    [Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
    [House]
    [Pages H96-H103]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 140, AMENDING THE WHITE MOUNTAIN
              APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION ACT OF 2010

      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
    up House Resolution 681 and ask for its immediate consideration.
      The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 681

           Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
         in order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against consideration of
         the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a
         substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
         115-54 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
         shall be considered as read. All points of order against
         provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
         question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
         amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
         passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
         debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and
         ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
         Workforce and the chair and ranking minority member of the
         Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to
         recommit with or without instructions.

      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from Oklahoma
    is recognized for 1 hour.
      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
    customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
    pending which I yield myself such time as I

    [[Page H97]]

    may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
    is for the purpose of debate only.

                                 General Leave

      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
    5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
    gentleman from Oklahoma?
      There was no objection.
      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
    reported a rule for consideration of a very important measure. The
    resolution provides for consideration of S. 140, to amend the White
    Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to
    clarify the use of amounts in the White Mountain Apache Tribe
    Settlement Fund. This bill also includes the text of S. 249, a bill to
    provide that the pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 99 years certain
    restricted land; and H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of
    2017.
      The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, 30 minutes of which will be
    equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the
    Natural Resources Committee, and 30 minutes of which will be equally
    divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Education
    and the Workforce Committee.
      Mr. Speaker, the first two items are noncontroversial; however, I am
    very pleased that within S. 140, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is
    included. This language would allow Tribal governments to be excluded
    from requirements for employers under the National Labor Relations Act.
    When President Franklin Roosevelt signed the NLRA into law in 1935,
    Congress wisely excluded governments, all governments, from the
    definition of ``employer.''
      At the bill signing of the NLRA, President Roosevelt said: ``This Act
    defines, as a part of our substantive law, the right of self-
    organization of employees in industry for the purpose of collective
    bargaining, and provides methods by which the Government can safeguard
    that legal right.''
      The President made clear in his speech at that time that the intent
    of the law is that it should apply only to workers in the private
    sector. Tribes are governments and should be treated as such. The
    intent of the law was and is clear: Tribal governments supervise the
    employees within their governments and enterprises, not the Federal
    Government.
      From 1935 until 2003, nearly seven decades, the National Labor
    Relations Board agreed and interpreted the statute in a way that did
    not apply to Indian Tribes because they were governments. In 2004, the
    NLRB abruptly changed course and, for the first time, held the act
    applicable to Indian Tribes. The NLRB did this by highlighting the fact
    that the act did not expressly include Tribal governments among those
    excluded from the phrase ``employer.'' This is simply an egregious act
    of bureaucratic overreach.
      Let me be clear. In this case, acting on its own, the NLRB expanded
    its jurisdiction. Neither the existing administration at the time nor
    Congress asked or ordered the NLRB to take this action.
      The impacts of labor strife on Tribal governments and economies are
    more harmful than on other governments because there is no effective
    tax base in Tribal communities. Indian lands are held in trust by the
    United States and are not subject to taxation. The high unemployment
    rates and legal restrictions make income taxation an unfeasible option.
      As a result, the businesses operated by Tribal governments, gaming
    operations, Tribal agriculture, energy and timber operations, and other
    Tribal government enterprise constitute the sole source of revenue that
    is used to fund essential government services for Tribes.
      This bill has drawn bipartisan support in our effort to reverse the
    decision of the NLRB. In the 114th Congress, the same language passed
    the House of Representatives by a vote of 249-177.

                                  {time}  1400

      This bill will strengthen Tribal sovereignty and correct this
    overreach, directing the NLRB to enforce the NLRA, National Labor
    Relations Act, as it was originally intended. In the end, Mr. Speaker,
    all we are doing here today with this bill is affirming what was
    Congress' original intent. The NLRA does not have jurisdiction over
    Tribal governments.
      Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying
    legislation.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
      Mr. Speaker, over 3 months ago, the funding for the Children's Health
    Insurance Program, or CHIP, expired. Today, families throughout the
    country, including 90,000 children in my home State of Colorado, face
    great uncertainty about the future of their healthcare.
      When CHIP was first passed, over 20 years ago, it was done in a
    bipartisan manner, and, until recently, CHIP has always been a
    bipartisan, nondivisive issue. It is unfortunate to see that, today,
    here, we are in this body under Republican leadership and, somehow,
    even children's health insurance has become a political football while
    we while away our time, our precious legislative time, on bills that
    have passed this body before and don't go anywhere.
      In our most recent Band-Aid for government funding, House Republicans
    made a claim that CHIP was extended until March 31, but that wasn't the
    case. By some reports, States could run out of funding in the next few
    weeks. In fact, in Colorado, our own budget experts predict the State
    will run out of children's health insurance money by the end of
    February. Cancellation letters are literally scheduled to go out at the
    end of this month.
      Mr. Speaker, this simply isn't a way to govern, crisis to crisis,
    ignoring the real issues people care about in order to consider special
    interest legislation. Republican leadership and the Trump
    administration continue to refuse to work on finding a bipartisan
    solution for the hundreds of thousands who have Deferred Action for
    Childhood Arrival--or DACA recipients--who are in limbo. We can simply
    put that bill on the floor today, the Dream Act, and I feel it would
    pass.
      We have the votes to do so, Mr. Speaker. Let's simply have a vote. It
    is a purely manufactured crisis.
      I am happy to say we will be giving the opportunity for Members of
    this body to defeat the previous question and move to a vote on the
    Dream Act, shortly. My colleague, Mr. Correa, has joined us to offer
    that motion in a few minutes.
      Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often say that
    the real deadline for a DACA solution isn't until March, but, in
    reality, every day, already over 100 Deferred Action recipients lose
    their protected status, are unable to work with their situation
    unresolved.
      For those DACA recipients, the deadline isn't March. The deadline has
    already passed, hence, the urgency. Now is the time to pass the Dream
    Act, to allow these DACA recipients to continue to live and work and
    serve in the only Nation that many of them have ever known their whole
    lives.
      All the while, congressional Republicans still refuse to work with
    Democrats on a long-term government funding solution. Here we are less
    than 10 days from another government shutdown. The Federal Government
    continues to move from quick spending patch to quick spending patch,
    costing taxpayers more in the long run by preventing our agencies from
    doing the planning necessary to improve efficiency.
      Today we are only 5 legislative days away--9 actual days--from a
    government shutdown and the huge negative repercussions that would
    follow. As a former businessowner, I know, firsthand, the value of
    long-term budgeting and stability. Millions of Americans know how to
    plan their family budget and their home budget. Why can't Congress do
    it for the country?
      Instead of working on a long-term budget solution, the House is
    spending its time on other legislation. Here we have a bill that
    undermines workers' rights and their protections under the National
    Labor Relations Act.
      In addition to this controversial bill, there are two attached pieces
    of legislation that were originally separate

