[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 169 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8260-H8271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRIBAL LABOR SOVEREIGNTY ACT OF 2015
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 526,
I call up the bill (H.R. 511) to clarify the rights of Indians and
Indian tribes on Indian lands under the National Labor Relations Act,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 526, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, printed in the bill, shall be considered
as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 511
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act
of 2015''.
SEC. 2. 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:
[[Page H8261]]
``(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
individual or held by any Indian tribe or individual 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 gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. 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 H.R. 511.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 511, the Tribal
Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015. There are more than 550 federally
recognized Native American tribes across the United States. Each of
these tribes has a unique history and distinct culture that have helped
shape who they are today. And each tribe has an inherent right to self
govern, just like any other sovereign government does.
That right 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 10 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.
Now, if the Board were to do the same with a school, a park, or any
other enterprise owned and operated by a State or local government, no
Member of Congress would stand for it. Why, then, should we stand back
and allow the NLRB to impose its will on businesses owned and operated
by Native American tribes? The answer is simple: we shouldn't. In fact,
we have a responsibility to protect tribal sovereignty, and that is
exactly what H.R. 511 will do.
The bill under consideration will 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 they have a sovereign right to do.
I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), my
colleague, for his leadership on this issue and for continuing the work
of 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, stand with the Native American community, and restore to Indian
tribes the ability to govern their own labor relations.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Tribal Labor Sovereignty
Act of 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act
of 2015, legislation that would strip employees of protections afforded
under the National Labor Relations Act at any enterprise owned by an
Indian tribe and located on Indian lands.
At issue are two solemn and deeply-rooted principles: one, the right
of Indian tribes to possess as distinct independent political
communities retaining their original rights in matters of local self-
government; and, two, the rights of workers to organize, bargain
collectively, and engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid
and protection.
Rather than attempting to reconcile these two competing principles,
H.R. 4511 chooses sovereignty for some over the longstanding rights of
others. This bill strips hundreds of thousands of workers of their
voice in tribal-owned workplaces such as casinos, hotels, and mines. It
should be noted that some 600,000 workers are employed in tribal
casinos, but fully 75 percent are not members of tribes.
This legislation would jettison a carefully drawn balance between
tribal sovereignty and workers' rights that was adopted in 2004 by a
Republican-led NLRB. That decision, known as the San Manuel Indian
Bingo and Casino, restricted the jurisdiction of the NLRB if it touches
on the exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters
or aggregated rights guaranteed under treaties.
Furthermore, the NLRB stated that it would also take into account and
accommodate the unique status of Indians in their society and legal
culture in deciding NLRB jurisdiction.
The San Manuel decision has been upheld in every appeals court where
it has been challenged, and it is based on legal precepts that have
been upheld by appellate courts over 30 years. The courts have also
noted that the tribal casinos are commercial enterprises, not
government agencies like the Department of Education, serving
predominantly non-tribal clients and hiring predominantly non-tribal
members to operate.
By depriving these workers of the right to organize and bargain
collectively, this legislation ensures that low-paid service workers in
tribal casinos will lose the opportunity to share in the fruits of the
wealth that they are creating for the tribe, and depriving them of the
opportunity to climb the ladder into the middle class.
{time} 1400
The bill also sets up a double standard. As a member of the
International Labor Organization, the United States is obligated, as a
government, to respect and promote the rights outlined in the ILO
Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, including
``the freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to
collectively bargain.''
The Democrats and Republicans have insisted that our trading partners
abide by and enforce these basic labor rights, and Congress has
repeatedly ratified these obligations in trade agreements. But today
the House will vote on a bill that does just the opposite when it comes
to the freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain at
tribal enterprises.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Speaker, Federal rulemaking continues to hurt the
people of Michigan's Fourth Congressional District.
As we have already seen, Federal departments and agencies have
proposed overreaching water rules that create uncertainty for Michigan
farmers, energy rules that raise electric rates on hardworking
families, and healthcare rules that disrupt patients' coverage.
Now Federal rulemaking is interfering with the sovereignty of Native
American tribes. The National Labor Relations Board has claimed
jurisdiction over the commercial businesses on tribal lands, intruding
on the self-governance of the Saginaw Chippewa in my district.
Today I rise in support of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty
Act, to restore self-governance for the Saginaw Chippewa and all tribes
and to stop the National Labor Relations Board from further hindering
business owners and entrepreneurs with more regulations and costs.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
[[Page H8262]]
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my record in support of tribal
sovereignty. I have been a member of the Native American Caucus since
2012. I supported the legislative fix to Carcieri v. Salazar, a Supreme
Court decision that overturned 75 years of Federal Indian policy.
I cosponsored the Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or
Peoples in Trademark Registration Act, and I have actually stood out in
the street calling for the Washington football team to change its name
because of the ugliness of what that represents.
And, of course, I was proud, proud to be a sponsor and a supporter of
the Violence Against Women Act, which authorized tribal governments to
exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over any
individual that commits domestic violence, dating violence or any kind
of violence, and to protect men and women on the tribal areas.
In short, I am a person who is very proudly and affirmatively for
tribal sovereignty and tribal rights.
However, the right to form and work in a labor organization and the
right to have rights on your job is also a very important right, and I
cannot see why we cannot fashion legislation which protects both tribal
sovereignty and the right of labor.
This bill unfortunately takes rights away from some in order to
purportedly give them to the other.
I urge my friends who are tempted to vote for this legislation to ask
themselves what they are giving up and what they are getting.
We could fashion legislation to look out for tribes. We could work
together. But, instead, what we are doing is simply using a wedge issue
to try to divide two very important principles, labor rights and tribal
rights.
I am going to vote against this. I hope that all Members do. I hope
that people who believe in tribal rights and sovereignty know that this
is not about not supporting sovereignty, because I support it. But I
believe that this Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is going to do something
very damaging to all workers, including tribal members.
We should be supporting all people, including tribal members' right
to form unions, to be in a labor organization, which is their very best
shot at getting into the middle class.
We know that union members earn $207 a week more than nonunion
counterparts. This is why some business interests, not all, hate
unions, because they just don't want to have a fair economy. They want
to hoard the wealth of the company for themselves.
Workers who are in the union are far more likely to have retirement
benefits, paid sick leave, and other medical benefits. Workers who have
organized at their casinos have turned low-wage service sector jobs
into good-paying jobs with benefits. This legislation would take those
jobs away.
Therefore, I must oppose it, and I urge all my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter), my friend and colleague on the Education
and the Workforce Committee and a veteran of this great Nation.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good doctor from Tennessee. I
want to thank my Republican colleagues, Mr. Rokita especially, for
bringing this important matter to a vote today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor
Sovereignty Act.
