Hemp Farming Act of 2018

Mr. President, I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this anti-worker bill masquerading as an issue of Tribal sovereignty.

I strongly support Tribal sovereignty. I can't speak for everyone in this body, but I am virtually certain that every single Democratic Member of this body supports Tribal sovereignty, and I am pretty certain that most Republican Members of this body support Tribal sovereignty, but that is not what this bill is about. This is just the latest battle in the decades-long war that so many in this town have been waging to undermine the rights of

American workers. This bill strips away the rights of 600,000 employees at Tribal casinos, so 600,000 employees at casinos on Tribal lands will lose their right to collective bargaining. We know what that means to their wages and their benefits. Seventy-five percent of these 600,000 employees are not members of a Tribe. So when these casinos all over the country, on reservations, these casinos on Indian lands--most of the 600,000 employees at the Tribal casinos have the right to collectively bargain, to form unions if they choose, to collectively bargain if they choose, and to get better wages and benefits if that is what brings them to it. Again, 75 percent of these workers are not members of any of these Tribes. There are other Federal laws that apply to workplaces on Tribal lands.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act--so-called ERISA--and title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act all apply on Tribal lands, but this bill only goes after collective bargaining rights, only goes after those workers. There is no reason Congress should single out and attack the rights of these workers to organize and advocate for themselves in the workplace.

We can protect Tribal sovereignty. I want to do that. I am leading the charge against this bill. I want to protect Tribal sovereignty, but you can also protect workers' rights at the same time. You don't have to jettison workers' rights. You don't have to hurt these workers. We don't have to take rights away from these workers--the right to organize and bargain collectively--in order to protect Tribal sovereignty. Our laws do that right now.

Some of my colleagues will say they want to make sure that Tribes have the same rights as States, whose workers are carved out of the National Labor Relations Act, but Tribal government employees are already exempted from the National Labor Relations Act. This bill eliminates the Federal labor rights of workers at for-profit businesses, like casinos.

So who is behind this? The national chamber of commerce wants to go after unions every chance they get and take away collective bargaining rights. Do you know what that means when companies do that? It means higher profits. It means they can pay less to workers. It means they can strip workers of their healthcare and their retirement. Of course these companies want to take away collective bargaining rights and put unions out of business. That is the whole point of this bill.

Again, Tribal government employees are already exempted from the NLRA. This bill eliminates the Federal labor rights of workers at for- profit businesses, like casinos. You don't think these casinos are making lots of money? Of course they are. They will make more money if you take away the collective bargaining rights of employees. Employees will make less. Employees will, in some cases, lose their health insurance. Employees will get fewer dollars for retirement, but profits will go up for these casinos.

These casinos are often run by companies that have nothing to do with these Tribes. That is not establishing parity. States can't carve out home State, for-profit businesses from the NLRA. Nevada can't say that it has decided its casinos on the Vegas Strip are exempt from Federal labor laws. So why would we treat these private, for-profit casinos any differently?

Supporters of the bill will say it is necessary to prevent overreach by the National Labor Relations Board. That argument doesn't hold up either. The Board is methodically evaluated when they do and don't assert jurisdiction on Federal lands. They use a very careful test to ensure that the Board's jurisdiction does not infringe on Tribal rights or interfere in the Tribes' exclusive right to self-government.

All of us in this body--at least all of us on this side of the aisle; I think all of us in the body--of course we want to make sure that Tribal rights are enforced and that we don't interfere in the Tribes' exclusive right to self-governance. These, though, are for-profit businesses on these reservations.

In a June 2015 decision, the Board used the test and did not assert jurisdiction in a labor dispute on Tribal lands.

As I said, I think all of us here support Tribal sovereignty. I wish all of us here supported American workers' right to organize just as strongly.

My friends on this side of the aisle have spent day after day, week after week, month after month, doing all they can to stop workers in my State, in the State of Kansas, and all over this country from organizing. This bill is an attempt to take advantage of Tribe support in Congress to attack workers.

