Providing for consideration of 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.

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

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

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

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.

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. 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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 681 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 682 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 682, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

The rule also provides for a motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule makes in order an amendment offered by Mr. Amash, representing ideas from Members of both sides of the aisle.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from numerous members, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff. We also heard from Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Nadler, Congressman Farenthold, Congressman Amash, Congresswoman Lofgren, and also Congressman Poe.

In addition to the vigorous debate on this legislation before the Rules Committee, both the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee held markups on legislation to reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Today we have the opportunity to pass an important piece of legislation that will enhance our national security and strengthen protections of Americans' privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I publicly thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Nunes for their important work on this legislation. As a result of their efforts, the legislation we will consider today will protect the privacy rights of individual Americans without hindering the intelligence community's ability to gain valuable intelligence about the schemes and identities of our enemies.

Our government's most fundamental responsibilities are to defend the American people from harm and to protect their liberties. The value that we place on these duties is reflected by the fact that they are enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution.

To provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community work tirelessly to defeat the efforts of our foreign adversaries, whether they are terrorists, hostile foreign states, or nuclear proliferators.

Our Constitution tasks each branch of government--legislative, executive, and judicial--with constantly working to protect the liberty of every American.

With the bill provided for by this rule, the Chamber will be considering legislation that will help us better achieve both. The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act will extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, Title VII for 6 years while increasing oversight of its implementation at every level and providing more robust privacy protections for Americans.

Section 702 of FISA has proven to be an invaluable tool for collecting foreign intelligence and providing insight into the plans and intentions of our enemies. It is one of the National Security Administration's most important operational authorities.

It permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the United States, with the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers, to acquire foreign intelligence information.

Mr. Speaker, this program's importance to national security cannot be overstated. While many of the examples of its successes are classified in nature, I can tell you here today that it has helped protect the homeland and the American people.

One declassified example that I can share with Members concerns the story of Hajji Iman, who rose through the ranks of ISIS, eventually becoming the terrorist organization's second in command.

For more than 2 years, the intelligence community searched for Iman. During that period, the NSA used their section 702 programs to target his communications and his close associates. Their resourcefulness, together with these 702 resources, eventually led them to him.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was a terrorist. He was a murderer. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Iman was killed by U.S. special forces on March 24, 2016, during an attempt to apprehend him.

We may not see every victory that the 702 program delivers on behalf of innocent Americans, but these initiatives help protect Americans every day.

Let us pause to note, however, that with the broad authority granted by a program like 702 to collect foreign intelligence information to fight our foreign enemies, it must come with expansive safeguards against abuse of that authority and expansive oversight of its use.

To ensure that the authorities under section 702 do not come into conflict with the liberty and privacy interests of the American people, the FISA Amendments Act expands substantially on the already extensive safeguard.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, each branch of government is responsible for protecting the liberties of the American people. In the executive branch, there are extensive internal controls that require agency heads and the Attorney General to review and approve of actions under 702. Additionally, the inspector general for the intelligence community and the Department of Justice are tasked with comprehensive review of this program's implementation.

Mandatory internal procedures known as targeting and minimization procedures also govern the collection, use, and dissemination of information, and they are in place at each agency that uses FISA section 702.

The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act expands upon the internal protections by requiring each agency to also adopt querying procedures to control how each agency searches its database for 702-acquired communications.

This brings me to the judicial branch. Under current law, the targeting and minimization procedures must be approved annually by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, of FISC, which is made up of a rotating group of Article III judges.

The FISC, with the aid of amicus curiae briefs and technical experts, engages in exhaustive review and consideration of section 702's implementation for compliance with the Constitution and the law.

This legislation will enhance the FISC's considerations of privacy issues by providing the FISC with the authority to compensate amicus briefs and technical experts.