In this House, we often speak about the importance of ensuring and
protecting tribal sovereignty. This bill does just that. The measure
treats tribal governments like we do any other government entity in
this country by excluding them from the onerous coverage under the
National Labor Relations Act.
In my district in San Diego and Riverside County, California, I
represent 18 different tribes in Congress. That is more than anybody
else in this House. They vary in size, tradition, and economic wealth,
but they share one thing in common. They are all sovereign nations.
This sovereignty ensures that they have jurisdiction over their
territory. And, remember, the American people made a promise to these
tribes that they can govern themselves on their own land. This should
especially apply in areas that this bill seeks to address.
I think it is ludicrous that the National Labor Relations Board
thinks that they have purview over American Indian tribes.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 511.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, we live in the land of opportunity, and
certainly many of the people who are being discussed here today
understand that, for a very long time, it was not fair and not equal,
because that is what we are truly discussing today, having a level
playing field.
This year is the 80th anniversary of the National Labor Relations
Act, which, quite frankly, gave rise to the middle class as we know it
here in America today. But time after time, on both sides of the aisle,
we hear how the discrepancies between those who are on the lower end
and the one-percenters is growing wider.
So why am I talking about this when we are talking about this tribal
bill? Because that is what we are really talking about.
See, there is a mechanism in place already that addresses this issue.
It is a three-part test that has worked very well not only with the
NLRB, but in the courts it has been working very well.
So this is a bill that is looking for a problem, because the true
test of what is going on here today is trying to take those rights of
having a level playing field away from those who don't have a voice.
Well, we stand here today as that voice.
My career was as an electrician who later had the opportunity to
become a business agent. I have been to National Labor Relations Boards
many, many times. I have lost some. I have won some. But one thing I
can tell you is it was a fair fight. And that is what we want to give
those on tribal lands, a fair fight.
Just because they are tribal lands doesn't mean that none of our
laws, history, and traditions apply to them. In fact, just the
opposite. That three-part test has stood the test of time and has given
a fair shot.
So what we are really talking about today is those who have the most
abusing those who have the least, not giving them an opportunity to
have a voice in the workplace so that they can have the American Dream.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against this very unfair,
misguided bill and to give those who need it most that voice. That is
what we are elected to do. I urge my colleagues to vote against this.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the chairman for his good work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation that I am proud
to cosponsor, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015.
It has long been a priority of this Congress to protect tribal
sovereignty. These lands and their people should be free from
bureaucratic intrusion, as they are sovereign nations.
However, the National Labor Relations Board has once again
overstepped its authority to expand its jurisdiction over tribal lands,
creating a cloud of uncertainty for tribal leaders.
This legislation allows tribes to operate as they should, free from
the threat of intrusion from the National Labor Relations Board. Much
like states' rights, this legislation puts the power back in the hands
of local tribal governments so they can make decisions in their best
interest.
During a time of political and partisan gridlock, empowering tribes
and the lives of their people is a bipartisan issue that both sides
should be able to find common ground on. We need to protect tribal
lands from Washington's constant overreach.
I will continue to work to ensure tribal sovereignty is not infringed
upon.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 511. One of the most important
things
[[Page H8263]]
we can do in this body is help the middle class to have every
opportunity for their family.
While the economy has been rebounding, unfortunately, wages for the
middle class have remained flat. Productivity is up. Profits are up.
CEO pay is up. But wages for most workers have remained flat. Now we
have a bill before us that will make it harder for hundreds of
thousands of workers by taking away National Labor Relations Act
protections from them.
Now, the promoters of this legislation say this bill is designed to
protect sovereignty. While I strongly support tribal sovereignty, this
bill is not about that.
There are a number of Federal laws 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, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the public
accommodations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, just for
starters.
This bill isn't about meaningful sovereignty. It is about selective
sovereignty because it only excludes labor rights, which makes this a
labor bill, not a sovereignty bill.
It would even affect workers who already have collective bargaining
agreements, stripping away the rights they have collectively fought for
and have agreed to.
Many of the advocates for this bill are hardly credible on this. The
U.S. Chamber and other organizations have never taken strong stances on
tribal issues in the past, issues like spearfishing and mascot names in
my home State of Wisconsin or funding to address the crumbling
infrastructure of Bureau of Indian Affairs schools.
But suddenly they support sovereignty. Well, history says otherwise.
If this bill is about sovereignty, exempt OSHA and ERISA and FMLA and
ADA, for starters--that would be a sovereignty bill--or require the
tribes at least to have their own labor relations boards, which they
don't have.
This bill only exempts labor protections for hundreds of thousands of
workers, both tribal members and nonmembers. Those affected workers
will be denied their fundamental rights under this bill, and that is
what this is really about.
Mr. Speaker, if this body wants to help tribes, I am here to help. If
you want to make it easier for Federal tribes to be recognized via the
Carcieri fix, I am in.
If you want to provide more adequate funding for Indian Health
Services and exempt them from future sequestration cuts, where do I
sign up?
If you want to provide funding for the maintenance infrastructure as
well as the educational needs for Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, I
am with you.
{time} 1415
If you want to address some of the Tax Code disparities that hinder
tribes from encouraging economic development on their lands, especially
renewable energy projects, let's do that bill. But we are not
addressing the real pressing issues that affect tribes in our country.
Instead, we are only going after workers' rights in the veil of tribal
sovereignty, and that is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, in hearing testimony at our
subcommittee hearing, a number of Indian tribes have labor boards at
their particular reservation, so I just want to have that in for the
Record.
Also, all we are asking for is to treat the Indian tribes exactly the
same as local or State governments are treated. If they are sovereign,
they are sovereign; if they are not, they are not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need today to catalog the litany of promises
made and broken by this government to the American Indian nations. The
sum total of these broken promises amounted to the banishment of these,
the first Americans, to the most desolate and undesirable lands in the
Nation. We left them with one thing and one thing only. We left them
sovereignty over their lands.
In the past half century, many of these tribes have created, from
that sovereignty, great engines of prosperity with which to provide for
themselves and their posterity; and suddenly, our government's
disinterest in their welfare, its benign neglect of their affairs, has
changed. Now that they are prosperous, our government has developed a
canine appetite to intervene in their affairs.
For 70 years after the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act,
the Federal Government recognized the internal independence of these
tribal governments established of, by, and for their rightful members.
It recognized that unless Congress specified otherwise, the Indian
nations were free to conduct their own affairs on their sovereign lands
and to organize their enterprises according to their own traditions,
customs, conditions, and necessities--that is, until 2004, when the
National Labor Relations Board decided to shatter these decades of
legal precedents and usurp the legislative powers of the Congress.
The NLRA was never intended to apply to governments, and the American
Indian nations have always been recognized as governments--that is,
until the NLRB decided to radically and fundamentally change the law
that created it in the first place.
