Power And Security Systems (PASS) Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 140.

As has been pointed out, buried in section 3 of this otherwise noncontroversial water and lands bill is the text of H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. This nongermane provision would strip thousands of employees of their rights and protections under the National Labor Relations Act at Tribal enterprises located on Tribal lands.

At issue in the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act are two solemn and deeply rooted principles:

First, the right that Indian Tribes possess in matters of local self- governance;

Second, the rights of workers to organize unions, bargain collectively, and engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection.

Rather than attempting to balance these two important principles, the bill chooses sovereignty for some over the human rights of others. I would note that the approximately 75 percent of workers employed at Tribal casinos are not members of the Tribes running the casino, but this bill would strip labor rights of hundreds of thousands of these workers as well as those who are actually members of the Tribes.

In doing so, this legislation would abandon the carefully drawn balance between Tribal sovereignty and workers' rights that was adopted in the San

Manuel decision by a Republican-led National Labor Relations Board in 2004. Perhaps prompted by litigation, the board ruled that the National Labor Relations Act will only apply if it does not impact the exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters or abrogate rights guaranteed by treaties.

The San Manuel decision is based on legal principles governing Federal laws of general applicability with respect to Indian Tribes that have been upheld by appeals courts for over 30 years. That is why courts have ruled that Tribes must comply with labor and employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA; and the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Yet this bill singles out the National Labor Relations Act on the grounds that Tribes must be given parity with State and local governments which statutorily are exempt from the NLRA. Maybe States and localities should have been considered, but the statutes are clear that they are exempt.

This is not a reason why Tribes should be exempt from an otherwise generally applicable law. Furthermore, State and local governments are covered under title VII of the Civil Rights Act; whereas, Tribes are expressly exempt.

For employees of Tribal enterprises, therefore, unions are the sole protection under Federal law against discrimination, including sexual harassment, because they can negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that enforces employees' rights to be free from such conduct.

Democrats and Republicans together have insisted that our trading partners abide by and enforce basic labor rights anytime we do a trade deal. And Congress has repeatedly required these obligations in trade agreements, but today the House will vote on a bill that takes away the assurance that employees have for the freedom of association if they are employed in many Tribal casinos.

This creates a fair question: Would this legislation place the United States Government in breach of any of the trade agreements that are now in effect? According to the International Labor Organization, in an opinion on a similar bill a few years ago, it would, in fact, put us in breach of trade agreements.

We should be able to fashion compromises that, frankly, protect both workers' rights and Tribal sovereignty, but what is before us today fails that test. There is no principled basis for stripping hundreds of thousands of workers from the right to join a union and negotiate better wages simply because they happen to work in a commercial enterprise on Tribal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, will you advise as to how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

I yield the gentlewoman from Ohio an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the bill from the AFL-CIO.

AFL-CIO Legislative Alert

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, January 9, 2018.

Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO urges you to oppose the

Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, H.R. 986, which would deny

protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to a

large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and -

operated enterprises located on Indian land. Among these

workers are over 600,000 tribal casino workers, the vast

majority of whom are not Native Americans. In recent years,

the number and type of enterprises affected has grown well

beyond the gaming industry, and would now include mining

operations, power plants, smoke shops, saw mills,

construction companies, ski resorts, high-tech firms, hotels,

and spas. Many of these are commercial businesses that

compete with non-Indian enterprises. As proposed, the Tribal

Labor Sovereignty Act would strip all workers in these

enterprises of their rights and protections under the NLRA.

The House bill, introduced by Representative Rokita, would

overturn a decision by the National Labor Relations Board

(NLRB) in San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino, 341 NLRB No. 138

(2004), which applied the NLRA to a tribal casino enterprise.

In San Manuel, the NLRB looked to Supreme Court and circuit

court precedent to articulate a test for whether the NLRB

should assert jurisdiction over tribal enterprises, whether

located on tribal lands or outside them. (Before San Manuel,

NLRB jurisdiction was determined based solely on location: On

tribal land, the NLRB would forego jurisdiction; off tribal

land, the NLRB would assert jurisdiction. Under the San

Manuel test, the NLRA will not apply if its application would

``touch exclusive rights of self-governance in purely

intramural matters.'' Nor will the NLRA apply if it would

``abrogate Indian treaty rights.'' The Board in San Manuel

also considered other factors, including whether the casino

in question was a typical commercial enterprise, employed

non-Native Americans, and catered to non-Native American

customers.