Finally, there is Congress, where we come to. The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Intelligence have conducted multiple oversight hearings and meetings in both classified and unclassified settings. Numerous insights came from those hearings, and the legislation that will be considered under today's rule reflects them well. The bill makes a number of improvements that will enhance the congressional oversight in coming years.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is time to remember one more group that remains critical to protecting Americans' liberties: American men and women themselves.

This legislation will improve transparency and public oversight of FISA section 702 by requiring the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review and publicly release the FISA section 702 minimization procedures every year.

Mr. Speaker, the most important reform contained in this legislation constitutes the most substantial reform to the program since its inception.

Under this legislation, the FBI will be required, when conducting a criminal investigation of a U.S. person, to obtain a warrant from the FISC prior to accessing the content of the communications that were acquired using 702.

Section 702 information is collected for the purpose of foreign intelligence operations, and this critical new requirement forecloses the possibility that FBI agents investigating Americans for traditional crimes would be able to use 702 information in such domestic investigations.

In addition to the numerous safeguards currently in place and added by this legislation, Americans are guaranteed their right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and the oath guides every action I take in this Chamber. The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act ensures that the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans are upheld and includes additional safeguards on top of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the importance of the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act in stopping terrorist attacks and protecting the American people, but this point bears repeating: this program allows the government to obtain the communication of foreigners outside the United States, including foreign terrorist threats, in support of the counterterrorism efforts worldwide. It has allowed us to respond to threats to our country.

Now let me tell you a little bit about what the 702 program is not. It is not a bulk collection of data. It cannot be used to target Americans and it cannot be used to target individuals located inside the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act is an example of what Congress can accomplish when we work together to find solutions to our Nation's weightiest challenges.

Mr. Speaker, before I close my opening, I also will acknowledge that there is a lot of difference of opinion, as there should be, on this bill. But at the end of the day, progress has been made, protections have been implemented, and the security of our country must be taken into account. That is why this bill needs to pass and any amendments that were brought forward need to fail.

We need to push this forward and begin the process in continuing to protect our private citizens' personal responsibilities and liberties, but also, at the same time, making sure that our intelligence communities and those entrusted with the sacred duty of protecting this country have the tools they need to do that. Anything else would be less than what we should be here.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee and former chair of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, there are a couple of things to clarify here.

This is an urgent matter. Although the gentlewoman spoke of this in the sense that the existing orders would stay in place, she fails to mention, and others have failed to talk about, that any new orders or even currently existing orders are being enforced by the intelligence community, which is set under that sort of pale of direction that they want.

So I guess if you are satisfied protecting the country with existing orders and existing threats that lasted yesterday, but I will guarantee you somebody else woke up this morning wanting to do us harm. I want the intelligence community to be able to address that in a way that is prudent and proper, which is what I feel like is happening here.

The other issue here is, and I want to make this very clear, there are strong opinions, and I respect the gentlewoman from California immensely, I have relayed and have had similar concerns that she has had over the process and I have voted with her several times to move forward, but we have moved forward, and there are, I believe, protections in this bill.

So when we also talk about, as we go forward, and there is going to be a lot of passionate rhetoric, who is looking out for whom and reminding us of our oaths, I took the oath here, just as the gentlewoman did, when we started this new session, but I also took another oath in the United States Air Force and also served in Iraq and also serve in that time since currently in the military, and we have that oath as well.

I will not take a backseat to anyone who can consciously disagree about where we are. This is a good bill. This is something that I would love to see in different ways changed, but this is the arc of where we are now in protecting our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California attempting to clarify.

Again, I stand by my statement. The simple fact is, it is the statement it will not go dark, but the issue is we go further here in the collection happening, but how we use that and how we deal with that in a national security context, there is an interesting issue here, and there is an issue that could keep us from doing what we need to do.

Again, this is the debate that we can have, this is the debate that we need to have on this floor, but there is a difference of opinion here. In this instance, I think with the pervasive efforts put in place, I believe that this program is one worth keeping.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), a former FBI special agent.

