuel casino, just as it would with any other commercial
operation. Federal courts have supported this interpretation.
Sovereignty does, however, apply to governmental functions of
the tribe, just as they would with any state government.
If passed, the exemption from labor law would unfairly
advantage commercial tribal operations at the expense of non-
Native American private-sector companies. Competitors with
Native American commercial operations must comply with labor
law; Native American operations will not. As mentioned above,
the bill's reach extends well beyond the gaming industry.
Tribes are engaged in a variety of commercial enterprises,
from mining and energy development, to manufacturing and
construction. Over time, it is reasonable to expect that
tribal enterprises will expand and compete more aggressively
with non-Native companies in a wide variety of commercial
sectors, without any concern for the rights of workers.
Tribal labor law is woefully inadequate--virtually non-
existent in most tribes around the country. It is no
replacement for the nation's basic legal framework that
protects workers' rights. Eliminating the NLRA for tribal
enterprises will strip away freedoms guaranteed to Americans
today, including hundreds of thousands of workers at tribal
casinos who are not Native American. S. 140 (115-54) would
immediately eliminate the rights of thousands of Operating
Engineers in workplaces all over the United States.
The International Union of Operating Engineers opposes S.
140 (115-54), which eliminates nearly one-million workers'
individual right to take collective action to improve their
working conditions, and respectfully urges you to oppose it
when it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives on
Wednesday.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James T. Callahan,
General President.
____

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2018.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than one million
active and retired members of the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), I urge you to vote against S. 140, because it
includes provisions from the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act
(H.R. 986). This misguided bill would deny protection under
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to hundreds of
thousands of workers employed by tribal casinos. This
legislation could also impact dozens of other businesses,
including power plants, mining operations, and hotels.
UAW believes strongly in tribal sovereignty and has a
strong record of supporting civil rights. This bill, however,
is misleading. It is an attack on fundamental collective
bargaining rights and would strip workers in commercial
enterprises of their rights and protections under the NLRA.
Under the terms of this bill, when a labor contract expires,
a tribe could unilaterally terminate the bargaining
relationship with the union without legal consequence under
the NLRA, because the employer's obligation to bargain could
be eliminated. As a result of having a union and a legally
binding contract, hundreds of dealers have been promoted to
benefited and supervisory positions because of provisions in
the contract that maintain minimum percentages of full-time,
part-time, and supervisory positions. Work rules, wages, and
benefits have all improved because of the right to
collectively bargain. This bill would jeopardize these hard-
fought gains.
The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act seeks to overturn a
decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in San
Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, 341 NLRB No. 138 (2004). In
that decision, the Board concluded that applying the NLRA
would not interfere with the tribe's autonomy and the effects
of the NLRA would not ``extend beyond the tribe's business
enterprise and regulate intramural matters.'' The ruling does
not apply in instances where its application would ``touch
exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural
matters'' or ``abrogate Indian treaty rights.'' The NLRB has
taken a nuanced view on this matter and has ruled on a case-
by-case basis. Congressional interference is not justified.
Supporters of the bill argue that the bill creates parity
for the tribes with state and local governments who are not
covered under the NLRA. However, there are some significant
differences. Tribes are exempt from employment laws (Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act) that apply to state and local
governments, whereas private sector contractors work
extensively on behalf of state and local governments and
generally must comply with the NLRA. Non-tribal members
cannot petition a tribe for labor legislation, while workers
employed by a state or local government have a voice with
their elected leaders. This is significant because 75 percent
of Native American gaming employees are not tribal members.
At Foxwoods, where the UAW represents the workers, well over
98 percent of employees and patrons are not tribal members.
Hundreds of tribal gaming facilities make tens of billions in
revenue annually, and these employees are working for what is
simply a commercial operation competing with non-tribal
businesses.
At a time of growing wealth inequality and a shrinking
middle class, the last thing Congress should do is deprive
workers of their legally enforceable right to form unions and
bargain collectively. We urge you to oppose S. 140.
Sincerely,
Josh Nassar,
Legislative Director.
____

