Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for his cooperation and hard work, and I urge our Members to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the work being done in this committee. I think it is important to point out that the chair and I didn't do all this work. His staff, Senator Murray's staff, and Senator Alexander's staff worked hard. I would like to read the names of some of the members of my staff that worked on this legislation, starting with Denise Forte, Brian Kennedy, Jacque Chevalier, Helen Pajcic, Christian Haines, Kevin McDermott, Alex Payne, Kiara Pesante, Arika Trim, Rayna Reid, Michael Taylor, Austin Barbera, and Veronique Pluviose. Also, House Legislation Council staff Anna Shpak, Susan Fleishman, and Brendan Gallagher worked hard on this legislation; and Congressional Research Service staff Becky Skinner and Jody Feder. I would like to mention those names as hardworking members that have brought about all of this bipartisan cooperation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As has already been pointed out, this bill does not include everything everybody wanted. But the civil rights and education community both support the legislation because of the significant civil rights implications in the bill. This will go a long way in giving equal opportunity in education. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a long list of education and civil rights organizations that have endorsed the bill. ESSA Endorsement Master List Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE), American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Library Association (ALA), Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE), Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), Business Roundtable (BRT), Business Civil Rights Coalition, California Children's Advocacy Coalition, Chiefs for Change (C4C), Communities in Schools (CIS), Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), Cooperative Council for Oklahoma School Administration (CCOSA), Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), Easter Seals, Education Trust. Grantmakers in the Arts (GIRTS), Interstate Migrant Education Council (IMEC), Knowledge Alliance (KA), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Magnet Schools of America (MSA), National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities (NACDD), National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), National Association of Federally Impacted Schools (NAFIS), National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools (NCSECS), National Center for Technological Literacy (NCTL), National Council of La Raza (NCLR), National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL), National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), National Education Association (NEA). National Governors Association (NGA), National PTA, National School Boards Association (NSBA), PACER Center, Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), STEM Education Coalition, Teach For America (TFA), The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR), The School Superintendents Association (AASA), Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU), US Chamber of Commerce, United Way Worldwide.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois and the gentleman from New Jersey for organizing this Special Order tonight. It takes a lot of work and a lot of time to organize these efforts, and I want to thank them both for the time and effort that they have put into this. We have heard a lot about what the Congressional Black Caucus has done over the years. There are two areas that I have been personally involved in with the CBC effort in the areas of education and criminal justice reform. On both we have worked hard and achieved bipartisan support. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is a civil rights bill, makes sure that the admonition in Brown v. Board of Education becomes a reality. It says that no child shall reasonably be expected to succeed in life if denied the opportunity of an education and such an opportunity must be made available to all on equal terms. That is what the Brown decision held. But we know that we don't have equal education in America because we fund it primarily through the real estate tax, guaranteeing that wealthy areas will have more resources for education than low-income areas. So 50 years ago we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides funding directed primarily to help the challenges in educating low-income children particularly in concentrated areas of poverty. No Child Left Behind a few years ago added to that by making sure that we ascertained whether or not there are achievement gaps in certain groups and requires action to be taken to solve those achievement gaps. This week we should reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to ensure that the needs of all children are addressed. That legislation has just come out of conference. It came out of conference with an overwhelming--almost unanimous--vote, a bipartisan vote. So we look forward to the continuation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. Speaker, the next area that we are going to be working on is the Higher Education Act, also originally passed 50 years ago. When President Johnson signed that bill, he pointed out that every child should be able to go to any college in any State. Back then that was actually a reality because a low-income student with a maximum Pell Grant and a summer job could virtually work his way through college with no debt. Now, because the buying power of the Pell Grant has eroded, instead of 75 percent of the cost of education, now it is down to about one- third and the rest has to be picked up with devastating student loans. We need to pass a Higher Education Act that makes access to college a reality, not just a dream. We can do that, and there is bipartisan support for that effort. So in education we are making progress with the Congressional Black Caucus and we have been able to achieve bipartisan support. It is interesting that we have also been able to achieve bipartisan support in the criminal justice reform efforts. We have a problem in criminal justice now because, for decades, we have been passing all these slogans and sound bites, particularly, mandatory minimums that have run our incarceration rate up to number one in the world by far. We have 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent are prisoners. Several