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

Just real briefly, I think one of the issues here is this discussion of riddled with loopholes and riddled with anybody. It is just a reminder that agencies not already defined in this cannot just do random searches of this database. This is something that we have just-- again, let's just push back on the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time is remaining on both sides, and then also inquire of my good friend from Florida if he has any more speakers.

Does the gentleman from Florida have any more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Florida, my cohort on the Rules Committee, but I will just also say I appreciate his advice. But also, as a reminder back to my friend from Florida, we have spent time talking about things that matter and things that were messed up.

In fact, we spent a lot of time in this House and passed a healthcare bill because people in my district called me regularly over the holiday, as the new year approached, saying: We can't get insurance, or the insurance that I am provided, no doctor will accept.

We have spent time on that. I believe that is real.

We spent time in this body over the past few years working on a bill called Dodd-Frank that, in my district, decimated community banks and made lending harder and made businesses have more trouble trying to hire people to put them to meaningful work. Yes, we are spending time on things that were not well thought out.

Tax reform was well thought out and is helping Americans in all districts, including my friend's, and I believe we will continue to hear more about that as the day progresses.

But today, again, as many times, we are focused on a bill that has serious debate. It has the reality of some that can take and look at one thing and see a difference, and I agree with my friends on that. But that is why we are having this debate. That is why there will be an amendment on this bill that I oppose and that others will. Some will support it.

But I tell you one that does not support it: the current administration does not support the amendment. The current administration supports the bill, and the relevant committees that have worked on this bill support the underlying bill.

Number two, one of the issues that we have talked about today and one of the things we have to be very careful of is going back to something that was supported by both parties, and that is the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report that said that we have to take seriously the foreign--I respect greatly my friend, former speaker on our side, who disagrees with this bill, but this is about foreign surveillance. This is the foreign part of this, and we have got to make sure that we have that capability.

Really, this bill--if you continue, and especially looking at the amendment and where others want to go--would build walls that led to the very problems that we expressed before 9/11.

Then there is this last case that continually comes up, and it was about the ``about collection,'' which is no longer being done and practiced. It has been said: Well, we are just codifying it, and they can bring it back willy-nilly.

Let's remind ourselves of what actually has to happen. They have to actually decide that, one, they can, and they have to bring it to the FISC, the court. Oh, wait. Hold on here a second. Let's think about what just happened here. They have to bring it back to the very court that said: Oh, we have got a concern about this and why they have suspended it.

But, Mr. Speaker, let's also talk about why this even occurred, to start with, with the court. It was because the agencies, the intelligence communities, self-reported an issue that they needed to look at. It was not hidden. It was self-reported to the court. This is the protections built into this legislation.

Now, we can debate whether they go far enough or they are not enough or they are properly billed. This is sort of like a debate that needs to happen.

But be careful where we go here, to let the American people be led to believe that things that are happening are not really happening. Do not let it be led to believe that there are not things in place set up by even friends who have spoken today, maybe even against this, that were put in place to

protect the personal rights of our citizens.

Let's never forget that the end result of this is keeping our Nation safe while balancing the privacy concerns of our own citizens, which is never outside of my thoughts and discussions.

For years, the five years that I have been in this body and worked on the Judiciary Committee, we have pushed this envelope, pushing it for protection while, at the same time, balancing our national security needs. I will never say, for the most part, that there is a perfect bill ever to hit this floor. I would think that my friend would probably agree with me on that.

So you have to find the balance and ask: What is the aim of the bill? What is it doing? And how did it go about.

I believe this strikes that balance.

You can have disagreement, but at the end of the day, my question to you is: Is your push to make something better willing to turn out the lights or go dark on watching those who wish to do us harm?

Don't bank on the fact that the intelligence community will just continue on under what has been happening and not look at what could happen, even as we are in this Chamber debating this bill. I want them to be able to see clearly the threats to this country. I want them to use the processes in place to protect American citizens in this process, which they are doing, which, by the way, was highlighted by the fact of the self-report that led to the unbalanced collection being stopped.