There is another provision slipped in. At a time when Congress is engaged in a long-overdue discussion about sexual harassment in the workplace, this bill repeals all Federal protections against harassment for the 600,000 workers. So it strips collective bargaining rights from 600,000 people. It also repeals all Federal protection against sexual harassment for those same 600,000 workers. Right now, these workers cannot bring Federal harassment claims. Their only Federal protection against harassment is the NLRA. Under that law, workers have the right to collectively protest harassment. They can file grievances under union contracts to enforce their rights. If this bill passes, that Federal protection will disappear. All of the collective bargaining agreements in these workplaces would expire at the end of their terms, and the union-won protections against harassment would simply disappear along with all of them.

We are going in the wrong direction. Today more than ever, workers need a voice in the workplace.

Think about this: Over the last 40 years, gross domestic product has gone up and up and up. Corporate profits have gone up and up and up; worker productivity has gone up and up and up; executive salaries have gone up and up and up--all because of the productivity of American workers. But workers haven't shared in the wealth that they have created for their bosses. Workers haven't shared in the growth of those companies. Wages are flat.

So think about that again. Profits go up, productivity goes up, executive salaries go up, productivity of American workers, as I said, goes up, but wages are flat. A big part of that is because of this attack from this body and the House of Representatives--the attack on workers trying to organize and bargain collectively. So if this bill passes, we are going to make sure that 600,000 fewer Americans have the right to organize and bargain collectively. Again, it means profits will go up at these casinos, executive salaries will go up at the casinos, and wages will be flat and go down even as these companies do better and better.

Workers don't share in the growth they create. Hard work just doesn't pay off the way it used to. The dignity of work has been undermined by this Senate, by the House of Representatives, and by the White House. If work isn't valued, then Americans can't earn their way to a better life for their families no matter how hard they work. This bill will make it harder for these workers to ensure that their work is valued.

This bill undermines the dignity of work in this country. We ought to be lifting up workers. We shouldn't be undermining their right to advocate for themselves. These are workers banding together to advocate for themselves. Their voices are stronger when they are together, and that is when management has to listen to them. That is why they get better wages. That is why they get better healthcare. That is why they get better retirement. But we know what this bill does. It doesn't protect Tribal sovereignty. That is just what they say it does, just like they said--80 percent of the tax cut went to the richest 1 percent of Americans, and they called that a tax cut for the middle class. Surely it wasn't that. Just like the bank bill that rolls back some tough rules on Wall Street--they like to say that was a bill for the small banks. No, it wasn't. It was much about Wall Street. Just like this bill is not for Tribal sovereignty--it is to help put labor unions out of business and depress wages. That is why I oppose this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Nomination of Ronny Jackson

Mr. President, over the next few weeks, the Senate will consider the President's nominee to head the Department of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Ronny Jackson. I will be meeting with Dr. Jackson tomorrow, and I look forward to that meeting. I am eager to

hear what his plans are and how he will make the VA system work better for the women and men who serve our country. I will have some tough questions for him. I know my friend, the Senator from Kansas and the current Presiding Officer, who also sits on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has the same concerns that I have.

One of my top priorities will be finding out his views on the misguided idea that some are pushing of privatizing the Veterans' Administration. Privatizing the VA would mean putting profits ahead of veterans. It would mean depriving the women and men who served our country the best possible care just to line the pockets of healthcare executives.

We have seen what happens when we introduce corporate profit motives into organizations that should be set up to serve the American people. Just look how private, for-profit charter schools have failed children in my State. The owners of the private, for-profit charter schools have done well, while taxpayers have been fleeced and students have been betrayed. We know that privatization of the prison system or privatization of Social Security or privatization of Medicare or privatization of the Veterans' Administration all works the same way. The people who are to be served find they have less quality care or service. The people who own the newly privatized agencies or companies do very well.