In San Manuel, the Board concluded that applying the NLRA

would not interfere with the tribe's autonomy, and the

effects of the NLRA would not ``extend beyond the tribe's

business enterprise and regulate intramural matters.''

However, the test articulated in San Manuel provides a

careful balancing of tribal sovereignty interests with the

NLRA's federal labor law protections. In a companion case,

Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corp., 341 NLRB No. 139 (2004), the

Board tipped the balance the other way and didn't assert

jurisdiction.

The AFL-CIO supports the principle of sovereignty for

tribal governments, but does not believe that employers

should use this principle to deny workers their collective

bargaining rights and freedom of association. While the AFL-

CIO continues to support the concept of tribal sovereignty in

truly internal, self-governance matters, it is in no position

to repudiate fundamental human rights that belong to every

worker in every nation. Workers cannot be left without any

legally enforceable right to form unions and bargain

collectively in instances where they are

working for a tribal enterprise which is simply a commercial

operation competing with non-tribal businesses.

The International Labour Organization (ILO), an agency of

the United Nations, has confirmed this view in response to a

question about whether excluding (from the NLRA) workers

employed on tribal lands would conform with principles of

freedom of association. These values are at the core of the

ILO Constitution and the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental

Principles and Rights at Work. The Director for the

International Labour Standards Division wrote that in the

absence of tribal ordinances offering full protection of

internationally recognized rights, ``it is critical that the

State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility

for ensuring respect for freedom of association and

collective bargaining rights throughout its territory.'' In

other words, if the tribes themselves don't guarantee these

basic rights--and many do not, the U.S. government must not

abdicate its responsibility to protect them.

Notwithstanding the importance of the principle of tribal

sovereignty, the fundamental human rights of employees are

not the exclusive concern of tribal enterprises or tribal

governments. In fact, the vast majority of employees of these

commercial enterprises, such as casinos, are not Native

Americans. They therefore have no voice in setting tribal

policy and no recourse to tribal governments for the

protection of their rights.

The AFL-CIO opposes any effort to exempt on an across-the-

board basis all tribal enterprises from the NLRA, without

undertaking a specific review of all the circumstances--as

current NLRB standards provide. Where the enterprise employs

mainly Native American employees with mainly Native American

customers, and involves self-governance or intramural

affairs, leaving the matter to tribal governments may be

appropriate. However, where the business employs primarily

non-Native American employees and caters to primarily non-

Native American customers, there is no basis for depriving

employees of their rights and protections under the National

Labor Relations Act.

Sincerely,

William Samuel, Director,

Government Affairs Department.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about State and local being exempt and Tribes not being exempt. Well, that was a decision made way back when. The law specifically exempts State and local. Maybe it should; maybe it didn't; but it did. Tribes were not specifically exempted.

So in conclusion, this bill will strip hundreds of thousands of employees of the right to join a union. Where some Tribes have Tribal labor ordinances that are fair and workable, others do not. And at least one expressly prohibits the formation of unions.

There is no principal basis for excluding these workers from coverage under labor law just because they happen to work in a commercial enterprise on Tribal lands. If this bill will come into law, it will be the first rollback of workers' rights under Federal law in over 70 years, and it may well place the United States in violation of several international trade agreements.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I respect and support Tribal sovereignty. I also support workers' rights to unionize and collective bargaining to improve their workplace and the lives of their families. Those rights must be balanced, but they are not in this bill.

Union members have a collective voice to fight for higher wages, better benefits, safer workplaces, fewer injuries, fewer deaths, lower rates of gender-based violence.

After Unite Here, a union, found that 58 percent of hotel workers and 77 percent of casino workers in the Chicagoland, where I am from, had been sexually harassed, they won a contract that includes panic buttons to protect workers.

Labor rights are fundamental, but under this bill, workers at Tribally-owned businesses, casinos and hotels, construction, and other industries would lose those rights.

Remember, three out of four workers employed in Tribal casinos are not Tribal members. Those workers could end up with no way to bargain for fair wages, appeal unfair disciplinary action, or act against sexual harassment.

Looking at a similar bill in the last Congress, the International Labour Organization stated: ``It would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the National Labor Relations Act and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers their fundamental freedom of association rights absent any assurances that there were Tribal labor laws that provide the same rights to all workers.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no such requirement in this bill. Protect workers. Reject this unfair and unbalanced bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the opinion from the International Labour Office.

International Labour Office,

Geneve 22.

Mr. R.L. Trumka,

President, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Trumka: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated

22 October 2015 requesting an informal opinion and guidance

from

the International Labour Organization in respect of a Bill

being considered by the United States Congress.