But I never would want to put the security of this country in doubt when they cannot look or they are on shaky legal ground of what they can and cannot do to protect us. This goes back to a time in our country's history where we have technology--it was just said recently-- that is changing. I want them to have the ability to continue this process under the supervision of a plan that is put in place. Where those need to be adjusted, they can be adjusted.

Are there other needs that need to be addressed? Yes, there are. The Intelligence Committee chairman and I have spoken on those already. The Judiciary Committee, also, is looking into these. But at this point in time, this bill is one that I believe strikes the balance that is critical for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to have the tools they need to do their jobs, for our civil liberties and right to privacy, fundamental to our identity as Americans. I believe the underlying bill strikes that proper balance.

As we go forward, these are the debates, Mr. Speaker, we need to have in this Chamber. At the end of the day, it is about getting the bill and the process right so that we can achieve the aims that need to be achieved.

As we move forward, I would say this is what happened, this is how we work, and, for now, I believe this is the proper way to go about it. I look forward to supporting this rule and the underlying bill to protect our Nation, the American people, and also to preserve our civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Florida for his astute assessment and analysis in his earlier remarks today, particularly sharing with us his experience on the Intelligence Committee, and I thank him for mentioning the fact that I serve as the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

In that capacity, that committee certainly encounters not only our Nation's law enforcement but many of the issues dealing with terrorism, including the work on homeland security.

With that in mind, I want to simply say to my colleagues and, certainly, to my good friend, who served and dedicated his life to the FBI for 14 years, none of us over the past couple of

months will take a backseat to championing the FBI, thanking the FBI, recognizing the FBI for the very valiant work that it does.

Being on the Judiciary Committee for the number of years that I have served, I have worked with almost every FBI Director, and agents, particularly the SACs in my particular jurisdiction, and have been engaged in discussions on the resources and needs of that organization. Mr. Speaker, again, we thank them for their service.

I would offer to say that the position I take today is to protect the FBI and to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record, interestingly enough, an article written by Sheila Jackson Lee, ``Protecting America, protecting Americans,'' dated October 16, 2007.

[From the POLITICO, Oct. 16, 2007]

Protecting America, Protecting Americans

(By Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee)

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville observed

that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial

conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that

best rewards and encourages those traits that are

indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation,

resourcefulness and courage.

The United States would do well to heed de Tocqueville and

recognize that the best way to win the war on terror is to

remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its

democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of

international villains will defeat the United States in the

pursuit of its vital interests.

A major challenge facing the Congress today is to ensure

that in waging its war on terror, the administration does not

succeed in winning passage of legislation that will weaken

the nation's commitment to its democratic traditions.

This is why the upcoming debate over congressional approval

authorizing the administration to conduct terrorist

surveillance on U.S. soil is a matter of utmost importance. I

offer some thoughts on the principles that should inform that

debate.

In the waning hours before the August recess, the House

acceded to the Bush administration's request and approved the

woefully misnamed ``Protect America Act,'' which gives the

federal government enlarged powers to conduct electronic

surveillance of American citizens under the guise of

conducting surveillance of foreign terrorists.

Fortunately, the authority conferred by the PAA expires

next February.

It is therefore incumbent on the Congress to act

expeditiously to amend the PAA so that it achieves the only

legitimate goals of a terrorist surveillance program, which

is to ensure that Americans are secure in their persons,

papers and effects, but terrorists throughout the world are

made insecure.

The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the

rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to

authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Enacted by Congress in 1978, the exclusivity of FISA was

undisputed. Any legislation authorizing terrorist

surveillance programs which the administration seeks to

conduct must explicitly affirm that FISA is the sole basis of

lawful authority for conducting foreign surveillance

gathering on U.S. soil.

That FISA remains the exclusive source of authority does

not mean that the law cannot be adapted to modern

circumstances or revised to accommodate new technologies. One

widely acknowledged reform is to amend FISA to make clear

that foreign-to-foreign communications are not subject to

FISA, even though modern technology enables that

communication to be routed through the United States.