The question before the House is whether Congress will reassert its
authority over a rogue executive agency and, for a change, honor the
promises of tribal sovereignty made to these nations more than 100
years ago.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for
yielding and for his leadership in support of working men and women.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am a strong supporter of tribal
sovereignty and believe that we must recognize the rights of tribal
governments. But I am also a strong supporter of labor rights, the
ability of hardworking men and women to join together in collective
bargaining to improve their workplace and the lives of their families.
Union membership has many advantages: higher wages, better benefits,
and safer working conditions. It is no coincidence that we have seen
the middle class shrink dramatically at the same time that union
membership has declined. That is why we need to act to expand labor
rights and why we should be concerned about the bill before us.
I believe that the 2004 National Labor Relations Board decision in
San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino struck the appropriate balance between
respecting tribal sovereignty and upholding labor rights. In its
decision, the NLRB stated the National Labor Relations Act does not
apply if it would undermine the ``exclusive rights of self-governance
in purely intramural matters'' or ``abrogate Indian treaty rights.''
However, the NLRB clarified that labor law would apply if an entity is
a purely commercial enterprise and employs or caters to individuals who
are not tribal members. That is an appropriate test, whether we are
talking about casinos or construction companies, hotels and resorts, or
mines or power plants.
H.R. 511 would overturn the NLRB's carefully crafted decision and
could take away existing bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands
of workers. We know that workers at tribally owned casinos have
benefited from union membership. A UNITE HERE! union study of tribal
casino workers in California documented higher wages, lower healthcare
costs, and less worker reliance on public benefits like Medicaid to
meet the needs of their families. Employers, too, gain when workers are
more productive and turnover is reduced.
We have real-world examples of how unions have helped workers. Gary
Navarro, a Pomo Nation member employed at Graton Casino & Resort,
testified before the Education and the Workforce Committee that ``I
became active in my union because of unjust treatment of casino workers
by the managers and how nothing could be done about even sexual
harassment because of sovereignty. Exercising our right to organize
turned out to be the only way to protect ourselves and our coworkers.''
Madeline, a worker at Foxwoods, was suspended because she was forced
to clock out when she went to see a nurse for a work-related injury,
which put
[[Page H8264]]
her over the casino's attendance points system. Her union won her
reinstatement and backpay. And the company provided a mandatory OSHA
training program for management.
Jenny Langlois, at Foxwoods, benefited from a union contract that
gave her the time she needed to receive treatment for breast cancer.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 511 would result in the loss of those gains, and,
by eliminating NLRA rights, could deny them to many more workers in the
future. By doing so, it would leave those workers without any avenue to
bargain collectively, ensure fair compensation, or seek redress for
workplace injuries.
Three out of four of the 600,000 workers employed in tribal casinos
are not tribal members. They do not have full access to internal,
tribal mechanisms for filing grievances or petitioning for changes in
policy. And while some tribal governments have labor laws that apply to
commercial operations, many don't, and there is no guarantee that those
who have them will not change or eliminate them in the future. By
eliminating NLRA rights, workers could have no place to turn to push
for labor rights, to appeal unfair firings or disciplinary action, or
to take action against sexual harassment.
H.R. 511 would affect more than the gaming industry, including
construction workers, miners, and hotel workers. That is why the
International Labour Organization has stated 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 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.''
But there is no such requirement in H.R. 511. It would preempt NLRA
coverage. But there are other Federal laws that apply to tribes,
including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Why should we single out
the NLRA, the law that gives workers bargaining rights? Or will we be
asked to eliminate those other important protections in the future?
Mr. Speaker, proponents of the bill argue that it is designed to
provide equal treatment for tribal nations with State and local
governments, but there are key distinctions.
First, we are talking here not about people who work directly for
tribal governments but for workers in commercial enterprises. Most
States and localities don't operate huge commercial entities that hire
the majority of workers from outside of their jurisdictions.
Second, if State or local workers want to push for laws to obtain or
protect collective bargaining rights, they have the ability to
participate in the political process and vote in elections. That is one
reason that the vast majority of State and local public employees have
those rights. Non-tribal workers at tribal-operated commercial
enterprises lack that ability. They don't vote in tribal elections, and
they have no direct ability to affect labor policies for tribal
governments.
Mr. Speaker, we should fight for workplace rights and support the
balanced approach taken by the NLRB. I ask my colleagues to join in
opposing this bill.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer.)
Mr. EMMER of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of
2015.
Minnesota is a proud home to seven Ojibwe reservations and four
Dakota communities. We have a strong and deep Native American history
and are proud of the work we have accomplished through centuries of
working together.
The Federal Government has long recognized that Native American
tribes have the capacity and ability to govern themselves in an
efficient and meaningful manner that is consistent with their heritage.
The legislation being discussed today is of grave importance to the
communities that have contributed so much to our Nation's history.
The intent of the National Labor Rights Act passed in 1935 was never
to include tribal governments within its jurisdiction. It is
unfortunate that some are seeking to take advantage of a once well-
intended law, but it is now up to Congress to do the right thing and
expressly clarify that tribal governments are exempt from the National
Labor Relations Act.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). The gentleman from Virginia
has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Tennessee has 21\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to also say to my friend from Tennessee (Mr.
Roe), he and I are good friends and have done a lot of work together,
but on this we disagree.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the National Labor Relations Act
were at issue on this floor today, my belief is--I may be wrong--that
many of the people who will vote for this bill would be for repealing
the National Labor Relations Act. That is a fair place to be, I
suppose, but that is essentially what we are talking about here.
I can't think of anyone in this House who does not believe strongly
in the principle of protecting the sovereignty of American tribes and
their governments. I know surely that is where I am. I presume all 434
of my colleagues are there. It is the least we can do, having treated
the Native Americans so badly when we got here and thereafter.
We agree that when tribal governments are carrying out inherently
government functions--that is the key. It is the key for the courts; it
ought to be the key for us--their sovereignty is fully, and should be,
secure under current law. But this bill goes a lot further than
reinforcing that understanding.
Instead, this bill extends the current understanding of sovereignty
not from what it is, but it is in an effort to undermine the rights for
working men and women in this country, which is why, for all Americans,
we cannot get a minimum wage bill on this floor, which is $7.25, which
is now 7 years in being, and would be, if we paid the same in 1968 for
the minimum wage, $10.68 today. It is the same principle, we can't get
it on the floor. For all Americans--not just Indian Americans--for all
Americans, Native Americans, it undermines their rights, rights that
every Member of this House also ought to support.
Democrats are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Native
American tribal communities across this country, and we are going to
continue working with them to fight for more investment in education.