recent studies have pointed out that our incarceration rate is so high that it is actually counterproductive; that is, we have got so many children being raised with parents in prison and we have got so many people with felony records that can't find jobs and the prison budget in the Department of Justice is eating up so much of the budget that the other things that can actually reduce crime don't have the funds that they actually need. One bipartisan effort that we were able to achieve late last year was the Death in Custody Reporting Act, which requires any death in the custody of law enforcement--that is a death in jail, a death in prison, or death in the process of arrest--will be reported to the Justice Department so that the discussion about all of these deaths can be based on facts, not just speculation. We also are in the process of trying to pass criminal justice reform. The Judiciary Committee, in a subcommittee task force led by Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin and myself, had an overcriminalization task force. The one thing we noticed was that 30 States were able to reduce incarceration and reduce crime at the same time. One example was Texas. Texas was faced with a $2 billion request for prison expansion to keep up with the slogans and sound bites that they had been codifying over the years--$2 billion. Someone suggested, instead of spending $2 billion, how about trying to spend a couple of hundred million--research-based, evidence-based targeted expenditures-- to actually reduce crime, and maybe they wouldn't have to spend all $2 billion. Well, that is what they did. They intelligently spent. With a research-based and evidence-based approach to reduce crimes, they made those expenditures and looked up. They didn't have to build any new prisons at all. In fact, they were able to close some of the prisons they had. Over 30 States have reduced crime and saved money just in using the same strategy. So as a result of the overcriminalization task force, we created a comprehensive criminal justice bill that starts with investments in prevention and early intervention, has diversion to drug courts so that people with drug problems can have their problems solved rather than just spinning through the criminal justice system, a significant reduction in mandatory minimums so they would be reserved for true kingpins, not for people caught up in the conspiracy, like girlfriends and things like that. Only the true kingpins would get the mandatory minimums. Everyone else would get a sentence that made sense. If you go to jail, then you should be rehabilitated, not just warehoused, and we should have funding for Second Chance programs. The beauty of the bill is that the savings in prison space by the reduction in mandatory minimums will be redirected to pay for the prevention and early intervention, the drug courts, the prison reform efforts, and the Second Chance programs so all of those programs are paid for. We also have significant funding for police training. As we go through the trauma of these trials that are going on as we speak in Baltimore and Chicago, when you get to a solution, it will undoubtedly involve police training and probably body cameras, and those are funded in the Safe Justice Act by diverting money from the savings in mandatory minimums to those programs. We have broad bipartisan support, many very conservative, many very liberal organizations, all supporting the Safe Justice Act and other criminal justice reform efforts. The Black Caucus should be proud of the efforts that they have put in to making sure that we have a fair and equitable criminal justice system. I would like to thank again the gentlewoman from Illinois for all of her hard work and the gentleman from New Jersey for his hard work in pointing out many of the good things that the Congressional Black Caucus has accomplished, many things they have accomplished this year and a lot of things we are working on for next year. So I thank you for your hard work and dedication. We have a conference committee report that came out with an overwhelming bipartisan vote that will ensure that young people will have their educational needs met. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for his hard work and cooperation on that bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015, legislation that would strip employees of protections afforded under the National Labor Relations Act at any enterprise owned by an Indian tribe and located on Indian lands. At issue are two solemn and deeply-rooted principles: one, the right of Indian tribes to possess as distinct independent political communities retaining their original rights in matters of local self- government; and, two, the rights of workers to organize, bargain collectively, and engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. Rather than attempting to reconcile these two competing principles, H.R. 4511 chooses sovereignty for some over the longstanding rights of others. This bill strips hundreds of thousands of workers of their voice in tribal-owned workplaces such as casinos, hotels, and mines. It should be noted that some 600,000 workers are employed in tribal casinos, but fully 75 percent are not members of tribes. This legislation would jettison a carefully drawn balance between tribal sovereignty and workers' rights that was adopted in 2004 by a Republican-led NLRB. That decision, known as the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, restricted the jurisdiction of the NLRB if it touches on the exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters or aggregated rights guaranteed under treaties. Furthermore, the NLRB stated that it would also take into account and accommodate the unique status of Indians in their society and legal culture in deciding NLRB jurisdiction. The San Manuel decision has been upheld in every appeals court where it has been challenged, and it is based on legal precepts that have been upheld by appellate courts over 30 years. The courts have also noted that the tribal casinos are commercial enterprises, not government agencies like the Department of Education, serving predominantly non-tribal clients and hiring predominantly non-tribal members to operate. By depriving these workers of the right to organize and bargain collectively, this legislation ensures that low-paid service workers in tribal casinos will lose the opportunity to share in the fruits of the wealth that they are creating for the tribe, and depriving them of the opportunity to climb the ladder into the middle class. The bill also sets up a double standard. As a member of the International Labor Organization, the United States is obligated, as a government, to respect and promote the rights outlined in the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, including ``the freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collectively bargain.'' The Democrats and Republicans have insisted that our trading partners abide by and enforce these basic labor rights, and Congress has repeatedly ratified these obligations in trade agreements. But today the House will vote on a bill that does just the opposite when it comes to the freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain at tribal enterprises. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have heard about the fact that the National Labor Relations Act is silent. That is true. But in terms of laws of general application, they are applied to tribes based on the balancing test, and the courts applied that test. That test is a half a century old. The activist NLRB that ruled in 2004 was during the George W. Bush administration. So we don't know how activist they could be interpreted. There are a lot of laws that we have found and have discussed that apply to tribes, like the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, ERISA. They have to withhold taxes. They have to pay their employer share of Social Security and Medicare, and on and on. The criminal laws go on and on as well as laws of general application. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter from the International Labour Office, which is basically talking about the international labor obligations we have. They write: ``While elements of indigenous peoples' sovereignty have been invoked by the proponents of this Bill, the central question revolves around the manner in which the United States Government can best assure throughout its territory the full application of the fundamental principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. From an ILO perspective, while the variety of mechanisms for ensuring freedom of association and collective bargaining rights may differ depending on distinct sectorial considerations or devolution of labor competence, it is critical that the State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights throughout its territory. ``Given the concerns that you have raised, it would be critically important that, at the very least, a complete legal and comparative review be undertaken to support assurances that all rights, mechanisms and remedies for the full protection of internationally recognized freedom of association rights are available to all workers on all tribal lands. In the absence of such assurances, it would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers their fundamental freedom of association rights.'' Therefore, it would be in violation of the ILO. This isn't about labor rights. This is about whether or not we are going to fulfill our obligations under the International Labour Organization as a government that subscribes to those. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the full letter from the ILO and several other letters in opposition to the legislation. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. Mr. R. L. Trumka, President, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Trumka, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 October 2015 requesting an informal opinion and guidance from the International Labour Organization in respect of a Bill being considered by the United States Congress. In particular, you have raised concerns about the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 511) which you state would deny protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of a large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and tribal- operated enterprises located on tribal territory and ask for the informal opinion of the Office as to whether such an exclusion of workers employed on tribal lands would be in conformity with the principles of freedom of Association which are at the core of the ILO Constitution and the ILO's Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. In conformity with the regular procedure concerning requests for an informal opinion from the International Labour Office in respect of draft legislation and its possible impact on international labour standards and principles, the views set out below should in no way be considered as prejudging any comments or observations that might be made by the ILO supervisory bodies within the framework of their examination of the application of ratified international labour standards or principles on freedom of association. Your links to committee reports of the congressional majority and minority and other background information have enabled the Office to consider the views of the parties both for and against the proposed amendment and they all appear to confirm recognition of the United States' obligation to uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining. While the proponents of the Bill assert that this can be achieved through the labour relations' regimes autonomously determined by the tribal nations, the opponents--and you yourself in your request--maintain that excluding tribal lands from the NLRA will in effect result in a loss (or at the very least inadequate protection) of their trade union rights. Not only do you refer to tribal labour relations ordinances which in your view provide inadequate protections in this regard, but you also refer to instances where there are no tribal labour relations ordinances at all. While elements of indigenous peoples' sovereignty have been invoked by the proponents of this Bill, the central question revolves around the manner in which the United States Government can best assure throughout its territory the full application of the fundamental principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. From an ILO perspective, while the variety of mechanisms for ensuring freedom of association and collective bargaining rights may differ depending on distinct sectoral considerations or devolution of labour competence, it is critical that the State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights throughout its territory. As you have indicated, the 2004 San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino decision assures possible recourse