Additionally, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring

compliance with the law.

Legislation must ensure that the FISC is empowered to act

as an Article III court should act, which means the court

should operate neither as a rubber stamp nor a bottleneck.

The function of the court is to validate the lawful exercise

of executive power on the one hand, and to act as the

guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other.

Congress should reject any proposal that grants amnesty to

any telecommunications company or other entity or individual

that helps federal intelligence agencies spy illegally on

innocent Americans.

Amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging

telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than

contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.

The only permissible path to legalization of conduct in

this area is full compliance with the requirements of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Finally, authorization to conduct foreign surveillance

gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The

threats to America's security and the liberties of its people

will change over time and require constant vigilance by the

people's representatives in Congress.

In short, it makes much more sense to enact legislation

that protects Americans, rather than one that protects

America, as the administration's proposal claims to do. At

bottom, America is its people connected to each other, and to

past and future generations, as in Abraham Lincoln's

unforgettable phrase, by ``the mystic chords of memory

stretching from every heart and hearthstone.''

America, in other words, is Americans coming together in a

community of shared values, ideals and principles. It is

those shared values that hold us together. It is our

commitment to those values that the terrorists wish to break

because that is the only way they can win.

Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is

for this country to redouble its commitment to the values

that every American will risk his or her life to defend. It

is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished

values that America will remain forever the home of the free,

the land of the brave and the country we love.

Mr. Speaker, that article suggests that we have the responsibility to protect America and Americans. I would make the point to my good friend, who mentioned that men and women or families sending their young people over to battlegrounds, they are absolutely right, and those young people who are going over to battlegrounds are going over on the basis of freedom. Their parents sacrificed, these loved ones sacrificed their young people because they believe so much in the freedom of this Nation.

Well, I will tell you that section 702 and the underlying bill, there is no freedom in this particular bill, and that is why we need to address the question in a thoughtful manner. I don't mind if we extend this to have a longer debate so that we can work through some of our concerns.

Let me be clear that S. 139 fails to address the core concern of Members of Congress and the American public. The government's use of section 702 information against United States citizens in investigations that have nothing to do with national security, that is the crux of our advocacy for both the Amash amendment, joined by myself and Zoe Lofgren and Ted Poe and many others--it is not to undermine the security of this Nation. It is to give substance to those families who sacrifice and send their young men and women to faraway places.

The warrant requirement contained in the bill is riddled with loopholes and applies only to fully predicated official FBI investigations, not to the hundreds of thousands of searches that the FBI runs every day to run down a lead or check out a tip.

S. 139 exacerbates existing problems with section 702 by codifying the so-called bulk collection, a type of surveillance that was shut down after it twice failed to meet the Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

S. 139 is universally opposed by technology companies, privacy and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum.

Let me read briefly what the Amash amendment really says. It is not something that would stop security, surveillance, and work in its tracks. What it does is, ``Except as provided in subparagraph C or D, no officer, agent, or employee of the United States may conduct a query of information acquired under subsection A in an effort to find communications of or about a particular person if there is reason to believe such person is a United States person,'' protecting the First Amendment freedom of speech and all of that, but matched with the important amendment of the Fourth Amendment, which, of course, is unreasonable search and seizures.

An application by the Attorney General to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that describes the determination of the Attorney General is probable cause to believe that such communications provide evidence of a crime, such person is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This is a minimal standard.

Mr. Speaker, this is a minimal standard of which every American should expect and is owed. It is a minimal standard upon which we stand the Constitution.

We are missing what our role is here. It is not to rush through a FISA bill that has been delayed by my Republican friends. More importantly, it is to

do right by the American people. We are not doing right by the American people.

I remember fighting against reverse targeting, a major issue in our work on the Freedom Act and the PATRIOT Act. Now, today--in 2017, going into 2018--in 2018, it is important to remember that 9/11 was to not turn terror on Americans; it was to protect us from terrorism and to withstand that with the upholding of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I rise in opposition to the rule for S. 139, the ``FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017,'' and the underlying bill.