    [[Page H98]]

    bills that easily could have gone on the suspension calendar and would
    have largely been noncontroversial. They passed on unanimous consent in
    the Senate and in the House Natural Resources Committee, but their fate
    is put in jeopardy by putting them onto a controversial bill.
      The first bill amends the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights
    Quantification Act of 2010. To clarify, that is a separate economic
    development fund known as the WMAT settlement fund that can be accessed
    to cover potential cost overruns for this rural water project.
      The Interior Department has said it is unsure if the settlement fund
    could be used for additional costs, and so this clarifies that water-
    related economic development projects would specifically include the
    planning, design, and construction of the rural water system. This
    legislation could have passed and, likely, could have become law but,
    instead, has been put into jeopardy by affixing it to a bill that is
    unlikely to go anywhere.
      The second uncontroversial bill that is wrapped up is regarding the
    authority of pueblos. It concerns two New Mexican pueblos and simply
    clarifies that they could lease their lands that are held in trust by
    the Federal Government for 99 years. This legislation ensures Native
    Americans have the right to their lands that they deserve. It respects
    their sovereignty and nations in a noncontroversial way.
      I am fully supportive of these two technical and simple pieces of
    legislation, but, unfortunately, because they are attached to a bill
    that isn't going anywhere, are very unlikely to become law.
      These are the types of bills that could go straight to the suspension
    calendar and straight through the Senate and should be signed by the
    President, but, instead, they are being put in jeopardy by lumping them
    in with a bill that is unlikely to become law.