to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an overarching mechanism aimed at ensuring the protection of freedom of association, while also maintaining deference to the sovereign interests of the tribal nations so as to avoid touching on exclusive rights of self-governance. Full abdication of review via an exclusion from the scope of the NLRA for all workers employed on tribal lands as described might make it very difficult for the United States Government to assure the fundamental trade union rights of workers. In cases like those mentioned where there are no tribal labour relations ordinances, undue restrictions on collective bargaining, excessive limitations on freedom of association rights or lack of protection from unfair labour practices, workers on tribal territories would be left without any remedy for violation of their fundamental freedom of association rights, short of a constitutional battle. Furthermore, the exclusion proposed, with no avenue for federal review or overarching mechanism for appeal should there be an alleged violation of freedom of association, would give rise to discrimination in relation to the protection of trade union rights which would affect both indigenous and non-indigenous workers simply on the basis of their workplace location. Given the concerns that you have raised, it would be critically important that, at the very least, a complete legal and comparative review be undertaken to support assurances that all rights, mechanisms and remedies for the full protection of internationally recognized freedom of association rights are available to all workers on all tribal lands. In the absence of such assurances, it would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers their fundamental freedom of association rights. In accordance with ILO procedure concerning requests for informal opinions on draft legislation, this communication will also be brought to the attention of the United States Government and the representative employers' organization, the U.S. Council for International Business. Yours sincerely, Corinne Vargha, Director of the International Labour Standards Department.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to read portions of a Statement of Administration Policy, issued by the Executive Office of the President: ``The administration is deeply committed to respecting tribal sovereignty and maintaining government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes as well as to protecting American workers and enforcing Federal labor laws. The administration cannot support H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015, as currently drafted, because it does not include the provisions as explained below.'' Going on: ``The administration is encouraged by the efforts of some tribal governments to balance these important interests and find common ground when formulating compacts to operate casinos on tribal land under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In several of these compacts, tribes have agreed to establish their own labor relations policies. Though these compacts differ on minor details, what they have in common is that they generally protect tribal self-governance while also ensuring that most casino workers retain important and effective labor rights. ``It is thus possible to protect both tribal sovereignty and workers' rights, and the administration can only support approaches that accomplish that result. Therefore, the administration can support a bill which recognizes tribal sovereignty in formulating labor relations law and exempts tribes from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board only if the tribes adopt labor standards and procedures applicable to tribally owned and operated commercial enterprises reasonably equivalent to those in the National Labor Relations Act.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy. Statement of Administrative Policy H.R. 511--Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015 (Rep. Rokita, R-IN, Nov. 17, 2015) The Administration is deeply committed to respecting tribal sovereignty and maintaining government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes as well as to protecting American workers and enforcing Federal labor laws. The Administration cannot support H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015, as currently drafted, because it does not include the provisions as explained below. The President's commitment to tribal sovereignty has taken many forms--from establishing the White House Council on Native American Affairs, to reaffirming tribal authority to prosecute non-Indians under the Violence Against Women Act, and to promoting tribal self-determination by signing into law the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH) Act so that tribes may lease their lands without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. At the same time, the President is firmly dedicated to protecting American workers. The Administration vigorously enforces Federal labor laws and has repeatedly emphasized the importance of strengthening workers' rights to collective bargaining. The Administration is encouraged by the efforts of some tribal governments to balance these important interests and find common ground when formulating compacts to operate casinos on tribal land under the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. In several of these compacts, tribes have agreed to establish their own labor relations policies. Though these compacts differ on minor details, what they have in common is that they generally protect tribal self- governance while also ensuring that most casino workers retain important and effective labor rights. It is thus possible to protect both tribal sovereignty and workers' rights, and the Administration can only support approaches that accomplish that result. Therefore, the Administration can support a bill which recognizes tribal sovereignty in formulating labor relations law and exempts tribes from the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board only if the tribes adopt labor standards and procedures applicable to tribally-owned and operated commercial enterprises reasonably equivalent to those in the National Labor Relations Act. Amended legislation would also need to include an authorization for funding to support the development and implementation of tribal labor laws and regulations.

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

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.