In particular, you have raised concerns about the Tribal

Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 511) which you state would deny

protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of a

large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and tribal-

operated enterprises located on tribal territory and ask for

the informal opinion of the Office as to whether such an

exclusion of workers employed on tribal lands would be in

conformity with the principles of freedom of Association

which are at the core of the ILO Constitution and the ILO's

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

In conformity with the regular procedure concerning

requests for an informal opinion from the International

Labour Office in respect of draft legislation and its

possible impact on international labour standards and

principles, the views set out below should in no way be

considered as prejudging any comments or observations that

might be made by the ILO supervisory bodies within the

framework of their examination of the application of ratified

international labour standards or principles on freedom of

association.

Your links to committee reports of the congressional

majority and minority and other background information have

enabled the Office to consider the views of the parties both

for and against the proposed amendment and they all appear to

confirm recognition of the United States' obligation to

uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining.

While the proponents of the Bill assert that this can be

achieved through the labour relations' regimes autonomously

determined by the tribal nations, the opponents--and you

yourself in your request--maintain that excluding tribal

lands from the NLRA will in effect result in a loss (or at

the very least inadequate protection) of their trade union

rights. Not only do you refer to tribal labour relations

ordinances which in your view provide inadequate protections

in this regard, but you also refer to instances where there

are no tribal labour relations ordinances at all.

While elements of indigenous peoples' sovereignty have been

invoked by the proponents of this Bill, the central question

revolves around the manner in which the United States

Government can best assure throughout its territory the full

application of the fundamental principles of freedom of

association and collective bargaining. From an ILO

perspective, while the variety of mechanisms for ensuring

freedom of association and collective bargaining rights may

differ depending on distinct sectoral considerations or

devolution of labour competence, it is critical that the

State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility

for ensuring respect for freedom of association and

collective bargaining rights throughout its territory.

As you have indicated, the 2004 San Manuel Indian Bingo and

Casino decision assures possible recourse to the National

Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an overarching mechanism aimed

at ensuring the protection of freedom of association, while

also maintaining deference to the sovereign interests of the

tribal nations so as to avoid touching on exclusive rights of

self-governance.

Full abdication of review via an exclusion from the scope

of the NLRA for all workers employed on tribal lands as

described might make it very difficult for the United States

Government to assure the fundamental trade union rights of

workers. In cases like those mentioned where there are no

tribal labour relations ordinances, undue restrictions on

collective bargaining, excessive limitations on freedom of

association rights or lack of protection from unfair labour

practices, workers on tribal territories would be left

without any remedy for violation of their fundamental freedom

of association rights, short of a constitutional battle.

Furthermore, the exclusion proposed, with no avenue for

federal review or overarching mechanism for appeal should

there be an alleged violation of freedom of association,

would give rise to discrimination in relation to the

protection of trade union rights which would affect both

indigenous and non-indigenous workers simply on the basis of

their workplace location.

Given the concerns that you have raised, it would be

critically important that, at the very least, a complete

legal and comparative review be undertaken to support

assurances that all rights, mechanisms and remedies for the

full protection of internationally recognized freedom of

association rights are available to all workers on all tribal

lands. In the absence of such assurances, it would appear

likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and

its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to

these workers their fundamental freedom of association

rights.

In accordance with ILO procedure concerning requests for

informal opinions on draft legislation, this communication

will also be brought to the attention of the United States

Government and the representative employers' organization,

the US Council for International Business.

Yours sincerely,

Corinne Vargha,

Director of the

International Labour Standards Department.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill before us that takes away National Labor Relations Act protections for hundreds of thousands of workers.

I support Tribal sovereignty. In my home State of Wisconsin, I am proud the Ho-Chunk Nation is in my district. Potawatomi, Oneida, Menominee, St. Croix, Stockbridge-Munsee, Lac du Flambeau, Lac Corte Oreilles, Red Cliff, Bad River, and other Tribes all reside in my home State, and I am glad to support the autonomy of those Tribal nations. But this bill isn't about Tribal sovereignty. It is about going after workers' rights.

Look at the track record of the majority in this Congress. The Republicans have continued to go after workers' rights, as they have so far. They have repealed the rule that required companies seeking large Federal contracts to disclose violations of labor law. They made it harder for people whose jobs are shipped overseas to get unemployment insurance. They have made it harder for workers whose employers don't offer retirement plans to save for retirement. They have repealed an OSHA rule requiring employers to maintain accurate records of serious workplace injuries for 5 years, while the administration drastically reduces the number of OSHA inspectors.