      There are so many of these types of Natural Resources Committee bills
    from both Democrats and Republicans that should be making their way
    forward as stand-alone items.
      I am glad, for instance, that one that I authored, my Bolt's Ditch
    and the WEDGE Act--actually, two that I authored--were put forward and
    passed by this House and not attached to other controversial
    legislation.
      I am also reintroducing, soon, a bicameral bill that I also consider
    noncontroversial, the Continental Divide Wilderness, Recreation and
    Camp Hale Legacy Act bill. It would preserve over 90,000 acres of
    wilderness and recreation lands in Summit and eastern Eagle Counties,
    and is endorsed by local businesses, commissioners, and towns across
    the area.
      It was crafted with input from dozens of stakeholder groups,
    including the Wilderness Society, Vail Resorts, the Outdoor Industry
    Association, the International Mountain Bicycling Association,
    Conservation Colorado, and many municipalities and local businesses. It
    will help sustain our recreational economy in Eagle and Summit
    Counties, protect watersheds, and preserve important wildlife corridors
    and tourism opportunities.
      These are the kinds of bills that we should be moving forward from
    the Natural Resources Committee, not controversial bills that actually
    take away the rights of American citizens, including Native American
    citizens.
      And, while we are not today, we should never be moving forward on
    Natural Resources Committee bills that actually whittle away at the
    public lands we all own and the Antiquities Act by shrinking monuments
    like Bears Ears or making it easier to destroy lands we cherish and
    value.
      All I ask is that we separate out these two Natural Resources bills,
    send them to the suspension calendar, and not let them be put in
    jeopardy by affixing them to the fundamental underlying legislation
    which is controversial, namely, the Tribal labor bill. That is the bill
    that is the main controversial bill in this package.
      And, of course, I stand here as a supporter of the rights of every
    American to organize. I am a supporter of workers' rights, and I am
    also a strong supporter of Tribal sovereignty, not only principles
    under American law, but the right thing to do.
      I, like many of my colleagues, place a great deal of importance in
    Tribal self-determination, autonomy, local control, and independent
    governance for our nations. In fact, I have been the champion of
    sovereignty, and I have long voted in favor of legislation that allows
    Tribal discretion in the judicial processes and in education.
      But, of course, the right to organize is an inalienable right of
    every American, protecting our workers, including Native American
    workers, to fight for a safe working environment regardless of what
    entity owns the company they work for. Legislation balancing these two
    competing principles is possible.
      Reconciling these two priorities can be difficult, but I think that
    there is a way to do it. Instead, this bill drives a wedge between
    issues or groups that have a history of working strongly together, such
    as Native Americans and labor unions.
      We can balance critical rights to sovereignty with the protections
    that are due to every American citizen regardless of their race,
    ethnicity, cultural practices, membership in an Indian nation, or
    governing structures. This legislation does not find the right balance.
    It hurts workers of all stripes and colors, including many Native
    American workers.
      Workers have the right to collectively bargain; otherwise, workplaces
    become unsafe, sexual harassment can go unchecked, and the income gap
    continues to widen. This legislation would strip Native Americans and
    non-Native Americans, many of whom work for Native American
    enterprises, of the right to collectively bargain.
      Without the right to self-governance, we would not have the strong
    communities present across the country today. Without the right to
    collective bargaining, we would not have the strong and growing economy
    that supports our middle class. This legislation simply does not
    succeed in balancing both of these values.
      I also want to point out that President Trump agrees with me, or at
    least he did last time he commented on this 25 years ago. In 1993, at a
    hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, then private citizen Trump testified
    regarding the legal barriers facing labor unions at that time to
    organize workers employed at Tribal casinos. His testimony said, in
    part: ``At present, even union workers in States like New Jersey would
    have no federally or State protected rights or the ability to organize
    in casinos on Tribal lands. The unions hope to do something about this.
    They hope to gain the right to recognition, the right to organize if
    they so choose. Quite frankly, I hope they have better luck than we
    have had so far.''
      Mr. Speaker, the last time the President commented on this, it is
    clear that he also believed that workers on Tribal land should have the
    right to collectively bargain. I hope that his administration would not
    be supportive of this legislation if it were to move through Congress,
    which it is unlikely to do.
      Instead of policies that benefit those at the top, I have a number of
    ideas that I will be talking about later that we can move forward to
    empower workers and help make sure that the 21st century economy works
    for everyone.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Colorado covered a lot of ground, so
    let me try to respond to some of that area because a lot of it doesn't
    have a whole lot to do with the legislation until the final phase of
    his remarks.
      In terms of CHIP, we actually agree. I think that's something--and,
    frankly, this House should be proud it passed a CHIP bill on a
    bipartisan basis months ago. Our real problem is the United States
    Senate simply hasn't produced legislation. It doesn't have to accept
    our legislation. It just needs to pass a CHIP bill so we can go to
    conference and bargain.

      I am pleased that both sides, frankly, have worked to make sure that,
    when we have done extensions of government spending as we work through
    some of these knotty issues, we continue to fund CHIP. I think the
    leadership on both sides of the aisle have been clear about that, and I
    think we will. But, again, it will be great when the Senate finally
    passes a bill or we make this part of a larger spending bill.

    [[Page H99]]

      In terms of my friend's points about the Dream Act, I am honestly
    heartened at the discussion that took place at the White House
    yesterday. I think there is a genuine desire to come to an agreement on
    DACA. But the real issue there is border security in addition to legal
    status.
      These folks, obviously, I think, deserve legal status; but you also
    have to fix the problem, and the problem is on the border. So the
    outline of the deal is there if people approach it in good faith on
    both sides of the aisle. I take the fact that we had leadership in both
    parties meeting with the President yesterday as a good sign in that
    regard.
      In terms of the budget, we probably have at least some areas of
    agreement. My friend didn't vote for it, but it is worth noting, the
    House passed every single appropriations bill before the September 30
    deadline. We have been waiting now for over 120 days for the United
    States Senate to just pass a single appropriations bill.
      We are in discussions with them now, and I think at some point, when
    there is an agreement as to what the top line number is--and I think we
    might not be too far away from that--then we will be able to proceed.
    But again, this House has done its work. Just as it did on CHIP, it
    produced legislation on time, and it is prepared to sit down and
    negotiate with the Senate whenever the Senate decides it can get around
    to getting its job done.
      In terms of the National Labor Relations Act, the Tribal sovereignty
    portion of this bill, let me point out a couple of things.
      My friend does have an excellent record, honestly, in terms of
    support on Native American issues. This is just an issue where we
    disagree. There will be Republicans and Democrats who oppose this
    legislation. There will be Republicans and Democrats who support this
    legislation.
      It is not really purely a partisan question at all, but it is worth
    noting, the Indian community is united on this issue. The National
    Congress of American Indians, over 150 Tribal organizations and
    individual Tribes have come and asked the Congress to correct this
    oversight.
      The fact that this happened in the way it did, that is, the National
    Labor Relations Board acted on its own to extend its jurisdiction, had
    no instructions from Congress to do that, had no request from the
    administration to do that, they just decided they would do it all, that
    is my definition of a regulatory body run amuck.
      For almost 70 years, the NLRB recognized that it did not have
    jurisdiction in this area and did not try and do it. This is a very new
    thing. It aroused opposition in Indian Country immediately.
      Again, we don't apply these standards to any State government or any
    local government. We have lots of State governments and lots of local
    governments involved in activities that are not strictly governmental.
    They run municipal golf courses. They do water parks. None of these
    things are necessarily inherently government. They are not forced to
    comply with this. So we should extend to Tribal government, which we
    historically have done, the exact same status and rights in this regard
    as we do to State and local governments.
      We would all be pretty upset if the Federal Government decided it
    would interject itself in this way into the affairs of any individual
    State or any of the individual localities that we represent.

