[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.

                          ____________________