    [Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
    [House]
    [Pages H114-H125]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

                                     S. 140

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

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

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

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

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

         SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER.

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

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

                                 General Leave

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

    [[Page H115]]

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

    [[Page H116]]

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

                                  {time}  1700

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                     of Teamsters,

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

    [[Page H117]]

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

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

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

                                      International Labour Office,

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

    [[Page H118]]

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

                                                   Corinne Vargha,

                                                       Director of the
                            International Labour Standards Department.

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

    [[Page H119]]

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

                                              Operating Engineers,

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

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

                                                             UFCW,

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

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

    [[Page H120]]

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

                                                      UNITE HERE!,

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

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

                                  {time}  1715

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

                                              United Steelworkers,

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

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

    [[Page H121]]

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

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

                                                     Shane Larson,

                                                 Legislative Director,
                              Communications Workers of America (CWA).

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

    [[Page H122]]

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

                                  {time}  1730

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

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

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

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

    [[Page H123]]

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

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

                           AFL-CIO Legislative Alert

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

    [[Page H124]]

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

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

                                 Recorded Vote

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

                                 [Roll No. 11]

                                   AYES--239

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

                                   NOES--173

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

    [[Page H125]]

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

                                 NOT VOTING--19

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

                                  {time}  1809

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

                              ____________________