                                  {time}  1415

      Working for a public entity is different. You certainly have rights,
    but there are restrictions. You have certain rights, like the right to
    strike, that in most States and most localities do not exist. Tribes
    should have the same right to make those sorts of decisions for
    themselves. Again, they resent and have resented historically the
    violation of their sovereignty. In this case, a regulatory agency
    without the authority of this body and without the authority of the
    administration that existed at that time acted on its own.
      What the Indian nations and Indian Country have come and asked is:
    Restore us the sovereignty that you historically accorded us.
      That is all this legislation does.
      The last point, my friend says this is unlikely to become law. I beg
    to disagree. Not only did this pass the House on a bipartisan vote in
    the last Congress, but this Congress it has been reported out of the
    Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on a bipartisan vote. There is every
    reason to believe this. We will see what the administration does. But I
    suspect views change over 25 years, and I would hope the administration
    is supportive of this. As a matter of fact, as I recall, I think they
    issued a statement to that effect.
      So, regardless, let's do our job. Let's continue to do the job we did
    in the last Congress when, on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and
    Democrats alike decided Tribal sovereignty was an important issue. We
    should work together to defend it and to expand it. In this case, we
    are working to reclaim something that a Federal agency took away,
    acting on its own, over a decade ago. So the solution to this is long
    overdue.
      Mr. Speaker, I would certainly urge my friends to support the rule
    and, more importantly, the underlying legislation, and I reserve the
    balance of my time.
      Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
    amendment to the rule--not just any amendment, but an amendment to
    bring up the bipartisan, bicameral bill, H.R. 3440, the Dream Act.
      It is far past time that we consider this urgent piece of
    legislation, the lack of which is tearing apart the lives of over 100
    aspiring Americans every day who are unable to do what you and I take
    for granted, Mr. Speaker, which is simply go to work the next day.
    Every day that we fail to act, approximately 122 DREAMers lose their
    legal ability to work.
      Mr. Speaker, even Republicans have called for a vote on this critical
    issue. At the end of last year, 34 Republican colleagues sent a letter
    to Speaker Ryan urging a vote before the year's end, a vote that never
    happened, a vote my colleague, Mr. Correa, is giving us a chance to
    take now.
      How much longer will this body be complicit in the Trump
    administration's assault on DREAMers?
      It is time we listen to the vast majority of Americans and the
    majority of this body and act to protect courageous, aspiring Americans
    like the group from Colorado I met with yesterday.
      Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
    amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
    prior to the vote on the previous question.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
    gentleman from Colorado?
      There was no objection.
      Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
    California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.
      Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, recently, my daughter came home from high
    school accompanied by two of her good friends. These young ladies are
    about 16 years of age. They wanted to sit down and talk to me a little
    bit, so we sat down and we spoke. After a while, I learned these young
    ladies were very nervous and very scared. They were DREAMers.
      They had a basic question for me, which was: What can we do? What can
    you do for us?
      Very, very tough questions. After a moment I answered them: Continue
    to study hard. Continue to follow the law. Be good students and don't
    give up hope.
      At the same time I told them: Don't worry about Washington, D.C. I am
    going to Washington to fight for you.
      That is what we are doing here today, myself and my colleagues,
    fighting for DREAMers, fighting to make sure that they have a shot at
    the American Dream.
      Now, I am happy to say today that DREAMers enjoy support of not only
    Democrats, but Republicans as well on this floor.
      Why?
      Because all of us know who DREAMers are. DREAMers are hardworking
    individuals. They serve in our military. They are soldiers, police
    officers, firefighters, nurses, teachers, and, of course, they are also
    our neighbors. DREAMers also are very good immigrants. They pay their
    taxes and follow the law.
      Do you know what?

    [[Page H100]]

      They provide value to our country.
      Recently, I also had the opportunity to visit my son's high school,
    the Air Force Naval ROTC program. I went to be part of what is called a
    pass in review. Some very nice, honorable young cadets passing in
    review, all saluting the flag of the United States, all taking the
    Pledge of Allegiance to our country and to our flag.
      Do you know something?
      A lot of those cadets were DREAMers.
      Mr. Speaker, today we have the chance to do what is right. We have a
    chance to do our job. Let the Dreamer legislation come before us for a
    vote and let's give the DREAMers the opportunity to earn the American
    Dream.
      Mr. Speaker, let's not live with regrets. Let's not look back 5, 10,
    15 years from now and say what we could have, should have, would have.
    Now is the time to act. Now is the time to vote for our DREAMers.
      I ask my colleagues to please vote against the previous question so
    that we can immediately bring up the Dream Act to vote for justice and
    equity.

