[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.

                          ____________________