UFCW,

Washington, DC, January 9, 2018.
To All Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.3 million members
of United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
(UFCW), I am writing to express our strong opposition to the
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act as rolled into a bill that will
be reported as S. 140.
UFCW is proud to represent 1,000 members at casinos that
operate on tribal lands. These workers have joined together
to bargain collectively for good wages, decent benefits, and
a voice on the job. Passage of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty
Act would take that voice away.
We support sovereignty for tribal governments, but the
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is so broad that it would
prevent any worker from exercising their freedom of
association under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The vast majority tribal casino workers are not tribal
members and therefore have no voice in tribal policy and are
not protected under tribal law.
Most federal laws protecting the workplace apply to tribal
businesses including the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and NLRA. The NLRA should
not be treated any differently than these other important
laws that protect workers.
There are many differences between state and local
governments and tribal businesses. State and local
governments do not operate multi-billion dollar commercial
Enterprises, nor manage enterprises where the majority of the
employees and customers are from outside of the jurisdiction.
If working people don't like state and local government
policy

[[Page H120]]

they can change management by voting for different lawmakers,
while non-tribal employees and customers have no meaningful
way to influence tribal policy.
Congress should be working to expand the rights of American
workers, not take them away. We urge you to stand up for
American workers and oppose the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Perrone,
International President.
____

UNITE HERE!,

Las Vegas, NV
Dear Representative: UNITE HERE represents over 275,000
hardworking men and women in the hospitality industry and
strongly urges you to oppose the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act
(H.R. 986).
Like most Americans, our members have a deep respect for
Native Americans and their role in shaping our nation. Our
members also have a deep and abiding respect for the rights
of American workers and to uphold the laws that govern our
nation and all of its citizens.
This brings me to H.R. 986. This bill would exempt all
businesses owned and operated by Indian nations from the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Tribal businesses,
including but not limited to Indian-owned casinos, have
workforces and customers that are almost all non-Indian. If
this bill were to become law, American citizens working for
Native American businesses would lose their U.S. rights under
the NLRA, including ``full freedom of association'' and
``self-organization'' without ``discrimination.'' Over the
last 30 years, as Indian enterprises entered the stream of
interstate commerce, a number of federal laws protecting the
workplace have been applied to Indian businesses: Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Occupational Safety
and Health Act (OSHA), Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Congress should not
treat the rights Americans have under the NLRA any
differently than these other important laws that protect
American workers.
Much has been made of the need for this bill to give tribal
governments ``parity'' with state and local governments. This
comparison is misleading, if not absurd. States and local
governments do not typically operate multi-billion dollar
commercial enterprises. States and local governments do not
typically run enterprises where the overwhelming majority of
the government's employees are from outside of their
jurisdiction and the overwhelming majority of customers are
also from outside of their jurisdiction. In a state or
locality, if the citizens who live there don't like the
government's policies, they can vote for people to change
those policies. The non-tribal employees and customers have
no meaningful way to influence tribal policies.
In this time of incredible income inequality in our
country, Congress should be working to expand the rights of
American workers, not finding ways to take them away. H.R.
986 is no different than the laws signed by Governors Scott
Walker (R-WI) and Rick Snyder (R-MI): they attack the basic
rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain.
Please stand up for American workers and join our union to
oppose H.R. 986.
Sincerely,
D. Taylor.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact of those in
opposition, but 150 Tribes and individuals from the Native Americans
that are asking for this stand in support of this, and we are delighted
to listen to that and work for a solution here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx), the chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce
Committee.