Hear me. We need to put our money where our mouth is: Native American
housing, health care, education, along with continuing to protect their
sovereignty in governing themselves according to their cultures and
traditions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from
Maryland an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, what we do not support is taking away protections from
American workers, Native and non-Native alike, who work in commercial
enterprises owned by tribes. All of our people deserve the chance to
earn a decent living, be safe at work, and reach for a better life.
This bill is not a step in the right direction.
Courts have ruled that tribes must also comply with other laws. I
want to adopt the comments of the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Courts have ruled that tribes must also comply with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act and many
criminal laws, among others. Should we repeal that and have unhealthy
working conditions in commercial enterprises? Perhaps that is the next
bill you will bring forward in the name of Native sovereignty.
{time} 1430
Why is the NLRA being singled out from among these laws of general
applicability by the proponents of this bill? I suggested why at the
beginning
[[Page H8265]]
of my comments: because that side does not support National Labor
Relations Act rights.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. Given that there is no logical distinction to explain why
these other laws should apply to tribes but the NLRA should not, the
only plausible explanation is that this legislation is a precursor of
other legislation and says, once again, we do not support the rights of
Americans to collectively bargain for pay, benefits, safety, and
working conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to send a strong and unequivocal
message--two messages: A, we support strongly the sovereignty of our
tribes, but, secondly, we also support the decency and safety and pay
of working Americans, tribes and non-tribes alike.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, many Federal labor laws
specifically exclude Indian tribes from the definition of employer,
including title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title I of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act. In contrast, statutes of general
application, including the NLRA; Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act; Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA;
Fair Labor Standards Act; Family and Medical Leave Act; and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, are silent in their application
to Indian tribes. Federal courts have held that the statutes of general
application--specifically, FLSA and ERISA--do apply. Otherwise, they do
not.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota
(Mrs. Noem), my good friend, which I had the privilege of visiting her
beautiful State about a month ago.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everyone, in light of the
debate that we have had today here on the floor, that this bill is
extremely bipartisan. It is supported by tribes all across the Nation.
It is something that they have been asking us for. In fact, in the last
two Congresses, I carried the bill. I was the sponsor of it because it
needs to be done, and I was asked to do so by tribes across the
country.
This is an issue of sovereignty. No other level of government in the
country is subject to the National Labor Relations Act. It is time that
Congress clarifies the law and reaffirms its commitment to tribal
governments and self-determination.
The bipartisan policy of economic development through self-
determination has helped create economic opportunity in Indian country.
Tribes across the country and in my home State of South Dakota work
daily to overcome the high rates of poverty and unemployment that they
face. They continue to develop their businesses and lands for the
benefit of their people and communities. The last thing that they need
is to have the National Labor Relations Board meddling in their
economic development affairs when they are trying to make life better
for the people who live in their communities.
I urge my colleagues to support tribal sovereignty, support tribal
governments, and vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the fine gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill today.
While this administration has been eager to recognize tribes, too
often it fails to also recognize their sovereign rights, imposing
onerous Federal requirements on tribes' management of their own lands
and livelihoods, which is very important in my own First District of
California, home of many recognized tribes.
This measure rectifies a clear overreach yet again of this
administration by rolling back National Labor Relations Board
regulations that impose Federal labor laws on tribal businesses located
on their own tribal land never intended under the NLRA.
Mr. Speaker, sovereign status doesn't mean that tribes may manage
their own affairs only now and then, or only when the administration
chooses. It means tribes have a right to self-government in every
aspect of their affairs.
It is time that this House reaffirm its constitutional role, defined
in article I, section 8, and lead the Federal Government in its
relations with Indian tribes, not this overreaching board.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) and thank him for his service to this great
Nation.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
Really this whole matter and discussion is pretty simple: Article I,
section 8, Congress shall have the power ``to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian
tribes''--explicit language in the Constitution that we all defend and
that I have defended since I was 18.
It is the purview of this Congress, not the rulemakers of the
National Labor Relations Board, to regulate commerce.
This Nation must continue to recognize the rights of Indian tribal
sovereignty, and this Congress must uphold the Constitution and
sovereign treaties with those tribes.
Those opposed to this bill, Mr. Speaker, say that it will take away
the rights of workers. As a Representative from Oklahoma, whose Fifth
District has more than 13 percent Native American, our largest
minority, our constituents know that the actions of the rulemakers will
take away the rights of sovereign tribes. Congress must restore these
rights with the passage of this bill.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 17 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, self-reliance and self-governance need to be more than
liberal buzzwords if we are going to make a difference, if they are
going to have any meaning at all. And I find some of the comments of
the opposition to be quite rich in contradiction. Unfortunately, they
are similar to the comments that President Obama had this morning when
he announced his opposition to this legislation, stating that he could
not support the bill unless tribal governments adopted his view. In
other words, they have to be identical to his views in order to have
sovereignty. Well, this isn't sovereignty at all.
The President often likes to say that he honors and respects tribal
sovereignty. In fact, I heard him say that he respects it as much as
any President, right while standing in the powwow grounds in Cannon
Ball, North Dakota, last summer.
Yet when presented with this opportunity--and it is not the only
opportunity we presented, by the way--the Native American Energy Act
and gas-gathering pipeline bills have done the same thing, trying to
give sovereignty where sovereignty is to be given. And, actually, it is
not given to them; it is held by them.
So I call on Congress and President Obama to respect the rights of
tribes and pass this legislation into law.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham).
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, which would clarify
Federal law, restore parity for tribal governments, and protect tribal
autonomy.
As you have heard today, tribes have a right to govern themselves,
manage their own land, and regulate tribal enterprises according to
their own culture, traditions, and law. They have
[[Page H8266]]
the right to regulate labor relations with their employees as a result,
and I expect tribal governments to view this legislation, in fact, as
an opportunity to strengthen their own worker protections.
No worker, as you have also heard today, should be without a voice or
an ability to petition their employer for stronger benefits or a better
work environment. In fact, many tribes across the country and in New
Mexico have developed labor ordinances that, in fact, protect these
rights.
During negotiations of the 1999 tribal-State gaming compact, Indian
tribes in California agreed to adopt the Model Tribal Labor Relations
Ordinance in order to strengthen worker protections.
Although this bill does not prevent similar tribal efforts to protect
workers, I am disappointed that it doesn't do anything to promote
stronger tribal labor practices.
Congress should provide tribes the resources they need to develop and
implement labor laws and regulations at Native American enterprises.
Employee protections and tribal autonomy are not opposing values.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to work for protecting
workers' rights.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to read portions of a Statement of Administration
Policy, issued by the Executive Office of the President:
``The administration is deeply committed to respecting tribal
sovereignty and maintaining government-to-government relationships with
Indian tribes as well as to protecting American workers and enforcing
Federal labor laws. The administration cannot support H.R. 511, the
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015, as currently drafted, because it
does not include the provisions as explained below.''