Study after study in my State shows these for-profit charter schools don't give Ohio students an adequate education and cost taxpayers more. According to a report from Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes, students at Ohio's charter schools lose 43 days of math instruction and 14 days of reading instruction, compared with traditional public schools in the State. We allowed for-profit school operators to inject profits into Ohio's public education, and they treated taxpayers like ATM machines and shortchanged students. We can't allow the same thing to happen to veterans. I will fight any effort to use America's veterans to pad the profits of wealthy corporations. Dr. Jackson will have to commit to oppose any VA privatization efforts to earn my vote.

We know the VA system isn't perfect, and we know it can improve. We have work to do to rebuild and strengthen it. Dr. Shulkin was trying to do that and made some inroads in doing it, but it will be hard. It is the largest healthcare system in the country. It serves 9 million veterans every year and provides care at more than 1,200 facilities across the country, including about three dozen in my State.

Some of those serve veterans very well, while others need significant investment to improve their services. Too many veterans still face obstacles to get the highest quality care through the VA system. I know veterans service organizations, some of the best groups and civic organizations in our country--to name a few, knowing I will leave some out: the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, the AMVETS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Polish American Veterans--all these organizations have said: We don't want to privatize the VA. We want improvements in the Veterans' Administration, but we want to keep it a public organization that serves veterans who fought for this country.

Just because the task to fix the VA is hard doesn't mean we abandon our responsibility to the men and women who served this country. We need to redouble our efforts to strengthen the VA, not tear it down and not privatize it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, thank you for your remarks on the floor earlier this afternoon. I rise to have the Senate consider and to have a conversation about S. 140, a package of three bills that will have positive benefits on Indian Country.

Two bills in the package--the Senator from Arizona was talking about one of them. Two bills in this package, S. 140, the White Mountain Apache Water Rights Quantification Act, sponsored by Senators Flake and McCain, and S. 249, a bill to provide that the Pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 99 years certain restricted land, sponsored by Senators Udall and Heinrich of New Mexico, have already received unanimous consent from the Senate.

The third bill in the package, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, was attached as a message from the House to S. 140 in January. I am the sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, which should be noncontroversial in a chamber where Members of the Senate profess to be supportive of Tribal sovereignty. This concept has been around since 2005, and I became interested in this topic and introduced legislation in 2013--now 5 years ago.

I suppose all of us, from time to time, may introduce legislation that is a messaging point or a talking point. In this and in most every other case, when I introduce legislation I work hard to see that it becomes law. I work in a bipartisan way to bring Republicans and Democrats together and for rural and urban Members of the Senate to work together. This is an example of that. There is nothing about this legislation that is a messaging to Tribes or to others. It is not an introduction of a piece of legislation designed to make a point. It is a piece of legislation designed to become law.

This bill has passed the House and is now pending here in the Senate today. I hope to use this opportunity to convey to my colleagues that this legislation is not a radical proposition but rather a restoration of the sovereign status of Tribal governments. Indeed, by moving forward with this legislation, we can enshrine the status quo that existed for 70 years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, until the National Labor Relations Board stripped Tribes of their government status under the NLRA. By making explicit that Tribal governments are distinct and sovereign and capable of making their own decisions, we will correct a decade-old error made by the NLRB.

(Mr. YOUNG assumed the Chair.)

The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act is simple and narrow. It amends the NLRA to exempt tribally owned entities operated on tribally owned lands--no more, no less. Businesses owned by individual Tribal members or operations off Tribal lands still remain subject to the scrutiny of the NLRB.

Many of those who have expressed opposition to this bill will say: I support Tribal sovereignty--but. If you have to qualify your support for Tribal sovereignty in order to protect your own interests instead of the Tribes, then, no, you really don't support Tribal sovereignty. Tribal sovereignty is something we believe in. Tribes of Native Americans--those who inhabited this country before our ancestors arrived--were granted sovereignty over their own businesses decades or generations ago.