{time} 1715

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the adoption of the
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, an important and long overdue provision
included in this legislation before us today.
For nearly 70 years, the National Labor Relations Board respected the
sovereignty of Native American Tribes throughout the country and
allowed the Tribes to adjudicate labor issues within the laws and
standards of each Tribe. However, in 2004, the NLRB began to change its
longstanding practices and adopted subjective tests to determine when
it wanted to assert its jurisdiction in matters involving Native
American Tribes.
These subjective tests are applied on an arbitrary, case-by-case
basis and are having an impact on Tribal businesses that are operated
on sovereign Tribal lands. Tribal business leaders have been asking
Congress to respect their sovereign rights and end the NLRB's
inconsistent and misguided decisions when it comes to labor decisions
dealing with Tribal businesses.
The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, sponsored by Representative Todd
Rokita, a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, stops
the NLRB from picking winners and losers when it comes to matters
dealing with Tribal businesses and ends the bureaucratic overreach
conducted by the NLRB in recent years.
Most importantly, this legislation protects the sovereignty Native
Americans deserve and ensures that Tribes have control over their own
labor relations and, ultimately, determine what works best for
workplaces on Tribal lands.
Bipartisan support for Tribal sovereignty has been reaffirmed time
and again by Congress, and for more than 180 years, the Supreme Court
has held that Tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent
powers of self-government. It is time that we strip unelected
bureaucrats of the power they abuse and respect the rights of Native
American Tribes.
I wish to thank Representative Todd Rokita for introducing and
championing the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act and urge Members to
support this important clarification to Federal law.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will you advise as to how much
time is left on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Virginia has
15\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and
Related Agencies.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
It was in 1935 that this body enacted the National Labor Relations
Act. It guaranteed basic rights to private sector workers to organize
into trade unions, to engage in contractual bargaining for decent wages
and better conditions at work, and to take joint action, if necessary.
But in 1935, just like today, here, 2018, the Republican Party and
business interests vehemently opposed passage of any laws that help
workers. Little has changed. Once again our Republican colleagues
trample on the backs of workers.
This legislation rolls back proven protections that allow wages to
rise in places like California, and their casinos, from $10 an hour to
$13 an hour. Now, these modest pay increases have helped elevate the
workers who work in those casinos above the Federal poverty level.
Who has ever tried to buy a house in California or tried to live on
$13 an hour or $10 an hour? You are not talking about a whole lot of
money there, especially from a party that just gave $1 trillion away to
the people at the very top.
But with this bill, our Republican colleagues chose to strip these
hundreds of thousands of workers, the majority of whom are not members
of Tribes but work in those casinos, of decent wages and their right to
a voice in the workplace.
Wow.
Beneath their sheepskin costumes hides another Republican attack on
worker rights in this country, this time under the guise of Tribal
sovereignty.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an
additional 1 minute.
Ms. KAPTUR. Let me remind my colleagues though, throughout our
National Labor Relations Board's history, it has never and will not
assert jurisdiction where it would interfere with a Tribe's internal
governance rights in purely intramural matters.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bad bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the strong opposition to it from
the United Steelworkers of America and from the Communications Workers
of America. As a proud daughter of labor, I am proud to stand here
today in opposition to this bill.

United Steelworkers,

Pittsburgh, PA, January 9, 2018.
Re United Steelworkers oppose inclusion of anti-worker H.R.
986, Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017 in S. 140.

House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 members of
the United Steelworkers (USW), we strongly urge you to oppose
S. 140 on the House floor this week. Rather than

[[Page H121]]

being identical to the Senate bill, this version includes the
anti-worker and undemocratic Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of
2017 (H.R. 986).
H.R. 986 would exempt all employees of federally recognized
Native American-owned commercial enterprises operated on
Indian lands from the protections of the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) and would authorize over 567 distinct
and separate labor law jurisdictions in the United States.
To be absolutely clear, this legislation strips workers--
both Native American and non-Native American--of their NLRA
protections. While some organizations have falsely attempted
to paint tribal governments as similar entities to states
(which are exempt from the NLRA), tribal governments are
substantially different than states in one key democratic
principal: state governments allow workers an ability to vote
for their legislators no matter their ancestry, while most
tribal governments require blood quantum or lineal descent to
determine who is eligible for membership or citizenship.
Simply put, if H.R. 986 becomes law by inclusion in S. 140,
U.S. citizens working in the United States for tribal
commercial enterprises would not be able to vote for the
elected representatives who set their labor laws. These
workers will lose the ability to petition the government that
oversees their working conditions.
The gaming industry, which is an employer for approximately
246 of the 567 federally recognized American Indian tribes;
has over 600,000 casino workers on tribal lands, the
overwhelming majority of whom are not Native Americans. In
2011 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the National
Indian Gaming Commission testified that the vast majority of
employees (up to 75 percent) were non-tribal members.
Our union understands the importance of the principle of
tribal sovereignty; however the fundamental human rights of
employees are not the exclusive concern of tribal enterprises
or tribal governments. As the International Labor
Organization highlighted in a letter on a previous version of
this bill, ``it is critical that the State (the national
authority) takes ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect
for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights
throughout its territory''. That is why we believe the
current test set by the NLRB is the best course of action
until labor laws are strengthened in the United States.
In 2004, the NLRB under the Bush Administration ruled for
the first time that Tribal casino workers should have the
benefit of NLRA protections, San Manuel, 341 NLRB No. 138
(2204). Yet, since the San Manuel ruling, the NLRB has
asserted jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. In 2015, the
NLRB declined jurisdiction citing the 1830 Treaty of Dancing
Rabbit Creek and 1866 Treaty of Washington stating:
``We have no doubt that asserting jurisdiction over the
Casino and the Nation would effectuate the policies of the
Act. However, because we find that asserting jurisdiction
would abrogate treaty rights specific to the Nation.''
Chickasaw Nation Windstar World Casino, 362 NLRB 109 92015).
Similarly the NLRB declined jurisdiction:
``. . . when an Indian tribe is fulfilling a traditionally
tribal or governmental function that is unique to its status,
fulfilling just such a unique governmental function
[providing free health care services solely to tribal
members],'' Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, 341 NLRB 139
(2004).
The NLRB has developed a reasonable and responsible test to
determine jurisdiction. H.R. 986 creates significant
confusion and jurisdictional issues over labor law
enforcement and grossly undermines worker's rights. Our union
urges you to oppose S. 140, with the inclusion of H.R. 986,
and asks you to instead work to expand worker's rights not
restrict them further.
Sincerely,
Leo W. Gerard,
International President.
____