Going on:
``The administration is encouraged by the efforts of some tribal
governments to balance these important interests and find common ground
when formulating compacts to operate casinos on tribal land under the
Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In several of these compacts,
tribes have agreed to establish their own labor relations policies.
Though these compacts differ on minor details, what they have in common
is that they generally protect tribal self-governance while also
ensuring that most casino workers retain important and effective labor
rights.
``It is thus possible to protect both tribal sovereignty and workers'
rights, and the administration can only support approaches that
accomplish that result. Therefore, the administration can support a
bill which recognizes tribal sovereignty in formulating labor relations
law and exempts tribes from the jurisdiction of the National Labor
Relations Board only if the tribes adopt labor standards and procedures
applicable to tribally owned and operated commercial enterprises
reasonably equivalent to those in the National Labor Relations Act.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy.
Statement of Administrative Policy
H.R. 511--Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015
(Rep. Rokita, R-IN, Nov. 17, 2015)
The Administration is deeply committed to respecting tribal
sovereignty and maintaining government-to-government
relationships with Indian tribes as well as to protecting
American workers and enforcing Federal labor laws. The
Administration cannot support H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor
Sovereignty Act of 2015, as currently drafted, because it
does not include the provisions as explained below.
The President's commitment to tribal sovereignty has taken
many forms--from establishing the White House Council on
Native American Affairs, to reaffirming tribal authority to
prosecute non-Indians under the Violence Against Women Act,
and to promoting tribal self-determination by signing into
law the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal
Homeownership (HEARTH) Act so that tribes may lease their
lands without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.
At the same time, the President is firmly dedicated to
protecting American workers. The Administration vigorously
enforces Federal labor laws and has repeatedly emphasized the
importance of strengthening workers' rights to collective
bargaining.
The Administration is encouraged by the efforts of some
tribal governments to balance these important interests and
find common ground when formulating compacts to operate
casinos on tribal land under the Federal Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act. In several of these compacts, tribes have
agreed to establish their own labor relations policies.
Though these compacts differ on minor details, what they have
in common is that they generally protect tribal self-
governance while also ensuring that most casino workers
retain important and effective labor rights.
It is thus possible to protect both tribal sovereignty and
workers' rights, and the Administration can only support
approaches that accomplish that result. Therefore, the
Administration can support a bill which recognizes tribal
sovereignty in formulating labor relations law and exempts
tribes from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations
Board only if the tribes adopt labor standards and procedures
applicable to tribally-owned and operated commercial
enterprises reasonably equivalent to those in the National
Labor Relations Act. Amended legislation would also need to
include an authorization for funding to support the
development and implementation of tribal labor laws and
regulations.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I guess what sovereignty means for
an Indian reservation is you can be sovereign as long as we tell you
what to do.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). New
Mexico has been a very active voice on this issue.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, says it all. All we are
trying to do is to provide Native American tribes the sovereignty and
autonomy they deserve, ensuring that they have the same rights as other
businesses off the reservation, and that they have the same standards
as States and local governments.
Now, we have heard on this floor from those who reject the bill,
those who oppose it, about where after is decency, safety, and pay. I
am proud of New Mexico. I represent the tribes. And I will tell you we
are falling far short of those objectives of those who oppose the bill.
Many of the tribes are looking to get into their own businesses now.
They want to compete off reservation. They want to put tribal members
to work. But they are hamstrung by the National Labor Relations Board,
which currently chooses on a case-by-case basis which tribes are
regulated and which are not. They are dependent on the government to
give them permission. That is not what sovereignty sounds like in New
Mexico, and tribes across this country are rejecting the status quo,
saying: Let us move forward. Let us be in charge of our own destiny. We
do not want to be responsible--we don't want to be wards of the
government any longer. Give us our freedom to compete.
I see tribal companies that could compete easily if they are allowed
to by this government. And just the phrase being ``allowed to by this
government'' is one that chafes, and should chafe, Native Americans.
So the resulting confusion from the current status quo, which is
trying to provide decency, safety, and pay, and is not doing that, the
confusion from some being chosen and some not being chosen is one that
needs to be overturned. H.R. 511 does that. I rise to support it, and
appreciate the gentleman's time.
{time} 1445
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 511.
When Congress originally passed the National Labor Relations Act in
1935, Congress exempted Federal, State, and local governments from the
definition of employer. What we have seen since then, Mr. Speaker, is
that local units of government have allowed labor unions to develop,
and we have seen the growth and the development of the middle class
because labor unions have been in place.
Nowhere in the NLRA are Indian tribes mentioned. For nearly 60 years,
the NLRB treated tribes as local units of government and the Board
declined to apply the NLRA over tribal activities in Indian Country.
However, in
[[Page H8267]]
2004, the NLRB abruptly reversed course with the San Manuel ruling,
asserting that the NLRA does apply to tribal enterprises. The ruling
meant that tribes would no longer be treated as local units of
government.
H.R. 511 is a narrow legislative fix that simply adds tribal
governments to the list of other governments that are specifically
excluded from the definition of employer in the NLRA. This bill simply
ensures that the American Indian tribes are treated with parity, as our
other local units of government are treated.
As a longtime labor advocate, I support this bill because I believe
in tribal sovereignty. I have seen tribes afford their workers good
pay, good health care and benefits. I respect their sovereignty, and I
respect them to do as our cities and our States do. Sovereignty means
respecting the individual authority and the decisionmaking of our
country's first nations. That is what H.R. 511 does.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a few of the things we have not
heard on the other side of the aisle. I have heard a lot about
sovereignty, but we have asked explicitly about other areas, one being
OSHA. We have asked explicitly about ERISA. We have asked explicitly
about the ADA. Why aren't those in here if this is a sovereignty bill
and not just an antilabor bill?
In fact, on the Education and the Workforce Committee, I don't think
a month goes by, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have a hearing that attacks
the National Labor Relations Board and their actions or some other
labor-related activity. It happens as often as you can imagine.
Yet, here we are being told this is really about sovereignty, but we
don't really engage in a debate about sovereignty. Where we have a
problem is on the labor front and what it would mean to working
people--to the hundreds of thousands of people, 700,000 people-plus--
who would lose their rights if this were to be passed.
One of the things that was said that is simply not correct is that a
number of tribes have their own labor practices. Here is the reality.
According to labor employment law in Indian Country--in a book from
2011 that is specifically about labor law and tribes--of the 567
federally recognized tribes, ``few tribes have implemented labor
ordinances, other than right-to-work provisions, to govern labor
organizations and collective bargaining.''