This bill isn't about meaningful sovereignty. It is about selective sovereignty, because it only goes after labor rights.

If this were a bill about sovereignty, it would include a number of other areas that Tribes are compelled to follow in addition to the National Labor Relations Act: the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA; the Family and Medical Leave Act; and the public accommodations of Americans with Disabilities Act, just to start.

If this bill was about sovereignty, it would exempt OSHA and ERISA and the FMLA and the ADA, for starters. But it doesn't do that. This bill only exempts labor protections for hundreds of thousands of workers, Tribal members and nonmembers, because the majority in this Congress isn't really worried about sovereignty. It is concerned

about taking away the rights of workers, and that is what this bill is really about.

Mr. Speaker, if this body wants to help Tribes, I am here to help. Bring a bill to the floor that covers all exempted areas, and that is a bill that I could support. But that is not what is in front of us today.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of opposition from the International Union of Operating Engineers, the United Auto Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, and Unite Here.

International Union of

Operating Engineers,

Washington, DC, January 8, 2018.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The International

Union of Operating Engineers opposes the Tribal Labor

Sovereignty Act, legislation contained in S. 140 (115-54)

that would eliminate the labor protections currently

guaranteed to hundreds of thousands of American workers.

Indeed, if enacted into law, this bill would constitute the

biggest rollback in labor law since the passage of the Taft-

Hartley Act in 1947.

The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)

represents nearly 400,000 men and women across North America.

Members of the International Union of Operating Engineers

maintain and operate Native American and non-Native American

gaming facilities around the United States, from Connecticut

to California, and this legislation would have a dramatic

effect on their lives and livelihoods. The IUOE is the

second-biggest union in the hospitality sector. But this

legislation extends beyond casinos and gaming. IUOE members

work in mining and energy facilities on Native American lands

in a number of locations, and those workers eventually could

lose their rights as a result of this legislation.

In a few short words, this bill changes current law by

exempting the National Labor Relations Act from tribal

enterprises on tribal lands. Today, the National Labor

Relations Board (Board) implements a case-by-case review of

whether labor law applies to tribal enterprises.

The precedent-setting case that comes from the San Manuel

Band of Mission Indians is instructive. The Tribe operated a

92,000-sq.ft. casino (over two acres), with 1,400 employees.

Only five of the workers were Native American. The Board

determined that this large commercial establishment should

not receive the exemption from labor law provided to states

and local government because its operations were

fundamentally different than a government. The San Manuels

were not providing a public good to members of the tribe.

They were not behaving like a government. Instead, the Board

determined that when the tribal operation in question is

commercial in nature, employs significant numbers of non-

Indians, and caters to a non-Native American clientele, ``the

special attributes of sovereignty are not implicated.'' The

Board determined that private labor law applies to the San

Manuel casino, just as it would with any other commercial

operation. Federal courts have supported this interpretation.

Sovereignty does, however, apply to governmental functions of

the tribe, just as they would with any state government.

If passed, the exemption from labor law would unfairly

advantage commercial tribal operations at the expense of non-

Native American private-sector companies. Competitors with

Native American commercial operations must comply with labor

law; Native American operations will not. As mentioned above,

the bill's reach extends well beyond the gaming industry.

Tribes are engaged in a variety of commercial enterprises,

from mining and energy development, to manufacturing and

construction. Over time, it is reasonable to expect that

tribal enterprises will expand and compete more aggressively

with non-Native companies in a wide variety of commercial

sectors, without any concern for the rights of workers.

Tribal labor law is woefully inadequate--virtually non-

existent in most tribes around the country. It is no

replacement for the nation's basic legal framework that

protects workers' rights. Eliminating the NLRA for tribal

enterprises will strip away freedoms guaranteed to Americans

today, including hundreds of thousands of workers at tribal

casinos who are not Native American. S. 140 (115-54) would

immediately eliminate the rights of thousands of Operating

Engineers in workplaces all over the United States.

The International Union of Operating Engineers opposes S.

140 (115-54), which eliminates nearly one-million workers'

individual right to take collective action to improve their

working conditions, and respectfully urges you to oppose it

when it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives on

Wednesday.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

James T. Callahan,

General President.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 140, which would strip protections from workers who are employed by a Tribally-owned business but are not Tribal members. This includes protection from harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees, does not apply to Tribal enterprises. A non-Tribal worker employed by a Tribally-owned casino, for example, cannot file a harassment or discrimination claim in Federal court or with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Instead, collective bargaining agreements fill the gap by including provisions that enforce their right to a fair workplace.