January 9, 2018.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the members and officers
of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I am writing
to express our strong opposition to S. 140. CWA has no
objections whatsoever to Sections 1 and 2 of the bill as
amended. Unfortunately, these non-controversial, sensible
bills have been hijacked to also pass H.R. 986, a bill that
would strip hundreds of thousands of workers at tribal-owned
and -operated enterprises of their protections for the right
to bargain collectively.
H.R. 986 seeks to overturn a National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) decision in San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, which
applied the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to a tribal
casino enterprise. The NLRB's finding in San Manuel adopted a
test to determine whether the NLRA is applicable to
businesses operating on tribal lands--if it would ``touch
exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural
matters'' or ``abrogate Indian treaty rights,'' the NLRA
would not apply, but otherwise the decision will be based on
a series of factors including whether an entity is a purely
commercial enterprise or employs or caters to individuals who
are not tribal members.
The San Manuel test balances two crucial issues--tribal
sovereignty and the right of workers to bargain collectively.
The test ensures that truly internal matters of self-
governance will continue to be handled by sovereign tribes,
while also ensuring that the fundamental rights of workers to
organize and advocate for their own interests are properly
respected. H.R. 986 would overturn this balance by exempting
any enterprise or institution owned and operated by an Indian
tribe and located on its land from the requirements of the
NLRA--or any other guarantee of workers' fundamental right to
organize and collectively bargain.
The practical impact of H.R. 986 would be to exempt a broad
swath of businesses from the NLRA, even though, in many
cases, they are purely commercial enterprises. For many of
these companies--particularly casinos--the majority of their
workforces are not members of the tribe employing them and
therefore do not have full access to internal, tribal
mechanisms for grieving issues or petitioning for change in
tribal policies. This is why the International Labour
Organization stated in 2015 that ``it would appear likely
that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and its
mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure these
workers their fundamental freedom of association rights.''
I urge you to oppose S. 140 as amended and instead work to
advance an agenda that protects both workers' fundamental
human right to organize and tribal sovereignty. CWA will
consider including votes on this bill in our Congressional
Scorecard Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Shane Larson,

Legislative Director,
Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Indiana (Mr. Rokita) for introducing this very important legislation
that restores a simple promise: the sovereign rights of Native
Americans will be protected.
For almost 70 years following the passage of the National Labor
Relations Act, Tribal sovereignty was upheld and Tribes were given the
equal right to self-governance enjoyed by our State and local
governments. For the Tribes in my district, sovereignty meant the
freedom to advance their own economic development and provide critical
government services to their Tribal members.
With the NLRB's San Manuel decision, unelected bureaucrats tossed
aside this longstanding precedent and began to assert themselves in
Tribal matters on an arbitrary, case-by-case basis. The agency granted
itself the right to navigate Tribal law and decide when a Tribal
enterprise is for commercial purposes, a requirement that would never
be imposed on revenue-generating activities of State and local
governments.
As the Federal bureaucracy expands its own power, Tribes face legal
confusion and uncertainty, hindering their self-sufficiency and the
ability to provide for their members.
The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act restores the well-established legal
standard of Tribal sovereignty. As State and local governments are
excluded from the Federal requirements of the NLRA, this bill simply
ensures Tribal governments receive equal treatment, not lesser status.
It provides our Tribes with needed clarity that, when an enterprise is
owned and operated by the Indian Tribe and located on Tribal land,
Tribal sovereignty will be protected.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, and I am
glad it was included in this package, which I urge my colleagues to
support.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, what a sad state of affairs. There are scores
of critically important issues that need to be considered by this
House, not the least of which is funding our government. We failed to
do that, and now we are confronted with a bill that is recycled, and we
have added two natural resources bills on it that could have passed
unanimously.
I am a big defender of Native Tribes' rights and sovereignty, and I
know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle remain committed to
their sovereignty as well. This bill, however, is about undermining the
National Labor Relations Act, not about Tribal sovereignty.
That act, the National Labor Relations Act, safeguards workers'
rights to organize and bargain collectively. Most of my friends on the
other side of the aisle are not for that. I know that. I have seen them
vote that way.
No matter where you work, the basic protections for American workers,
however, ought to apply. It is already