Senators have voiced on the Senate floor that this is not about sovereignty but about an attack on labor. That is simply not true. One accusation is that this bill is truly an attack on labor because it doesn't provide exemptions from other Federal legislation. If my colleagues are objecting to this bill because of its narrow scope, then will they support making it broader? I think the answer to that is clearly no. If they are serious about that, then let's have a conversation.

I am not new to Tribal issues. My introduction to this topic began when I was elected to the Kansas State Senate a long time ago now. I was a freshman member. I happened to have a law degree and was assigned by the leadership of the State senate to conduct negotiations and to chair a committee on Indian gaming in Kansas. I spent the next 2 years in front of a Federal district judge, negotiating an agreement under IGRA for Indian gaming in Kansas.

Other examples of our efforts include the passage of general welfare exclusion legislation with Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota that passed this Senate and became law several years ago now. Again, it was trying to make clear that Tribal decisions made on behalf of Tribal members are much better decisions than those made by Congress but especially by those made by agencies and bureaucracies--in that case, the IRS; today, the National Labor Relations Board.

We have also worked on other issues related to Tribal interests, including a Carcieri fix and the ability to bring land into trust-- issues that are important to Tribes across the country. My point is, this is another piece of legislation in a series that the Senate has pursued in which we are doing right by those who preceded us as our ancestors settled in America.

I don't think that the critics of this bill want Tribal governments exempt from the other statutes either. No, the objection isn't about the sovereignty granted by this legislation. It is not that it doesn't go far enough; it is what it does grant sovereignty for.

I would ask my colleagues: If the Senate denied Tribal sovereignty in this instance, what Tribal rights are going to be targeted next? The point is, if you are for sovereignty, you are for sovereignty in all circumstances, and you don't have the ability to choose. It is based upon a legal and moral obligation that we have to Tribes here in the United States.

Others have criticized this legislation. They have said that non- Tribal members cannot vote for Tribal governments, and therefore this is different from States. Again, this legislation puts Tribes in the same position, under NLRB, as States and other local units of government--but that is not true either. A person living in the District of Columbia, who works in Virginia, is subject to Virginia labor laws without having a say in forming those laws.

In 2013, there was an issue of Tribal sovereignty on the U.S. Senate floor. It was broader than that. It was VAWA--the Violence Against Women Act. I supported its reauthorization, which included new authorities for Tribal governments to protect Native American women when they are harmed by

non-Indians. With VAWA's passage, Congress placed our trust in Tribes to exact justice in the circumstance of domestic violence and violence against women.

The point here is that we rightly determined that Tribes should have the ability to punish Indian and non-Indian violent offenders, but today it is being argued that we can't trust them to treat Indian and non-Indian employees justly.

I remember the allegations against my colleagues who voted against VAWA were that they were not supportive of Tribal sovereignty. Those who oppose this bill today are subject to exactly the same criticism.

There is also an assumption being made that employees of tribally owned entities are being treated poorly or will be treated poorly if this legislation passes. The majority of Tribes are located in rural areas, where the labor pool is often inadequate. It is to the Tribes' advantage to treat their employees fairly in order to retain them. As a matter of fact, many Tribes have the highest wages and provide the best benefits in their region. Tribal jobs are coveted because prospective employees know what they stand to gain by their employment.

The idea that Tribal government enterprise workers should be treated as commercial rather than governmental workers doesn't hold up. A Tribal casino worker is no less of a government employee than an employee of a State-owned-and-operated enterprise that includes liquor stores, ski resorts, and, yes, casinos.

In 2015, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee held legislative hearings on the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act--the legislation we are considering today--and testifying before the Committee was Robert Welch, chairman of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in California. Despite being a unionized Tribe--employees of the tribally owned facilities are union members--Chairman Welch testified in support of this bill.

Many Tribes welcome labor unions. That is fine. The point is, it is their decision. The Tribal decision is where this issue rests. The point of this legislation is it is up to the Tribes to decide, not the

Mr. President, I want to begin this afternoon by commending the men and women who make up the world's most capable military. Over the weekend, America's all-volunteer Armed Forces executed a challenging mission with precision and with excellence. At the President's order, the United States joined with our British and French allies in military action to respond to Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.

