Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman not only for the time, but for his leadership on the committee and in helping bring the bill to the point it is today.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a new product. It has been around for about 10 years. But it hasn't gone as far as it has gone today. That is a compliment to all of the proponents of the bill, to Members like Kristi Noem, who has talked earlier and who had this bill in the past, to Members like Chairman John Kline, who has carried it in the past, and all the way back to J.D. Hayworth. We thank them all for getting us here. I, for one, am a Member who has picked up this product and has run with it to help get it here.

I have been to 13 tribal communities this year alone, understanding what the problems are with this activist Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board. That is why this bill is so popular, and in my talking with nearly every Member of this body, that is why so many Members have supported it. I expect and would ask for a strong vote today for sovereignty, for parity.

Mr. Speaker, the history is this: The National Labor Relations Act was silent as to tribal communities in terms of being regulated as an employer. State governments and local governments were specifically exempted from the act.

Then, because of an error in a court decision as well as an activist Department of Labor, we are in this position where the jurisdiction of tribal communities under the act has now been invented.

This bill corrects that and says in no uncertain terms--and very explicitly in just three pages--that tribal communities are to be exempted from the act if they are to be sovereign. All we are asking for is parity with State and local governments.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say you have a municipally owned and operated golf course in your community--or if it were a State government, then it would be the State government, owned by the State--and that municipality didn't want to have union activities and it wrote its own set of rules for its employees. That would be fine under the act.

By not allowing the very same right or luxury to a tribal government, we are treating them unlike other State and local governments. That is why in this context they are not sovereign. That is why this bill is needed.

The gentleman from Wisconsin who just spoke reminds us that there are agencies in this bill that aren't covered. I would say to him: What a great idea for tribal labor sovereignty, act two.

But the logic that just because every agency isn't covered under what is only meant to cover the NLRA somehow negates the good that this bill does--the right answer that comes with a ``yes'' vote--is ridiculous. Just because it doesn't do everything doesn't mean you can't do anything.

So I would say to the Members of this body, on that fact alone, you should vote ``yes.''

It is also true that many tribal communities have unions, that many tribal communities have rules that govern their labor and employees, and those who want to oppose this bill, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, simply want to insert their judgments, their biases, for their preferred rule or for their preferred union in place of duly elected members of a tribal government.

So I would say to those opponents: What makes you smarter than the people who elect the tribal government?

What makes you better and your judgment superior to those who have been duly elected by the members of a tribal nation?

The fact of the matter is the arguments that have been made by the opposition do not apply to what is right here. The right thing is to ask ourselves: Are tribal communities sovereign or are they not? Should they at least be in parity with State and local governments or should they not?

I would say, Mr. Speaker, to every Member here and remind everybody--Republican, Democrat--that this is a bipartisan bill. We just had two Democrat Members speak in favor of this bill.

If you want to do what is right--if you believe in the sovereignty of tribal communities, if you believe they should at least have the same parity, judgment, and authority as State and local governments do--then you should vote ``yes'' on H.R. 511. I urge all Members to do that, Republican and Democrat.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source