      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Again, Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my friend's right to bring up
    a subject that they think is important and is important, and it is
    appropriate that they use their time to do that.
      I would remind them that there is a negotiation underway. I think the
    issue here is less about DACA probably and more about border security.
    The issues are naturally paired together. These young people came here
    through no fault of their own. They are not responsible for any sort of
    criminal act. But they were transported across a very porous border.
      So to ensure that we are not here again doing the same thing again,
    strengthening that border at the same time that we provide legal status
    seems the appropriate thing to do. I suspect neither is achievable
    without the other linked together.
      So I take it that the two sides are negotiating. I am not involved in
    those negotiations. I am not a member of the relevant committees, but I
    think the two sides are involved in that negotiation. My hope is that
    they come to an agreement and that we can have a large, bipartisan
    victory and a piece of legislation that we are all proud of. But I
    suspect it is going to take some give-and-take on each side to achieve
    that.
      I do want to go back, though, to the principal underlying legislation
    here and ask my friends--many of whom, by the way, will support this
    legislation. There will be considerable Democratic support for this.
    But I would hope--and, again, I understand this is an issue of
    competing goods, but sovereignty is not something we should grant to
    States and localities and deny Indian Tribes.
      We should not have a double standard here. If we need to make changes
    across the entire Labor Relations Act, fair enough. I guess we should
    consider that. But we should not single out Tribes and make them
    subject to capricious, arbitrary, bureaucratic activity deciding on
    what their legal status is, what their rights are, and interfere with
    their ability to operate their own businesses, which are absolutely
    indispensable to supporting their governmental activities.
      We do not give Tribes the power to tax. They can't tax their own
    land. They can't tax their own citizens. If they are not successful
    economically, they have to rely on the limited resources given by the
    Federal Government to do everything from protecting their citizens to
    providing healthcare for their citizens and to making sure that there
    is appropriate education for their citizens. They ought to be able to
    do what other governments do and earn money and run their own affairs.
      We allow States to do that. We allow localities to do that. For
    almost 70 years, we allowed Indian Tribes to do that. Then we took it
    away from them. They are not even asking for something new. They are
    just asking for something that was taken from them, in terms of their
    authority and sovereignty, to be restored to them.
      Mr. Speaker, again, I go back to urging the passage of the underlying
    legislation. I hope that we continue to work on these other issues that
    my friends have brought up. We are working on them in areas like CHIP,
    like the DACA question, and like the border security question.
      But let's also take our time and pass this very important piece of
    legislation and restore to Indian Tribes what the National Labor
    Relations Board took away from them over a decade ago.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
      Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the things that my colleague,
    Mr. Cole, said. The big difference here between Tribal-owned and -run
    businesses and State and local governments is that State and local
    governments are not generally in the business of owning/operating
    companies. With very few exceptions, we don't have a socialist form of
    government in this country where cities or States are actually
    operating businesses in competition with the private sector.
      Tribes, in addition to their Tribal workers, which are more analogous
    to State or local workers--and it is an appropriate discussion--also
    happen to own businesses, which is fine, and they produce revenue for
    the Tribes, which is great. However, they should play by the same
    economic rules as other businesses, which in no way impede businesses
    from succeeding in our country.
      Of course, many of these Tribal-owned businesses are the main source
    of support and income for Tribes. If our labor laws work for any other
    business, they should also work for them.
      American citizens, including Native American citizens of our country,
    don't lose their rights as workers because of the ownership of the
    organization and company that they happen to be employed by. That is a
    key tenet that needs to be balanced with, of course, Tribal
    sovereignty, which I am a strong supporter of.
      If the discussion were simply about Tribal employees, it would be a
    different discussion. To be clear, it is about businesses that are
    owned by Tribes, and we simply don't have an analogy on the State and
    local side with very few exceptions. I am sure there is one somewhere.
    But, in general, municipalities and counties are not the owners of
    operating businesses that compete in the private sector.
      Now, I want to talk about what is possible with regard to enhancing
    the rights of workers and labor. Instead of these kinds of policies
    that take away the rights of workers, including Native American
    workers, we should be moving forward on policies that put workers
    first.
      My bill, the Giving Workers a Fair Shot Act, would do that. The bill
    would provide reasonable solutions to address the growing inequality in
    the United States by helping workers and ensuring that companies follow
    the law, emphasizing the need for corporate accountability.
      It would remove unfair obstacles to forming a union, enhance
    transparency from employers, and increase penalties for violating our
    labor laws, which are strong but often not enforced.