I support both the actions taken and the underlying objectives.

The tactics the Assad regime has deployed to consolidate gains and terrorize the people of Syria have stood in defiance of the clear U.S. position that the use of chemical weapons is simply unacceptable. It was time to act.

Americans have become used to flawless execution on the part of our uniformed military. Times like these compel us to pause and appreciate their excellence and their heroism. We must remember that none of it could occur without extensive training, careful planning, robust investment, and the professionalism, dedication, and bravery of our servicemembers.

Mr. President, on a completely different matter, this afternoon the Senate will vote to advance legislation from Senator Moran that would bolster the proper sovereignty of American Indian Tribes in the face of excessive Federal regulations.

From the passage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 all the way until 2004, the NLRB respected the sovereignty status of Tribal government employers. But because the law does not technically provide that exemption, the NLRB discarded that precedent in 2004 and has become entangled in local Tribal decisions.

By intervening in Tribal affairs on a case-by-case basis, the NLRB has effectively been picking winners and losers among different businesses. The result has been regulatory confusion and a lessening of Tribal governments' authority to govern their own lands.

This legislation would correct the 83-year-old oversight that led to this confusion. It would codify in law that federally recognized Tribal governments should be exempt from such regulation, just like other State and local governments.

More than 160 Tribes, Tribal corporations, and Tribal trade associations support Senator Moran's legislation. I am proud to support it as well, and I urge every one of us to vote to advance the bill later this afternoon.

Tax Reform

Mr. President, tomorrow's tax filing deadline is not exactly a national holiday, but millions of Americans use the end of tax season as a time to pause and to take stock. In recent weeks, at kitchen tables in Kentucky and across the country, working families have been crunching the numbers. For too long, our country's outdated and unfair Tax Code made life more difficult than it needed to be for middle-class families. Now all of that is changing.

Tomorrow marks the last time America's working families, entrepreneurs, and job creators will have to file under that old Tax Code. This Republican Congress and President Trump got rid of it and put a brandnew 21st century Tax Code in its place. Now Americans are rightly anticipating a better year ahead, and they aren't having to wait very long.

President Trump is in Florida today to hold a roundtable discussion with small business owners. On Main Streets from Miami to Tallahassee, tax reform is empowering local employers to create more prosperity for their employees and for their communities.

In Melbourne, the owner of Stellar Transport, a shuttle service that works closely with Florida's elderly, is using tax savings to raise wages, expand paid vacation, and cover a 26-percent increase in healthcare costs for his 60 employees.

In Jacksonville, Magellan Transport Logistics is planning to buy a new 47,000-square-foot facility and hire 100 new employees as part of an ambitious plan to succeed under the new pro-growth Tax Code. Of course, these are among the first fruits of the U.S. economy under this historic new law.

Millions of U.S. workers are receiving bonuses, raises, and special benefits, not to mention lower utility rates and increased opportunities. As employers adopt new withholding practices, more and more workers will see more of their own money going into their own pockets.

Florida's workers and entrepreneurs should be proud of Senator Rubio, who was instrumental in getting tax reform across the finish line. In particular, his efforts helped Republicans to secure a significant increase in the child tax credit.

It is surprising that Florida's senior Senator didn't want any part of all these tax cuts and new jobs. He took every opportunity to vote with every other Democrat and try to block these tax cuts from happening. Fortunately, Republicans overcame partisan opposition and made tax reform a reality.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 2667

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I move to table the motion to refer.

Madam President, I move to table the motion to concur with further amendment.

I move to concur in the House amendment to S. 140, with a further amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to concur with further amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur with amendment.

Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Madam President, I move to refer the House message on S. 140 to the Committee on Commerce with instructions to report back forthwith.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.