By stripping their collective bargaining rights, this legislation eliminates the only recourse that these workers have against discrimination and harassment. This is one of the many unacceptable consequences of this bill.

Now, I have two letters. One from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and one from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, both of which raise strong objections to the majority's attempt to exclude workers from the rights enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, I include these letters in the Record.

International Brotherhood

of Teamsters,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members

of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am again

writing to

express our strong opposition to H.R. 986, the Tribal Labor

Sovereignty Act. This legislation would exempt all Tribally-

owned and -operated commercial enterprises on Indian lands

broadly defined from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

We urge you to vote no when the House considers this

legislation.

If H.R. 986 were to become law, hundreds of thousands of

workers at these enterprises, including Teamsters, would be

stripped of their protections and rights under the NLRA,

including the right to organize and collective bargaining. It

would deprive both Tribal members and non-member employees of

the right to form or join unions and to bargain collectively

for better wages, hours, and working conditions. We should be

working to expand the rights and ability of workers to earn a

decent living for themselves and their families and to secure

a safe and healthy workplace.

While Tribal casinos have been the focus of discussion,

this legislation affects not just casino workers. Since the

1980's Tribes have expanded business interests beyond

casinos. They now operate many different revenue producing

commercial enterprises--construction companies, mining

operations, and power plants, to hotels, water parks and ski

resorts, to name a few.

In 2004, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (in San

Manuel) ruled that Tribal casino workers should have NLRA

protections. Shortly after the San Manuel decision,

legislation, in the form of amendments, was twice offered to

block the NLRB from enforcing the San Manuel decision.

These amendments were rejected. Since then, the NLRB has

proceeded in a measured fashion asserting jurisdiction on a

case-by-case basis. The NLRB will not assert jurisdiction

where it would interfere with internal governance rights in

purely intramural matters or abrogate treaty rights.

Otherwise, the NLRB will protect workers' rights at tribally

owned enterprises by asserting jurisdiction. With its case-

by-case approach, San Manuel takes a careful approach to

balancing of tribal sovereignty interests with Federal labor

law.

It should be noted that other important federal laws that

protect workers apply to Indian businesses, such as the

Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Fair Labor Standards

Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and Title

III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Indeed, courts

have denied attempts to gain exemptions on numerous occasions

ruling commercial tribal enterprises should not be excluded

from such laws. NLRA rights and protections should not be

treated differently.

Proponents assert that they are seeking the same exemption

as state and local governments. However, this is inaccurate,

The NLRA only exempts actual government employees and not

private sector employees performing contracted out government

functions. Also, a substantial majority of workers at these

enterprises are not Indian or Tribe members, and thus have no

ability to influence tribal governance, since non-tribal

members are prohibited from petitioning a tribe.

The bill could also undermine enforcement of existing labor

contracts and the decision workers made to organize and

bargain collectively. When a collective bargaining agreement

expires, a Tribe could unilaterally terminate the

relationship with the union without consequence under the

NLRA. The employer's obligation. to bargain could be

eliminated.

Employees of tribal enterprises have no constitutional

rights to protect against employers. Only the NLRA gives them

free speech rights. Absent the NLRA they have no protection.

Workers cannot be left without any legally enforceable right

to form unions and bargain collectively just because they are

employed at tribally owned enterprise.

Finally, the United States requires its trading partners to

implement and abide by internationally recognized labor

standards, while H.R. 986 deprives workers at these tribal

enterprises of these core rights--the right to organize and

bargain collectively.

To focus solely on the NLRA raises the question of the true

motivation for this legislation. It is regrettable that the

principle of tribal sovereignty is being used to cloak an

attack on the basic rights of workers to organize and bargain

collectively. The Teamsters Union respects tribal

sovereignty. However, we do not believe that this principle

should be used to deny workers their collective bargaining

rights and freedom of association. We urge you to oppose the

Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act and to VOTE NO on H.R. 986 when

the legislation comes to a vote in the House of

Representatives.

Sincerely,

James P. Hoffa,

General President.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

It was in 1935 that this body enacted the National Labor Relations Act. It guaranteed basic rights to private sector workers to organize into trade unions, to engage in contractual bargaining for decent wages and better conditions at work, and to take joint action, if necessary.

But in 1935, just like today, here, 2018, the Republican Party and business interests vehemently opposed passage of any laws that help workers. Little has changed. Once again our Republican colleagues trample on the backs of workers.