      First, all too often, employers frequently drag their feet on a newly
    formed union's first contract for months, sometimes for years, often
    with the goal of avoiding an agreement. Sometimes that means a newly
    certified union that the voters have voted in fails to receive a first
    contract.
      My bill would set up a first-contract arbitration system where the
    union or the employer has the option of seeking mediation if they feel
    one party is not responding adequately to a negotiation request.
      It would also ensure that no taxpayer funds are used for union
    busting or persuaders, activities like planning and implementing
    activities that deter employees from joining or forming a union. Again,
    it simply makes sure that no taxpayer funds are used for that explicit
    purpose.
      Third, the bill updates the National Labor Relations Act's definition
    of ``supervisor.'' Too often, workers are reclassified as supervisors
    for effectively gerrymandering bargaining units. This updated
    definition helps prevent that sort of manipulation and would make it
    easier for employees to be able to form a union if they so choose.
      Fourth, the bill reaffirms the importance for the government to
    protect workers from having their rights violated by increasing
    criminal and civil

    [[Page H101]]

    penalties for individuals and executives who violate critical labor
    laws.
      Injured workers and worker deaths should never be simply a cost of
    doing business. These robust protections help make sure that this is
    truly a criminal issue for the few bad actors that exist on the
    employer side.
      Finally, the legislation empowers shareholders and creates new
    accountability for CEOs and executives by preventing the CEO and
    chairman at a publicly traded company from being the same person. We
    would all love to work for ourselves, but that is not in the long-term
    economic interest of the shareholders, the customers, or the workers.
      The bill also expands insider trading restrictions for executives to
    1 year after they leave a company.
      In my district and across Colorado, people are clamoring for
    proactive policies that actually help address the income gap and put
    the needs of middle class families and workers first. Policies like the
    Giving Workers a Fair Shot Act would do that.
      Now, this legislation that we are seeing here today is not the only
    controversial legislation we are seeing this week. Unfortunately, the
    next rule up will be one that takes away our constitutional rights as
    Americans.
      The FISA reauthorization legislation has been described as a
    compromise, but that is not the case.

                                  {time}  1430

      This legislation is not the necessary FISA reform bill that many in
    Congress, including myself, have called for, which is why I and so many
    of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are opposed to it in its
    form and support the Amash-Polis amendment, cosponsored by many others.
      It is also why the current FISA reauthorization bill is opposed not
    only by privacy and civil liberties groups and consumers but also
    technology companies and job creators across the political spectrum.
    Businesses are, rightfully, afraid that, if this bill passes, it will
    make it even harder for American companies to engage in international
    commerce.
      Many countries in Europe, for example, will simply refuse to do
    business with a technology company that is housed in the U.S. because
    they are afraid of what will happen to their citizens' data, perhaps
    even in contravention of their own stronger privacy laws.
      This bill does not make any steps in the direction of reform that are
    necessary. It falls short on several grounds. In fact, in some ways, it
    makes the FISA program worse by codifying the ``abouts'' collections
    term that refers to the NSA searching through the internet traffic to
    collect not only communications to or from an intelligence target but
    also those that simply mention an identifier used by a target, even
    though that has been declared unconstitutional twice. It could be the
    name of a city or State or even a country that can be used as an
    identifier; in theory, subjecting close to 100 percent of tax and
    emails and internet traffic to warrantless searches.
      This bill fails to consider the core concern that I have and that
    many Members on both sides of the aisle share; namely, the government's
    use of section 702 information against American citizens in
    investigations that have nothing to do with national security and does
    not require a warrant or the due process of our Constitution.
      Instead, the bill codifies the ability of the government to access
    the content of our emails and telephone calls without a warrant. It
    creates an unprecedented and unworkable ``optional'' warrant, which is
    merely window dressing but does nothing to address the legitimate
    concerns.
      These massive flaws could have been addressed, had we proceeded under
    regular order, but this version was reported only from the Intelligence
    Committee and bypassed the Judiciary Committee, which was cut out of
    negotiations when they agreed to go along with the Intelligence
    Committee railroading their committee. That is why I signed a
    bipartisan letter with dozens of our Members demanding FISA be handled
    under regular order.
      I am proud to have offered the amendment that will be considered
    later with Representatives Lofgren and Amash and others that would
    provide a better path to keep American citizens safe and protect our
    privacy and ensure that American companies can remain competitive
    abroad. It will protect our constitutional rights and keep us safe.
      My amendment, which is based off the USA RIGHTS Act, ends backdoor
    searches, ends reverse targeting, bans ``abouts'' collections, and
    strengthens FISA court oversight and transparency. I think these are
    all commonsense and necessary changes that Americans have been
    demanding for years.
      Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to oppose the FISA
    reauthorization and support the Amash-Lofgren amendment when they are
    brought forth shortly.
      Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
    respond to a couple of my friend's points.
      Let me begin by disagreeing respectfully with my friend's assertion
    that people are having their rights stripped away.
      The only people losing their rights here are Indian Tribes. That is
    what happened when the NLRB did what it did. Without the direction of
    Congress or the administration, it decided on its own it would treat
    Indian Tribal governments different than it treated other governments.
    So it is those rights to the Tribal governments that we are busy trying
    to restore.
      My friend, who, again, is very good on Indian issues, as a rule, and
    I understand the competing claims here. So I recognize the tension that
    is involved in that. But it is not as if Tribal governments don't have
    their own labor codes and their own standards. Frankly, those have to
    comply with American law.
      Under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1965, there is absolutely
    nothing that a Tribal government can do that would contravene the
    guaranteed rights in the United States Constitution for all Americans.
      So to suggest that they are somehow violating the rights of American
    workers, I think, is to mischaracterize who they are and how they have
    acted. What they have said is, if we are sovereign, if the Federal
    Government says that State governments and local governments are
    allowed to regulate their own workforces, then Tribal governments are
    allowed to do the same.
      I want to disagree also with my friend. There are lots of municipal
    golf courses in the United States. There are lots of municipal water
    slides. There are park systems. You can go to the State of Virginia and
    it happens to own the liquor business in the State. It has decided it
    is going to make that a State function. We don't regulate those
    employees.
      So the idea that just because it is a money-making activity, that we
    then somehow treat it differently, we don't do that to any locality or
    any State in the country.
      We just had an unelected Federal agency decide on its own it was
    going to do that to Indian Tribes. It is not doing it to anybody else,
    just to Tribes. I would submit that that is fundamentally unfair.
    Again, nobody's rights are taken away. Every American citizen has
    exactly the same right.
      But if you were to go to work for the Federal Government, you don't
    have precisely the same rights you do in the private sector. The same
    thing is true here. If you choose to go to work for a Tribal
    government, you live within that regime. That regime has to comport
    with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and you have
    not lost your action rights in Federal court if you think there is a
    violation.