In fact, when you look at specific tribes, what has been passed, all
too often, unfortunately, are things like right to work, which takes
away the ability to have that collective bargaining right.
If we are going to have this debate about sovereignty, let's talk
about sovereignty, let's talk about the funding for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs' schools, let's talk about lifting some of those tax
laws that make it harder for them to invest in renewable energy. Let's
talk about those laws and not just the ones you want to.
This is like when I was a kid. When I had to take a pill, it came in
the middle of something sweet. You are trying to take something really
bad, like taking away workers' rights, and are putting it in a tribal
bill because we support the tribes and because we support the unions,
and you want to split that up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. POCAN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we just want to have that debate.
Let's talk about sovereignty. But I am not hearing anything about the
other issues that affect the tribes.
I have a tribe in my district, as we have many tribes in Wisconsin,
and I have had a good, long relationship in my time in the legislature
with these tribes. I have fought on behalf of changing Indian mascot
names. I have fought on behalf of making sure that they have
spearfishing rights in the State of Wisconsin.
The U.S. Chamber and all of those groups were never there. The U.S.
Chamber is only here because they want to go after workers' rights.
This bill is only here because you want to go after workers' rights.
Let's just be honest about it.
If you want to have a debate on sovereignty, talk about the many
issues we have brought up, because that is not what this bill is about.
I support tribal sovereignty. I also support the many people who work
in these facilities. We have to ensure that they still have the
protections. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, certainly what we are after here
today are the rights of Native Americans, whose rights have been
trampled on by this country. We have had treaty after treaty that we
have ignored. Maybe we can finally, with this piece of legislation, get
one right here.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), my very
good friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman not only for the time, but for his
leadership on the committee and in helping bring the bill to the point
it is today.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a new product. It has been around for
about 10 years. But it hasn't gone as far as it has gone today. That is
a compliment to all of the proponents of the bill, to Members like
Kristi Noem, who has talked earlier and who had this bill in the past,
to Members like Chairman John Kline, who has carried it in the past,
and all the way back to J.D. Hayworth. We thank them all for getting us
here. I, for one, am a Member who has picked up this product and has
run with it to help get it here.
I have been to 13 tribal communities this year alone, understanding
what the problems are with this activist Department of Labor and
National Labor Relations Board. That is why this bill is so popular,
and in my talking with nearly every Member of this body, that is why so
many Members have supported it. I expect and would ask for a strong
vote today for sovereignty, for parity.
Mr. Speaker, the history is this: The National Labor Relations Act
was silent as to tribal communities in terms of being regulated as an
employer. State governments and local governments were specifically
exempted from the act.
Then, because of an error in a court decision as well as an activist
Department of Labor, we are in this position where the jurisdiction of
tribal communities under the act has now been invented.
This bill corrects that and says in no uncertain terms--and very
explicitly in just three pages--that tribal communities are to be
exempted from the act if they are to be sovereign. All we are asking
for is parity with State and local governments.
Let me give you an example.
Let's say you have a municipally owned and operated golf course in
your community--or if it were a State government, then it would be the
State government, owned by the State--and that municipality didn't want
to have union activities and it wrote its own set of rules for its
employees. That would be fine under the act.
By not allowing the very same right or luxury to a tribal government,
we are treating them unlike other State and local governments. That is
why in this context they are not sovereign. That is why this bill is
needed.
The gentleman from Wisconsin who just spoke reminds us that there are
agencies in this bill that aren't covered. I would say to him: What a
great idea for tribal labor sovereignty, act two.
But the logic that just because every agency isn't covered under what
is only meant to cover the NLRA somehow negates the good that this bill
does--the right answer that comes with a ``yes'' vote--is ridiculous.
Just because it doesn't do everything doesn't mean you can't do
anything.
So I would say to the Members of this body, on that fact alone, you
should vote ``yes.''
It is also true that many tribal communities have unions, that many
tribal communities have rules that govern their labor and employees,
and those who want to oppose this bill, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker,
simply want to insert their judgments, their biases, for their
preferred rule or for their preferred union in place of duly elected
members of a tribal government.
So I would say to those opponents: What makes you smarter than the
people who elect the tribal government?
[[Page H8268]]
What makes you better and your judgment superior to those who have been
duly elected by the members of a tribal nation?
The fact of the matter is the arguments that have been made by the
opposition do not apply to what is right here. The right thing is to
ask ourselves: Are tribal communities sovereign or are they not? Should
they at least be in parity with State and local governments or should
they not?
I would say, Mr. Speaker, to every Member here and remind everybody--
Republican, Democrat--that this is a bipartisan bill. We just had two
Democrat Members speak in favor of this bill.
If you want to do what is right--if you believe in the sovereignty of
tribal communities, if you believe they should at least have the same
parity, judgment, and authority as State and local governments do--then
you should vote ``yes'' on H.R. 511. I urge all Members to do that,
Republican and Democrat.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to
close?
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Yes. I am prepared to close.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
We have heard about the fact that the National Labor Relations Act is
silent. That is true. But in terms of laws of general application, they
are applied to tribes based on the balancing test, and the courts
applied that test. That test is a half a century old. The activist NLRB
that ruled in 2004 was during the George W. Bush administration. So we
don't know how activist they could be interpreted.
There are a lot of laws that we have found and have discussed that
apply to tribes, like the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, ERISA. They
have to withhold taxes. They have to pay their employer share of Social
Security and Medicare, and on and on. The criminal laws go on and on as
well as laws of general application.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter from the
International Labour Office, which is basically talking about the
international labor obligations we have. They write:
``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 sectorial considerations or devolution of labor 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.
``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.'' Therefore, it would be in
violation of the ILO.
This isn't about labor rights. This is about whether or not we are
going to fulfill our obligations under the International Labour
Organization as a government that subscribes to those.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the full letter from
the ILO and several other letters in opposition to the legislation.
International Labour Office,
Geneva, Switzerland.
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 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 U.S. Council for International Business.
Yours sincerely,
Corinne Vargha,
Director of the International Labour Standards Department.
____
United Auto Workers,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2015.
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 the Tribal Labor
Sovereignty Act (H.R. 511). This misguided bill would deny
protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to
hundreds of
[[Page H8269]]
thousands of workers employed by tribal casinos alone. Tribal
casinos have created over 628,000 jobs. This legislation does
not only apply to casinos. It could impact dozens of other
businesses, including power plants, mining operations, and
hotels.
UAW deeply believes in tribal sovereignty and has a strong
record in supporting civil rights throughout our history.
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. 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.
For starters, 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 an important difference since 75 percent of Native
American gaming employees are not tribal members. In
addition, tribes are exempt from employment laws (Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act) that apply to state and local
governments. Finally, private sector contractors work
extensively on behalf of state and local governments and they
generally have to comply with the NLRA. In summary, the
parity argument does not hold up under scrutiny.