[[Page H122]]

settled law that the National Labor Relations Act and other worker
protection laws apply to businesses even on Tribal lands outside the
context of inherently governmental functions carried out by Tribal
governments. This was not decided by some faceless bureaucrat. This was
a court of our land that made this decision.
Instead of undermining workers' rights, this House ought to be moving
forward with policies that help our workers and their families make it
in America as part of a strong middle class. That means raising wages.
It means making childcare more affordable. It means expanding access to
opportunities like higher education, homeownership, and a secure
retirement. Those are the issues that Democrats continue to be focused
on.
That is not what this bill focuses on. Instead, Republicans are
focused not on helping workers, but trying to pit one group, Tribes,
against another group, workers. That is not what we ought to have in
this country.
And they are attaching popular, noncontroversial natural resources
bills to this legislation. They have nothing to do with this
legislation and would pass overwhelmingly.
I am going to vote against this bill, and I hope they will bring the
natural resources bills back so we can pass those, as everybody wants
to do.
This is not the kind of regular order Speaker Ryan promised when he
took the gavel and that Republicans promised when they took the
majority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman from Maryland an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. HOYER. As I said at the beginning, we are bringing this bill to
the floor, a retread. This is not new legislation that they are
offering. The only thing new about it is they put two natural resources
bills attached to it.
We should be focused, as I said before, on reaching agreement on
appropriation bills, on caps, on protecting DREAMers, on making sure
that CHIP children aren't left aside, not this bill. But those bills
aren't scheduled today, and they are not scheduled next week as far as
I know. Maybe the majority leader will give me better information
tomorrow.
In fact, what we really ought to be working on now, as I say, are
those appropriation bills. But, under the Republican majority, we are
still stuck working on fiscal year 2018 when we are already nearly
halfway through.
I urge my colleagues not to oppose Tribal sovereignty, not to oppose
the rights of our Native American brothers and sisters. We are for
them, but not to be pitted against workers making a decent, acceptable
wage so they can live with some quality of life.
It is not enough to give the upper 1 percent a huge tax cut and
pretend that you are helping the middle class, the workers. In fact, in
this bill, you are doing exactly the opposite.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and stand up for workers,
whether they are Native Americans or whoever they may be. Stand up for
workers. Respect workers. Understand that workers made this country
great, and they deserve our support and our protection.
Defeat this bill.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a gentleman who had a distinguished record of
supporting and helping and enabling workers.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
S. 140 and its inclusion of H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act.
There are more than 560 federally recognized Native American Tribes
across the United States, and each of these Tribes has a unique history
and distinct culture that have helped shape who we are today as a
nation. Each Tribe has an inherent right to self-govern, just like any
other sovereign government does.
That right to self-governance is rooted in the Constitution and has
been reaffirmed by courts for almost 200 years. Because of it, Tribal
leaders are able to make decisions that affect their people in a way
that makes the most sense for their Tribe and best protects the
interests of their members--or, rather, they should be able to make
those decisions.
We are here today because, for the past 14 years, the National Labor
Relations Board has ignored longstanding labor policy and involved
itself in Tribal activities. Since its 2004 San Manuel Indian Bingo and
Casino decision, the Board has used a subjective test to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether a Tribal business or Tribal land is for
commercial purposes, and, if it is, the Board has asserted its
jurisdiction over that business.