S. 139 reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is scheduled to expire on January 19, 2018.

Although Section 702 is a critical national security tool set to expire on January 19, 2018, events of the recent past strongly suggest that Section 702 should not be reauthorized without necessary and significant reforms that are not included in the legislation before us.

So as the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I oppose the rule and underlying bill for several compelling reasons:

1. S. 139 fails to address the core concern of Members of Congress and the American public--the government's use of Section 702 information against United States citizens in investigations that have nothing to do with national security.

2. The warrant ``requirement'' contained in the bill is riddled with loopholes and applies only to fully predicated, official FBI investigations, not to the hundreds of thousands searches the FBI runs every day to run down a lead or check out a tip.

3. S. 139 exacerbates existing problems with Section 702 by codifying so-called ``about collection,'' a type of surveillance that was shut down after it twice failed to meet Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

4. S. 139 is universally opposed by technology companies, privacy, and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum, from the ACLU to FreedomWorks.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us comes from the Intelligence Committee, where it was passed on a strict party-line vote.

This stands in stark contrast to H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act, I the bipartisan bill reported by the Judiciary Committee after multiple hearings, an open markup process, and a bipartisan vote of approval.

The USA Liberty Act enjoys much broader support, contains meaningful reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and is far superior to the bill before us.

FISA was enacted in 1978 to provide the Executive Branch with a statutory framework for gathering ``foreign intelligence information'' from U.S. persons.

FISA authorizes special court orders for four purposes:

1. electronic surveillance;

2. physical searches;

3. the installation and use of pen registers and trap and trace devices; and

4. demands for the production of physical items.

Although FISA is designed for intelligence gathering, and not for the collection of criminal evidence, the law applies to activities to which a Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply if they were conducted as part of a criminal investigation.

Most commonly, authorization for a wiretap or physical search under FISA is obtained by application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISC'' or the ``FISA court'').

Section 702 is part of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), a successor to the Bush Administration's unlawful warrantless wiretapping program that ended in January 2007.

The FAA adds a new Title VII to FISA that grants the government the authority to monitor electronic communications of non-U.S. persons abroad.

Section 702 authorizes the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence ``to acquire foreign intelligence information'' from ``persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.''

Although the FAA prohibits the intentional targeting of persons in the United States, the FAA had been in place for only a few months when the New York Times reported that the NSA had ``overcollected'' domestic communications, a practice described as significant and systematic, even if unintentional.

Subsequently, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence stated that ``it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed under the authority of the FAA.''

Section 702 provides that the government ``may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted to protect the liberty and security of Americans, not to diminish their constitutional rights.

That is why Section 702 should not be reauthorized with reforms to prevent the government from using information against its political opponents or members of religious, ethnic, or other groups.

One way to do that is without interfering with the national security objectives of 702 surveillance is simply to require the FBI to obtain a warrant before reading communications by Americans, when it finds those communications by targeting that American and searching its 702 databases.

Enforcing the warrant requirement would prevent the misuse of Section 702 to conduct ``backdoor searches'' where government agencies, including individual FBI agents, may search the communications collected under section 702 for communications by an individual American, read those communications and disseminate them within the government, all without any external oversight, much less a judicial warrant, simply by claiming a ``foreign intelligence'' purpose.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans want to find a common-ground where common- sense rules and regulations relating to fighting terrorism at home and abroad can exist while still protecting the cherished privacy and civil liberties which Americans hold close to our collective hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I noted in an op-ed published way back in October 2007, that as Alexis DeTocqueville, the most astute student of American democracy, observed nearly two centuries ago, the reason democracies invariably prevail in any military conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to success: initiative, innovation, courage, and a love of justice.

The best way to keep America safe and strong is to remain true to the valued embedded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The bill before us does not strike the proper balance between our cherished liberties and smart security.

We can do better; we should reject this rule and the underlying bill and bring to the floor for debate and vote H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty 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.