This legislation rolls back proven protections that allow wages to rise in places like California, and their casinos, from $10 an hour to $13 an hour. Now, these modest pay increases have helped elevate the workers who work in those casinos above the Federal poverty level.

Who has ever tried to buy a house in California or tried to live on $13 an hour or $10 an hour? You are not talking about a whole lot of money there, especially from a party that just gave $1 trillion away to the people at the very top.

But with this bill, our Republican colleagues chose to strip these hundreds of thousands of workers, the majority of whom are not members of Tribes but work in those casinos, of decent wages and their right to a voice in the workplace.

Wow.

Beneath their sheepskin costumes hides another Republican attack on worker rights in this country, this time under the guise of Tribal sovereignty.

Let me remind my colleagues though, throughout our National Labor Relations Board's history, it has never and will not assert jurisdiction where it would interfere with a Tribe's internal governance rights in purely intramural matters.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the strong opposition to it from the United Steelworkers of America and from the Communications Workers of America. As a proud daughter of labor, I am proud to stand here today in opposition to this bill.

United Steelworkers,

Pittsburgh, PA, January 9, 2018.

Re United Steelworkers oppose inclusion of anti-worker H.R.

986, Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2017 in S. 140.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 members of

the United Steelworkers (USW), we strongly urge you to oppose

S. 140 on the House floor this week. Rather than

being identical to the Senate bill, this version includes the

anti-worker and undemocratic Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of

2017 (H.R. 986).

H.R. 986 would exempt all employees of federally recognized

Native American-owned commercial enterprises operated on

Indian lands from the protections of the National Labor

Relations Act (NLRA) and would authorize over 567 distinct

and separate labor law jurisdictions in the United States.

To be absolutely clear, this legislation strips workers--

both Native American and non-Native American--of their NLRA

protections. While some organizations have falsely attempted

to paint tribal governments as similar entities to states

(which are exempt from the NLRA), tribal governments are

substantially different than states in one key democratic

principal: state governments allow workers an ability to vote

for their legislators no matter their ancestry, while most

tribal governments require blood quantum or lineal descent to

determine who is eligible for membership or citizenship.

Simply put, if H.R. 986 becomes law by inclusion in S. 140,

U.S. citizens working in the United States for tribal

commercial enterprises would not be able to vote for the

elected representatives who set their labor laws. These

workers will lose the ability to petition the government that

oversees their working conditions.

The gaming industry, which is an employer for approximately

246 of the 567 federally recognized American Indian tribes;

has over 600,000 casino workers on tribal lands, the

overwhelming majority of whom are not Native Americans. In

2011 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the National

Indian Gaming Commission testified that the vast majority of

employees (up to 75 percent) were non-tribal members.

Our union understands the importance of the principle of

tribal sovereignty; however the fundamental human rights of

employees are not the exclusive concern of tribal enterprises

or tribal governments. As the International Labor

Organization highlighted in a letter on a previous version of

this bill, ``it is critical that the State (the national

authority) takes ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect

for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights

throughout its territory''. That is why we believe the

current test set by the NLRB is the best course of action

until labor laws are strengthened in the United States.

In 2004, the NLRB under the Bush Administration ruled for

the first time that Tribal casino workers should have the

benefit of NLRA protections, San Manuel, 341 NLRB No. 138

(2204). Yet, since the San Manuel ruling, the NLRB has

asserted jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. In 2015, the

NLRB declined jurisdiction citing the 1830 Treaty of Dancing

Rabbit Creek and 1866 Treaty of Washington stating:

``We have no doubt that asserting jurisdiction over the

Casino and the Nation would effectuate the policies of the

Act. However, because we find that asserting jurisdiction

would abrogate treaty rights specific to the Nation.''

Chickasaw Nation Windstar World Casino, 362 NLRB 109 92015).

Similarly the NLRB declined jurisdiction:

``. . . when an Indian tribe is fulfilling a traditionally

tribal or governmental function that is unique to its status,

fulfilling just such a unique governmental function

[providing free health care services solely to tribal

members],'' Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, 341 NLRB 139

(2004).

The NLRB has developed a reasonable and responsible test to

determine jurisdiction. H.R. 986 creates significant

confusion and jurisdictional issues over labor law

enforcement and grossly undermines worker's rights. Our union

urges you to oppose S. 140, with the inclusion of H.R. 986,

and asks you to instead work to expand worker's rights not

restrict them further.

Sincerely,

Leo W. Gerard,

International President.