{time} 1730

Among its other provisions, the bill under consideration would amend
the National Labor Relations Act to reaffirm that the NLRB cannot
assert its authority over enterprises or institutions owned or operated
by a Tribe on Tribal land. It very simply reasserts a legal standard
that was in place for decades and returns to Tribes the ability to
manage their own labor relations as a sovereign right has.
I want to thank my friend and fellow member of the Education and the
Workforce Committee from Indiana (Mr. Rokita) for his leadership on
this issue and for continuing to work on those in Congress who have
helped lead the fight to protect Tribal sovereignty over the years.
It is time for all of us to join that fight and stand with the Native
American community and restore to Indian Tribes the ability to govern
their own labor relations.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how you support Tribal sovereignty, which,
by definition, is a sovereign state, but not allow Tribes to self-
govern. I don't understand that, and I also don't understand, Mr.
Speaker, if our friends on the other side of the aisle today are so
worried about getting our work done, why I had to leave committee
hearings to come over here three times today to vote not adjourning
this body. I would like to know that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, the land of opportunity is right here. It
is called the United States of America. But, unfortunately, there is
not always a level playing field when it comes to that land of
opportunity. This year is the 83rd anniversary of the National Labor
Relations Act, the act that gave workers a voice, a voice in the
workplace. It gave them the ability to bargain--along with their
employers--a living wage, pensions, the ability to retire with dignity.
But today, we are really debating how to hurt workers--that somehow
you get treated outside of the reservations in a humane way, where
casinos are operating in a very profitable way, but you cross that
line, and you are being treated differently. You are being treated less
than and doing it all under the guise of Native American sovereignty.
The vast majority of casinos on their properties are treated with
respect by employees. But they were able to get to some folks to
introduce this piece that somehow let them try to do it differently on
that line. When we cross it, you are less than. We can take advantage
of you, and we see that happen time after time.
I have been before the NLRB many times, had cases. I won many, but I
also lost them. But I always felt as if I was treated fairly. And that
is what we should be doing here, treating employees, no matter where
you are in this great country, fairly. It has been a decade since we
raised the minimum wage. And somehow, we are just looking for no reason
to hurt employees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to
the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, we want to respect the sovereign nations,
but we can't pick and choose the way we treat them. Certainly,
everybody who works in this great country deserves an opportunity to be
treated fairly.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Transport
Workers Union of America that talks about being fairly treated.

Transport Workders Union of America, AFL-CIO,
January 10, 2018.

Vote Alert: Vote NO on the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (S. 140)

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Transport Workers
Union of America (TWU), AFL-CIO, we write urging you to
oppose the

[[Page H123]]

Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. This bill (introduced as H.R.
986) has been paired with unrelated bills and packaged as
part of S. 140, which the House is expected to vote on today.
We urge you to oppose the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act by
voting NO on S. 140.
The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act would exempt from the
protections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
workers employed by tribal-owned and -operated commercial
enterprises located on tribal lands. Under this bill, the
NLRA rights and protections would be denied to more than
600,000 tribal casino workers, the vast majority of whom are
not Native American.
This bill would overturn a 2004 decision by the Bush
Administration's National Labor Relations Board (Board), in
which the Board applied the NLRA to a tribal casino (San
Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, 341 NLRB No. 138 (2004)). In
reaching this decision, the Board applied a test: the NLRA
will not apply if its application would ``touch exclusive
rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters.''
And, the NLRA will not apply if it would ``abrogate Indian
treaty rights.'' The Board also considered other factors,
including that the casino in question was a typical
commercial enterprise that catered to non-Native American
customers and employed non-Native Americans. While the Board
asserted NLRA protections in the San Manuel decision, it
ruled the opposite way, denying its jurisdiction in a
companion case (Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, 341 NLRB
No. 139 (2004)).
We understand the importance of tribal sovereignty and
support the principle in true self-governance matters. But
the fundamental human rights of employees are not the
exclusive concern of tribal enterprises or tribal
governments. While proponents of the bill falsely compare
tribal governments to state governments, they miss a glaring
truth: while state governments are exempt from NLRA
protections, their workers are eligible to vote for those who
set their labor laws. But the vast majority of the 600,000
casino workers who would be impacted by the Tribal Labor
Sovereignty Act are not Native Americans, and therefore have
no voice in the selection of those setting tribal policy nor
the ability to petition the tribal government to protect
their rights.
We object to a sweeping exemption of all tribal enterprises
from the NLRA, and believe the test used by the Board to
determine whether the NLRA is applicable should remain.
Unfortunately, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act has been
packaged with unrelated bills in an attempt to pressure
support for this particular bill. While TWU has no position
on the other bills contained in S. 140, we urge you vote NO
in opposition to the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act.

Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to really look inside
yourself. Is this the best way to treat employees? Is this how we help
lift up all of those workers? I think not, and I urge Members to reject
this attempt to hurt workers and not protect sovereignty.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of yielding 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the sponsor of this
legislation, as well as the chair of the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise in
strong support of this bill which includes a provision identical to the
legislation that I have been cosponsoring the last two Congresses, H.R.
986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. I also want to thank all of the
Members who came in support of this legislation here today and last
Congress from this side of the aisle who stood up for the rights of
sovereign nations, our friends, Native Americans, and who made very
clear the issue before us today.
It was mentioned by the naysayers on the other side of the aisle that
the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act, started in 1935. If you go
back to that legislation--and it still exists today in the same form--
you see that Federal, State, and local governments are exempted from
the act for good reason.
This was supposed to always be a private sector labor relations act
and bill. Now, we can argue the pros and cons of that all day long, but
that is not the debate here today. The fact of the matter is that
governments were specifically exempted.
Mr. Speaker, why does that not include our Native American friends
who have sovereign nations? You know, I took my two boys--Kathy and I
took my two boys, Ryan and Teddy, to a water park this year and last
year--two different cities in my district. Those cities operated the
water park. They owned it. We paid the fee. We went in. We used it.
The employees who worked there--and they were excellent--were exempt
from the NLRA. Yet the Democrats who pander to groups left and right
are now saying that they are for the sovereign rights of the
government, of our Native American Tribes, but they say this isn't that
bill. No, it is. It is that simple.
You are either for their sovereignty, Mr. Speaker, or you are not.
And that is all this bill does. It doesn't choose between friends. The
Democrats do not need to worry. It is either you are for people in
believing in their own destiny and manifesting it, or you think that
you have to subject them to your will. That is all this bill is about.
By the way, I think it is absolutely ridiculous--Dr. Roe asked the
question. I won't ask the question. I will put it in statement form. I
think it is absolutely ridiculous that some Members, Mr. Speaker, can
come to the floor of the House today and say that this is not an
important bill, that the rights of the governments of sovereign nations
aren't important, and that there are other things to do.
Yet, three times today, the Democrats motioned to adjourn the House,
wasting precious legislative time. This bill is supported by more than
150 Tribes. The chamber of commerce supports the bill. Four Democrats
cosponsor the bill, and I thank each of them for it. Last Congress, the
bill passed the House with bipartisan support. And, Mr. Speaker, I
suspect it will again today.
Let's get this job done. Let's support our Native American friends.
Let's support the sovereignty of the governments at the Federal, State,
and local level. Support this bill, especially subsection 3.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the
bill from the AFL-CIO.

AFL-CIO Legislative Alert

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2018.
Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, H.R. 986, which would deny
protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to a
large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and -
operated enterprises located on Indian land. Among these
workers are over 600,000 tribal casino workers, the vast
majority of whom are not Native Americans. In recent years,
the number and type of enterprises affected has grown well
beyond the gaming industry, and would now include mining
operations, power plants, smoke shops, saw mills,
construction companies, ski resorts, high-tech firms, hotels,
and spas. Many of these are commercial businesses that
compete with non-Indian enterprises. As proposed, the Tribal
Labor Sovereignty Act would strip all workers in these
enterprises of their rights and protections under the NLRA.
The House bill, introduced by Representative Rokita, would
overturn a decision by the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) in San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino, 341 NLRB No. 138
(2004), which applied the NLRA to a tribal casino enterprise.
In San Manuel, the NLRB looked to Supreme Court and circuit
court precedent to articulate a test for whether the NLRB
should assert jurisdiction over tribal enterprises, whether
located on tribal lands or outside them. (Before San Manuel,
NLRB jurisdiction was determined based solely on location: On
tribal land, the NLRB would forego jurisdiction; off tribal
land, the NLRB would assert jurisdiction. Under the San
Manuel test, the NLRA will not apply if its application would
``touch exclusive rights of self-governance in purely
intramural matters.'' Nor will the NLRA apply if it would
``abrogate Indian treaty rights.'' The Board in San Manuel
also considered other factors, including whether the casino
in question was a typical commercial enterprise, employed
non-Native Americans, and catered to non-Native American
customers.
In San Manuel, the Board concluded that applying the NLRA
would not interfere with the tribe's autonomy, and the
effects of the NLRA would not ``extend beyond the tribe's
business enterprise and regulate intramural matters.''
However, the test articulated in San Manuel provides a
careful balancing of tribal sovereignty interests with the
NLRA's federal labor law protections. In a companion case,
Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corp., 341 NLRB No. 139 (2004), the
Board tipped the balance the other way and didn't assert
jurisdiction.
The AFL-CIO supports the principle of sovereignty for
tribal governments, but does not believe that employers
should use this principle to deny workers their collective
bargaining rights and freedom of association. While the AFL-
CIO continues to support the concept of tribal sovereignty in
truly internal, self-governance matters, it is in no position
to repudiate fundamental human rights that belong to every
worker in every nation. Workers cannot be left without any
legally enforceable right to form unions and bargain
collectively in instances where they are