Tribal casinos have a significant and growing presence
throughout our country. In 2013, 449 tribal gaming facilities
made $28 billion in revenues. Seventy five percent of the
workforce is non-tribal members. In fact, at Foxwoods, where
the UAW represents the workers (and many other casinos), well
over 95% percent of employees and patrons are not tribal
members. These employees are working for a tribal enterprise
which is simply a commercial operation competing with non-
tribal businesses.
Having a union and a legally binding contract has made a
real difference in the lives of UAW members who work as
dealers and assistant floor supervisors. 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. H.R. 511 would
put all of these hard fought gains in jeopardy. 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.
H.R. 511 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. Finally, it
would create a dangerous precedent that could be used to
weaken hard fought worker and civil right protections for
employees on tribal lands (minimum wage, OSHA, ERISA).
At a time of growing wealth inequality and 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 H.R. 511.
Sincerely,
Josh Nassar,
Legislative Director.
____
International Brotherhood
of Teamsters,
Washington, DC, November 6, 2015.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The International Brotherhood of
Teamsters urges you to oppose H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor
Sovereignty Act (H.R. 511). This legislation would exempt all
tribally-owned and--operated commercial enterprises on Indian
lands broadly defined from the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA).
If H.R. 511 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, power plants, 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
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 wrong. 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 by at tribally owned enterprise.
Finally, the United States requires its trading partners to
implement and abide by internationally recognized labor
standards, while H.R. 511 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. 511.
Sincerely,
James P. Hoffa,
General President.
____
United Food & Commercial
Workers International Union,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2015.
To All Democrats of the House of Representatives.
Dear Representative: As you know, the House of
Representatives is scheduled to vote this week on the Tribal
Labor Sovereignty Act (HR 511). This bill is a blatant attack
upon hardworking families, and their right to organize and
earn a better life. As such, we will be scoring HR 511 in our
upcoming congressional scorecard. We urge you to stand with
millions of hard-working men and women and vote against this
bill.
Our union family is proud to represent 1,000 men and women
who work hard every single day to support their families at
casinos that operate on Indian land. If this proposed
legislation passes, their ability to negotiate a better life,
their rights, and the rights of countless others, will be
forever worsened.
Every American, and every worker, has the right to earn a
better life, and those rights should never be jeopardized or
taken away.
We urge, regardless of party, to do what is right for your
constituents, hardworking families, and this nation and vote
NO of HR511.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Perrone,
International President.
____
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2015.
Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the
Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 511), which would deny
protection under the National Labor Relations Act to a large
number of workers who are 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,
there has been a substantial expansion of enterprises that
would be impacted by this legislation--not only casinos, but
mining operations, power plants,
[[Page H8270]]
smoke shops, saw mills, construction companies, ski resorts,
high-tech firms, hotels, and spas. These are commercial
businesses competing with non-Indian enterprises. The Tribal
Labor Sovereignty Act, as proposed, would strip all workers
in these many commercial enterprises of their rights and
protections under the NLRA.
The bill, introduced by Representative Rokita, seeks to
overturn a decision by the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) in San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, 341 NLRB No.
138 (2004), which applied the National Labor Relations Act
(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, no jurisdiction, off tribal land, 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 that the
casino in question was a typical commercial enterprise, it
employed non-Native Americans, and it 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 for a
careful balancing of the tribal sovereignty interests with
the Federal Labor law protections provided through the NLRA.
In a companion case, the Board tipped the balance the other
way, and the NLRB didn't assert jurisdiction. Yukon Kuskokwim
Health Corporation, 341 NLRB No. 139 (2004).
The AFL-CIO does support the principle of sovereignty for
tribal governments, but does not believe this principle
should be used 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 working for a tribal
enterprise which is simply a commercial operation competing
with non-tribal businesses.
This view has been confirmed by the International Labor
Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations, in
response to a question about whether excluding workers
employed on tribal lands from the NLRA 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 response, 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 bargain 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 the 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 must 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 current NLRB standards. Where the
enterprise is mainly comprised of Native American employees,
with mainly Native American customers, and involving self-
governance or intramural affairs, that may be the appropriate
result. 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.
____
UNITE HERE!
Las Vegas, NV.
Dear Representative: UNITE HERE represents over 275,000
hardworking union members in the hospitality industry and
strongly urges you to oppose the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act
(H.R. 511).
Quite simply, 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.'' The legislation as drafted would exempt
all businesses owned and operated by Indian nations of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on broadly-defined
``Indian lands''. Tribal businesses, including but not
limited to Indian-owned casinos, have workforces and
customers that are almost all non-Indian. 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 all other American workers.
In this time of growing income inequality in our country,
Congress should be working to expand the rights of American
workers and their ability to earn a decent living for
themselves and their families, not finding ways to take them
away. H.R. 511 is no different than the law signed by
Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin that attacked the basic
rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain.
Again, our union urges you to oppose H.R. 511.
Sincerely,
D.R. Taylor,
President.
____
United Steel Workers,
November 16, 2015.
Dear Representative: The United Steelworkers (USVV)
represents hundreds of workers in the gambling industry in
Nevada and Ohio, and has recently filed a Petition with the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to represent over 100
workers at the Saganing Eagles Landing Resort and Casino in
Sandish, MI. Saganing Eagles Landing Resort and Casino is
owned and operated by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe but
employs a majority of non-tribal workers. If HR 511, were to
become law it would exempt all Indian-owned commercial
enterprises operated on Indian lands from the protections of
the National Labor Relations Act depriving Indian and non-
Indian employees across the nation their right to form or
join unions, and collective bargaining for better wages,
hours and working conditions.
HR 511 would prohibit the NLRB from examining, on a case-
by-case basis, whether or not to assert jurisdiction on
workers' petitions to form unions and collectively bargain.
It is long standing federal policy that private sector
workers should be able to engage in collective bargaining
with their employer. In cases where Tribal enterprises are
involved, the NLRB, after a complete examination on a case-
by-case basis, determines whether the enterprise is
governmental or commercial. To ensure both fairness for
workers and sovereignty on tribal matters, the NLRB has
adopted a three prong test:
1. The enterprise is `exclusively involved in Tribal self-
governance and purely intramural matters';
2. Application of the NLRA would `abrogate rights
guaranteed by Indian treaties'; or
3. There is proof `by legislative history or some other
means' that Congress intended NLRA not to apply to Indians on
their reservations.
HR 511 would stop the NLRB from applying this test, and
deny workers the protections of the Act. Collective
bargaining allows workers to negotiate with their employer
for better wages and working conditions, and reduces
incidents of workplace discrimination and sexual harassment.