Madam President, I have an amendment to the instructions.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, every day, Social Security provides vital benefits to millions of Americans who worked and paid into the system, and I cannot overstate the important anti-poverty role that the program plays. Supplemental Security Income or SSI is the safety net of last resort for individuals who have not worked enough to qualify for Social Security. Even with these critical income support programs, more and more seniors and people with disabilities find themselves struggling to keep up with the costs of the things they need just to get by.

Although Social Security and SSI automatically increase each year when there is an increase in the cost of living, over time those increases do not allow beneficiaries to maintain their standard of living. Because Social Security provides an increasingly larger share of the elderly's income as they age, even a slight decrease in value of these lifeline benefits can lead to poverty and hardship. Too many seniors are walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food bill against their rent against their utility bill. It's time to update Social Security's guarantee of a secure retirement, and this bill is a landmark step towards accomplishing that goal. I'm particularly hopeful about the benefits this bill will have for older American women, who live longer and often have less retirement savings.

To help combat the risk of poverty among the most vulnerable receiving Social Security and SSI, I, along with Senators Brown and Casey, are introducing the Elder Poverty Relief Act. This bill creates a monthly Poverty Relief Benefit for almost everyone over age 82, individuals who have been relying on Social Security or SSI for a long time, or who have worked in low-paying jobs and receive a very small Social Security benefit. The Poverty Relief benefit will also go to seniors who receive only SSI. If enacted, in 2019, the Poverty Relief Benefit would provide an additional $85 a month to almost 14 million people. The Poverty Relief Benefit will grow by roughly 4 percent each year. SSA estimates that the enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would reduce poverty among seniors who received the benefit by almost 25 percent in 2030 which would lift 420,000 seniors out of poverty. Notably, the enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would not accelerate the depletion year of the Social Security trust funds. The bill has been endorsed by the Gray Panthers, Justice in Aging, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Works, and the Strengthen Social Security Coalition.

For most seniors, Social Security is the only income they will receive that's guaranteed to last as long as they live. But despite these important benefits, poverty among seniors grows--with some studies showing the poverty rate among the very old is between 12 and 19 percent. We simply must do more to protect the financial stability of our elderly friends, neighbors, and relatives and enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would help reduce poverty among America's seniors. These are workers who sent a chunk of every paycheck to the Federal government with the understanding that they'd be getting it back in their later year when they needed it most. We must do right by them.

Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare be inserted into the

Record following my remarks about the Elderly Poverty Act.

National Committee to Preserve

Social Security & Medicare,

Washington, DC, March 16, 2018.

Hon. Ron Wyden,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Wyden: On behalf of the millions of members

and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social

Security and Medicare, I write to endorse your bill, the

``Elder Poverty Relief Act.'' We applaud your leadership in

developing new and innovative approaches for alleviating

poverty among America's seniors.

The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' addresses the long-

standing problem of seniors falling into poverty after being

on the Social Security rolls for many years. This occurs when

inflation, only partially offset by annual cost-of-living

adjustments, gradually erodes the purchasing power of a

Social Security benefit for beneficiaries who have

participated in the program for several years.

The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' will help alleviate

poverty among the elderly and the disabled by granting each

beneficiary a monthly increase in their benefit equal to

about $85. This bump-up will increase for future

beneficiaries in tandem with growth in wages in the economy.

Benefits under the ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' will be

paid to:

Social Security beneficiaries beginning at age 82 (or

older) and to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients

when they reach their full retirement age (currently 66,

increasing gradually to age 67);

Social Security and SSI beneficiaries who have received

benefits for 20 years; and to

Social Security beneficiaries with low monthly benefits

(currently about $944) when they reach their full retirement

age.

The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' embodies legislation that

the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and

Medicare has supported for a number of years. In testimony

given before the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on

December 9, 2014, Catherine Dodd, who is the chair of the

National Committee's board of directors, recommended

increasing benefits for seniors who have received Social

Security for many years.