[[Page H124]]

working for a tribal enterprise which is simply a commercial
operation competing with non-tribal businesses.
The International Labour Organization (ILO), an agency of
the United Nations, has confirmed this view in response to a
question about whether excluding (from the NLRA) workers
employed on tribal lands would conform with principles of
freedom of association. These values are at the core of the
ILO Constitution and the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work. The Director for the
International Labour Standards Division wrote that in the
absence of tribal ordinances offering full protection of
internationally recognized rights, ``it is critical that the
State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility
for ensuring respect for freedom of association and
collective bargaining rights throughout its territory.'' In
other words, if the tribes themselves don't guarantee these
basic rights--and many do not, the U.S. government must not
abdicate its responsibility to protect them.
Notwithstanding the importance of the principle of tribal
sovereignty, the fundamental human rights of employees are
not the exclusive concern of tribal enterprises or tribal
governments. In fact, the vast majority of employees of these
commercial enterprises, such as casinos, are not Native
Americans. They therefore have no voice in setting tribal
policy and no recourse to tribal governments for the
protection of their rights.
The AFL-CIO opposes any effort to exempt on an across-the-
board basis all tribal enterprises from the NLRA, without
undertaking a specific review of all the circumstances--as
current NLRB standards provide. Where the enterprise employs
mainly Native American employees with mainly Native American
customers, and involves self-governance or intramural
affairs, leaving the matter to tribal governments may be
appropriate. However, where the business employs primarily
non-Native American employees and caters to primarily non-
Native American customers, there is no basis for depriving
employees of their rights and protections under the National
Labor Relations Act.
Sincerely,
William Samuel, Director,
Government Affairs Department.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about State
and local being exempt and Tribes not being exempt. Well, that was a
decision made way back when. The law specifically exempts State and
local. Maybe it should; maybe it didn't; but it did. Tribes were not
specifically exempted.
So in conclusion, this bill will strip hundreds of thousands of
employees of the right to join a union. Where some Tribes have Tribal
labor ordinances that are fair and workable, others do not. And at
least one expressly prohibits the formation of unions.
There is no principal basis for excluding these workers from coverage
under labor law just because they happen to work in a commercial
enterprise on Tribal lands. If this bill will come into law, it will be
the first rollback of workers' rights under Federal law in over 70
years, and it may well place the United States in violation of several
international trade agreements.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a telling debate. Again, I think the key
question here, as has been asked by so many colleagues: Are Native
American Tribes government entities; are they sovereign? The only
answer that we can respond with is: Absolutely, yes. They are
sovereign. This is not an issue debating NLRB or NLRA. It is going back
to what we have established already that, in fact, a sovereign nation,
just like a State or local government, is free from the intervention of
NLRB.
In this case, a sovereign nation has that right. Just as a reminder,
over 150 Native American organizations have asked for this legislative
effort to be achieved. Why? Because it was working fine up until 2004,
and NLRB then came arbitrarily in--sometimes yes, sometimes not--
intervening, but, ultimately, they were changing the system in place.
While we are moving back to letting the sovereignty reign in these
Native American Tribes, yet we need to make it very clear for the
future and not go back to what has precipitated this change.
The bill amends the National Labor Relations Act to clarify that the
law does not apply to any enterprise or institution owned and operated
by an Indian Tribe and located on Tribal land. It protects the
sovereignty of Native American Tribes, reaffirming they are afforded
the same rights and protections enjoyed by State and local government.
It ensures Tribes have control over their labor relations and can
determine what is best for the workplaces. It eliminates legal
confusion and uncertainty that is hindering the ability of Tribal
governments to serve their citizens.
Mr. Speaker, that is what it does. It reasserts and reaffirms what we
have already said in law. And for that reason, I ask my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 681, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of S. 140 will be followed by 5-minute votes on:
Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4567; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 173, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 11]

AYES--239

Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beyer
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--173

Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)

[[Page H125]]

Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Demings
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch

NOT VOTING--19

Adams
Brooks (IN)
Carbajal
Cummings
DeSaulnier
Gabbard
Gaetz
Hanabusa
Jenkins (WV)
Kind
McHenry
McNerney
Nolan
Scalise
Scott, David
Shuster
Turner
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

{time} 1809

Messrs. CROWLEY, KATKO, and SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HECK, BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, and ZELDIN changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________