      So I think, frankly, this is a case that is crystal clear. You treat
    everybody the same way, every governmental unit the same way. That is
    all the Tribes are asking for.
      Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
    Burgess), a distinguished member of both the Rules Committee and the
    Energy and Commerce Committee.
      Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
    thank him for his work as the chairman of the Appropriations
    Subcommittee that deals with funding public health as well as medical
    research.
      I heard some comments about extension of the funding for the
    Children's Health Insurance Program at the beginning of the debate, and
    I wanted to

    [[Page H102]]

    come to the floor and remind people that the Energy and Commerce
    Committee did do its work as far as continuing the funding for the
    Children's Health Insurance Program. It completed its work. We delayed
    a little bit at the request of committee Democrats, we delayed a little
    bit at the request of the ranking member of the full committee, but we
    did deliver a product the first part of October.
      That product passed the floor of this House late October, early
    November. It passed with, of course, almost every Republican vote and
    over two dozen Democratic votes. It was, indeed, a bipartisan effort.
      It funded the Children's Health Insurance Program for 5 years, which
    was the Democratic request; the funding levels were requested by the
    Democrats; and it was offset in a responsible way.
      That bill is pending over in the United States Senate, and I,
    frankly, do not understand why the Senate minority leader will not
    release that bill for a vote by his Senators because it is, after all,
    Democratic Senators who represent States around this country that are
    going to suffer as a consequence of not passing this bill.
      Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
      Mr. Speaker, I also want to address something my friend, Mr. Cole,
    said.
      Again, I am sure you can find a few instances in municipal and State
    government, but I am sure the gentleman would agree that, relative to
    size, they are very few and far between. Even most municipal golf
    courses are run by private operators under contract to municipalities.
    I am sure the gentleman can find a couple that aren't.
      I have interacted with businesses in my district that are owned by
    Tribal nations, and I worked with them. There are a number of
    provisions in law that help them. I support those.
      But I do believe that workers don't give up their rights simply
    because they work for a company that happens to be owned by a Tribal
    nation, as opposed to an American or even a Native American citizen of
    our country who, in their personal capacity, is the owner of a company
    and would not have the same ability to deprive workers of their rights
    as a company that was owned by his or her Tribe.
      So, again, we want to make sure we support Tribal autonomy. And I do.
    Perhaps there is a bill to be had here, but it is simply not this bill.
      I want to share a story of one of my constituents from Fort Collins,
    Colorado, that I think will bring this back to what our body should be
    doing.
      I understand there are arguments on both sides of this. I understand
    there are people on both sides of the aisle who have concerns and also
    who support this bill. But it is not the urgency that we face with
    regard to deferred action or child health insurance.
      In July of 2017, Carla and her husband from Fort Collins found out
    they were expecting another child. Both Carla and her husband work full
    time. Carla works at a local childcare center. Her husband works at a
    local retail store.
      Even with their two full-time incomes, like many Americans, they felt
    the Children's Health Insurance Program was the only medical coverage
    for them, and Carla enrolled in CHIP.
      Carla is due to deliver her baby in March of this year, but she
    worries that, when the baby comes, she won't have medical coverage
    anymore. Unfortunately, Carla is right to worry. Right now, Colorado is
    expected to run out of CHIP funding at the end of February, just a few
    weeks before Carla is due.
      That is why this issue is so urgent, Mr. Speaker. For the tens of
    thousands of children and pregnant women, like Carla, we can't wait
    another minute to provide a permanent extension of the Children's
    Health Insurance Program.
      But instead of finding a bipartisan fix for the Children's Health
    Insurance Program or for deferred action or to keep the government
    open, instead, here we have yet another bill that people will have
    different opinions on, and I feel that it undermines workers' rights
    and is not supportive in the way that I would be of the rights of our
    nations. It is, unfortunately, another example of misguided priorities.
      We have precious little time--I believe 4 days--until the funding of
    the government expires. We should have acted on the Children's Health
    Insurance Program last year. We should have acted on deferred action
    last year. We need to act now.
      Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I oppose the underlying bill, I urge a
    ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
      Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and I want to stress that, while we
    disagree on this, I appreciate his efforts in Native American issues.
    He has a record that, I think, is an excellent record overall. We just
    disagree very profoundly in this case.
      I will say this: if you happened to just casually turn on the
    coverage of the debate at any point, you might wonder what we were
    debating about. In the course of the debate, we have talked about CHIP,
    we have talked about the DREAMers, we have talked about the budget, we
    have talked about FISA. We have spent a lot of time talking about a lot
    of different things other than the information at hand. I don't
    begrudge my friend. He feels very passionately about those areas.

      It is interesting to me that, on the FISA issue, for instance, we
    will actually have a debate tomorrow. The amendment my friend supports
    will be in order tomorrow. We will have an opportunity to do that.
      I think there are good faith efforts underway on both sides on the
    DACA issue and on the issue of FISA, particularly on the issue of the
    budget as well. Again, I wish this place worked a little differently.
    Sometimes deadlines are like alarm clocks here, but those things are
    underway.
      What we are talking about today is also an effort that has been waged
    by Indian nations for over a dozen years to try and reclaim part of
    their sovereignty that was unjustly taken away from them.
      I am going to disagree with my friend very profoundly. Nobody's
    rights have been taken away. Every American's rights are guaranteed by
    the Constitution of the United States. The Indian Civil Rights Act of
    1965 makes it abundantly clear no Tribe can do anything in
    contravention and restrict the rights of Americans.
      The only people who have lost rights in this whole discussion and
    episode have been Tribal governments who had their right to regulate
    their labor affairs, the same way we allow States and localities to do
    it, taken away from them.
      It wasn't taken away from them by an act of this Congress. We never
    passed legislation. It wasn't taken away from this because the
    administration ordered some agency of the executive branch to do
    something. It was taken away because, acting in a rogue manner, the
    National Labor Relations Board, on its own, decided it would expand its
    legal authority.
      Well, that is great. They may have a case to make. But that is not
    what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to operate within the
    authority Congress gives them. If they think they need a grant of
    additional authority, they come to Congress and ask for that grant of
    additional authority. They don't simply, on their own, decide they will
    willy-nilly violate the rights of a sovereign Native American nation.
    That is exactly what happened in this case. Frankly, the Tribes have
    been extraordinarily patient in pursuing the remedy to this.
      I think we ought to, today, take the opportunity to rectify a wrong
    that an agency of the executive branch did without the consent of
    Congress or even without the consent of the President of the United
    States at the time and allow Tribes to reclaim the authority that they
    exercised for over 70 years.
      If we think we need to do something different in that regard, that is
    a fair point to make. If we do, it needs to be the same for State
    governments and local governments. You don't single Tribes out of
    sovereign entities and impose something on them that doesn't apply to
    everybody else that is a sovereign of the United States of America.
      Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all Members to support the rule,
    but I recognize my friends probably will not, and that is fair enough.
    That is normal partisan debate.
      But with S. 140, the House is taking steps to strengthen Tribal
    sovereignty. This body actually has a pretty good record. I worked with
    my friends across the aisle when we passed the Violence

    [[Page H103]]

    Against Women Act, which had a very important component giving Tribes
    back some of the jurisdiction that they needed to regulate domestic
    abuse and sexual assault on their own territory.

                                  {time}  1445

      My friends were overwhelmingly supportive and helpful in that
    measure. It would not have happened without them, so I know in many
    cases we do agree. But in this case, under this bill, Tribal
    governments will be able to be excluded from the requirements for
    employers under the NLRA, just like State and local governments.
      This legislation will reverse the bureaucratic overreach of the NLRB
    and clarify the law once and for all. This bill is a commonsense
    solution that will clarify the original intent of Congress that the
    NLRA does not have jurisdiction over Tribal governments.
      I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this work. We
    will actually have a split decision over this. There will certainly be
    some Republicans supporting my friend's position, but by and large, I
    think this House will do what it did the last time it considered this
    legislation, and that is, on a bipartisan basis, pass the law.
      This time, given the action of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee,
    we have every reason to believe the legislation will be picked up and
    sent to the President's desk, where I am confident it will be signed.
      The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

                An Amendment to H. Res. 681 Offered by Mr. Polis

           At the end of the resolution, add the following new
         sections:
           Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
         Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
         the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
         the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
         3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
         of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
         States residents and who entered the United States as
         children and for other purposes. The first reading of the
         bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
         consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
         confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
         divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
         member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
         debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
         five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
         the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
         the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
         the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
         adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
         on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
         intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
         without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
         reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
         on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
         after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
         rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
         consideration of the bill.
           Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
         consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                      ____

            The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

           This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
         question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
         A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
         against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
         the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
         vote about what the House should be debating.
           Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
         Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
         previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
         control the consideration of the subject before the House
         being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
         question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
         subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
         of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
         House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
         the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
         offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
         majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
         the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
         a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
         recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
         ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
         from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
         yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
         recognition.''
           The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
         question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
         immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no
         substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
         But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
         Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
         the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
         page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
         question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
         not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
         controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
         offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
         voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
         motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
         time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
         the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
         the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
         the purpose of amendment.''
           In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
         Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
         Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
         such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
         Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
         debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
         ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
         resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
         shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
         question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
         controls the time for debate thereon.''
           Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
         have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
         available tools for those who oppose the Republican
         majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
         opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

      Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
    move the previous question on the resolution.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
    question.
      The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
    the ayes appeared to have it.
      Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
      The yeas and nays were ordered.
      The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
    proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                              ____________________