Unfortunately, many workers in the gambling industry
experience sexual harassment and discrimination due to the
nature of the work environment. Woman are often required to
wear provocative uniforms and interact with inebriated
customers in a 24/7 work environment.
On June 16, 2015 before the House Education and Workforce
Committee, Gary Navarro (a member of the Pomo Nation, one of
the largest tribes in California, and a worker at the Native-
owned Graton Casino & Resort) illustrated this very point.
Mr. Navarro testified he witnessed fellow co-workers suffer
harassment by supervisors stating:
``I became active in my union because of unjust treatment
of casino workers by their managers and how nothing could be
done about even sexual harassment because of sovereignty.
Exercising our right to organize turned out to be the only
way to protect ourselves and our co-workers. Don't strip us
of these rights.''
Since the 1980s Tribes have expanded their business
interests, operating many different revenue producing
commercial enterprises on Indian lands--not just casinos.
Tribes operate and employ both Tribal members and non-members
working in mines, smoke shops, power plants, saw mills,
construction companies, ski resorts, hotels and spas, gift
and farmers markets. Many of these enterprises are dangerous
with high incidents of worker injury and death, and jobs are
not typically well paid. Only through the benefit of
collective bargaining can workers be assured of improving
their wages, hours and working conditions, including their
safety. Because the vast majority of workers employed by
Tribal enterprises are NOT Tribal members, they would have no
ability to influence Tribal policy or governance.
In 2011 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the
National Indian Gaming Commission testified that of 566
federally-recognized tribes, 246 operate 460 gaming
facilities in 28 states, and that the vast majority of
employees (up to 75 percent) were non-Tribal members. That
same testimony reported in 2009 that tribal casinos generated
[[Page H8271]]
gross gaming revenue of $27.2 billion, only a fraction of the
estimated $100 billion U.S. gambling industry revenue. As of
September 2014 the Federal Gaming Commission estimated there
were 733,930 people directly employed by the gambling
industry in the United States. Gambling industry jobs are
typically low-wage jobs, and it is only through collective
bargaining that workers can enjoy some of the profits from
their hard labor.
In 2004, the Bush Administration NLRB 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 stepped very
carefully, taking jurisdiction on a case-by-case. Just this
spring 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).
Finally, the Tribes asking for this bill assert they are
seeking the same NLRA exemption as state and local
governments. This argument is erroneous, because the NLRA
only exempts actual government employees and not private
sector employees performing contracted-out governmental
functions. Hundreds of thousands of private sector workers
employed by private sector contractors perform state, local
and federal governmental functions; thus, are covered under
the NLRA.
Casinos and resorts are not inherently governmental
operations, and casino employees are not performing
inherently governmental functions by serving cocktails,
running Keno numbers, or dealing cards. On June 16, While
Tribal witnesses asserted air traffic controllers and casino
workers should be treated similarly under the law as critical
governmental workers and be prohibited from striking, common
sense would suggest otherwise.
Finally, depriving Tribal casino employees of their ability
to gain the industry standard negotiated by their
counterparts working for hugely profitable commercial
gambling operators like Trump, MGM or Wynn Enterprises should
not be decided by Congress as a blanket exemption to the
NLRA. HR 511 would deprive thousands of workers of their
fundamental labor law protection under the guise of Tribal
Sovereignty. H.R. 511 is union busting--plain and simple, and
would deny Indian and non-Indian workers alike their ability
to collectively negotiate wages, hours and working conditions
and improve their lives and the livelihood of their families.
Please vote NO on H.R. 511.
Thank you for your consideration and please contact Alison
Reardon, USW Legislative Representative for additional
information.
Sincerely,
Holly R. Hart,
Assistant to the International President,
Legislative Director.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
{time} 1500
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Scott. He
is a delight to work with, and I want to thank him for working with me
on this.
Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have long agreed on the
importance of protecting sovereignty of Native American tribes. Today,
we have an opportunity to prove that we are committed to that
bipartisan goal.
In my packet here, I have literally page after page of tribes that
have supported this piece of legislation. To me, being sovereign means
that you are able to make your own decisions. What we are seeing the
NLRB do is nibble away a little bit at a time at the authority that the
local tribes have over local matters. Look, the political job I had
before I came to Congress was being mayor of a city. I had more rights
than the Native Americans who occupy this land, many of them my
district, the Cherokee Nation.
The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015 is a simple, commonsense
measure; but it means a great deal, particularly to those in the Native
American community. As tribal representatives have said, this bill will
prevent unnecessary and unproductive overreach into tribal affairs. It
will empower tribal governments to make decisions that are the best for
their people, and it will ensure the Federal Government honors and
respects the sovereignty of the tribal nations.
Just as importantly, it shows that we are serious about honoring the
commitments and making good on promises we have made to Native
Americans and broken many, many, many times.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 511.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support of the
bipartisan H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. I wish to
recognize the work of my colleague, Mr. Rokita, as well as the efforts
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce on this legislation.
If enacted, this important legislation would amend the National Labor
Relations Act to ensure that any enterprise or institution owned and
operated by an Indian tribe would be treated with parity by any state
or local government.
This legislation is necessary to reverse a 2004 National Labor
Relations Board's ruling which increased the jurisdiction of the NLRA
to cover tribal operations. H.R. 511 promotes tribal sovereignty and
allows the tribal governments to regulate appropriate labor practices
on lands without the further overreach and infringement of the federal
government.
Because of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
support the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act to ensure that our Native
American citizens can achieve parity with other exempted governments.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 511.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a
district that covers a large portion of the reservation that is home to
the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.
From my meetings and visits with members of the Pechanga tribe, as
well as with Native Americans from across the country, I know that
there is perhaps no greater priority than protecting tribal
sovereignty.
In 2004, the National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling that, I
believe, inappropriately applied the National Labor Relations Act to
tribally owned businesses on tribal lands. That ruling was contrary to
previous court-established precedents because it clearly conflicts with
the Constitution's recognition of tribes as sovereign governments.
That's exactly why in 2011, a U.S. District Court in Oklahoma ruled in
Chickasaw Nation v. National Labor Relations Board that tribal
businesses on tribal land do not fall under the jurisdiction of the
Board on grounds of tribal sovereignty.
Since that ruling, the National Labor Relations Board has filed an
appeal and similar legal conflicts have arisen with other tribes across
the country.
Rather than allow these lawsuits and legal proceedings to carry on
indefinitely, Congress should step in and reaffirm Native American
tribal sovereignty by clarifying that the National Labor Relations Act
does not apply to tribally owned businesses.
As a proud original cosponsor of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act and
friend of our Native American tribes, I encourage all of my colleagues
to support this long overdue bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 526, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and 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.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________