For these reasons, the National Committee endorses your

bill, the ``Elder Poverty Relief Act.'' We thank you for your

leadership on this matter and look forward to working with

you to enact this important improvement to Social Security.

Sincerely,

Max Richtman,

President and CEO.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I understand there is 4 minutes left, and I might go a few minutes over. I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 140, as amended, the bill sponsored by the outstanding Senator from the great State of Kansas, Mr. Moran. This bill affirms Tribal sovereignty and upholds the unique government-to-government relationship the United States shares with the Indian nations.

As chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I have long said there is far more common ground than division on Indian issues. Our committee has a strong tradition of working in a bipartisan manner to improve the lives of Indian people and to build stronger Native American communities.

With the support of Indian Country, we have successfully advanced important initiatives to support Tribal economic development, healthcare, public safety, and housing. Additionally, we have worked to support our many Native veterans. Native Americans proudly serve and defend our great country at some of the highest rates per capita of any ethnic group.

Of the 29 bills we have cleared through the Indian Affairs Committee this Congress, 18 have passed the Senate by unanimous consent and 4 have already been signed into law.

Jefferson Keel, lieutenant governor of the Chickasaw Nation and president of the National Congress of American Indians, recently stated in an op-ed piece to The Hill: ``Both political parties have seen the wisdom of supporting strong tribal governments and tribal sovereignty and have to realize that as the most local of governments, tribes know best how to solve local challenges.''

Tribal sovereignty is the inherent right of Indian Tribes to govern themselves on their own lands, and it is the cornerstone of our government-to-government, nation-to-nation relationship. Today marks a real opportunity for the Senate to affirm and celebrate Tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

The Senate will be considering S. 140, as amended, ``An Act to amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010.'' This bill combines both Republican and Democratic bills into three sections of S. 140. Each of these bills--S. 140, S. 249, and S. 63--all passed out of the Indian Affairs Committee with bipartisan support.

The first section of S. 140 would allow for a technical amendment so the White Mountain Apache Tribe can use all or a portion of already appropriated funds from a water rights settlement to complete their drinking water system in Arizona. This section was originally sponsored by Senators Flake and McCain as S. 140. The bill was voice-voted out of the Indian Affairs Committee and passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

Section 2 of S. 140 would amend the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act so that the Pueblos of Santa Clara and Ohkay Owingeh are authorized to lease their respective Indian trust and restricted lands for up to 99 years. This is identical language to S. 249, a bill that was introduced by Senators Udall and Heinrich of New Mexico. That bill was passed by the committee on February 8, 2017.

Section 3 of S. 140 would amend and clarify the National Labor Relations Act so that Indian Tribes, Tribal governments, and tribally owned and operated institutions and enterprises that are located on Indian lands would be provided parity under the law with respect to other governments. This would reverse the 2004 National Labor Relations Board decision that found Tribal governments to be private organizations. That NLRB decision overturned years of precedent.

Let's listen to Tribal leaders. In his prepared statement to the Committee on Indian Affairs regarding the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015, then-Governor Paul Torres of the Pueblo of Isleta stated:

This bill is essential to restore the dignity and equality

of Indian tribes as sovereigns, which the National Labor

Relations Board is seeking to deny us. The Board treats every

sovereign, all the way down to local governments and

political subdivisions of the state, as exempt from the

National Labor Relations Act except for one--Indian tribes.

It does so even though Congress made clear, when the NLRA was

enacted, that the Act does not apply to sovereign entities.

The NLRA does not mention Indian tribes and for a long time

the Board recognized that the Act does not apply to Tribes.

Since 2004, it wants that power--but it did not ask Congress

for it. Nor did it ask the Tribes for their views.

So this clearly goes beyond what should be allowed under the law. We have accomplished a lot in our committee, and it is because we have listened to Tribal leaders and their communities. This bill, S. 140, has the support of every Tribal leader across the country, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Gaming Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many other organizations.

With that, Mr. President, I urge a ``yes'' vote on cloture and on passage of this bill.

With that, I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion