U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–926 PDF 2016

H.R. 511, TRIBAL LABOR SOVEREIGNTY 

ACT OF 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 16, 2015 

Serial No. 114–20 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Jared Polis, Colorado, 

Ranking Member 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 16, 2015 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Polis, Hon. Jared, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions ........................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Roe, Hon. David P., Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions ..................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Butler, Mr. Rodney, Chairman, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council, 

Mashantucket, Connecticut .......................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24 

Guest, Mr. Richard, Senior Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund, 

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Keel, Hon. Jefferson, Lieutenant Governor, Chickasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma ............................................................................................................... 42 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44 

Navarro, Mr. Gary, Slot Machine Attendant and Bargaining Committee 

Member, Unite Here Local 2850, The Graton Casino and Resort, 

Rohnert Park, California .............................................................................. 30 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Guest: 

Appendix A ................................................................................................ 75 

Appendix B ................................................................................................ 88 

Appendix C ................................................................................................ 94 

Appendix D ................................................................................................ 102 

Mr. Navarro: 

Letter dated June 29, 2015, from Unite Here ........................................ 112 

Pocan, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the state of Wisconsin: 

Letter dated June 15, 2015, from International Union of Operating 

Engineers, Local No. 953, AFL-CIO ..................................................... 62 

Letter dated June 15, 2015, from the Teamsters Local Union No. 

886 ........................................................................................................... 63 

Letter dated June 9, 2015, from the United Steelworkers (USW) ........ 65 

Prepared statement of Nassar, Mr. Josh, Legislative Director, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural 

Implement Workers of America (UAW) ............................................... 68 

Letter dated June 15, 2015, from the International Union of Operating Engineers ...................................................................................... 70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

H.R. 511, TRIBAL LABOR SOVEREIGNTY 

ACT OF 2015 

Tuesday, June 16, 2015 

House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on 

Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:11 p.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Phil Roe [chairman of 

the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Roe, Foxx, Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie, 

Messer, Carter, Grothman, Allen, Polis, Courtney, Pocan, and 

Bonamici. 

Also present: Representatives Kline, Rokita, Scott, and Thompson of California. 

Staff present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services 

Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy; Callie Harman, Staff Assistant; Tyler Hernandez, Press Secretary; Marvin 

Kaplan, Workforce Policy Counsel; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; John 

Martin, Professional Staff Member; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Alexa Turner, Legislative Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority 

Staff Assistant; Amy Cocuzza, Minority Labor Detailee; Denise 

Forte, Minority Staff Director; Christine Godinez, Minority Staff 

Assistant; Kendra Isaacson, Minority Labor Detailee; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Kevin McDermott, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor 

Policy Advisor; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Civil Rights Counsel; 

and Dillon Taylor, Minority Labor Policy Fellow. 

Chairman ROE. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on 

Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions will come to order. Good 

afternoon, I would like to welcome our guests and thank you all for 

joining us today to discuss the very important subject of tribal sovereignty. 

For our witnesses, I realize this issue is not only important, it 

is deeply personal. And I appreciate you all being here to share 

your views and your experiences. I believe that will be valuable in 

our discussion of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 

2015. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Upholding Native American rights of self-determination has long 

been a priority. As far back as the 1830s, when the governmental 

authority of the tribes was first challenged, our courts have held 

that the ‘‘tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent 

powers of self-government.’’ 

For decades, policymakers have agreed on the importance of protecting these fundamental rights. We should never stand idly by 

while the sovereignty of Native Americans is threatened, and that 

is exactly why we are here today. 

A little more than 10 years ago, the National Labor Relations 

Board overturned long-standing precedent with the landmark San 

Manuel Bingo and Casino decision that began using a subjective 

test to determine when and where to exert its jurisdiction over Indian tribes. 

This action was met with significant opposition from the Native 

American community and considered by many to be an attack on 

tribal sovereignty. In fact, at a hearing of this subcommittee in 

2012, Robert Porter, president of the Seneca Nation of Indians, 

called the move ‘‘unfounded’’ and a violation of treaty rights. 

During the same hearing, I myself expressed concern with the 

Board’s policy and its flawed interpretation of the law. Unfortunately, the Board has ignored these and similar concerns and continues to exert its authority over Indian tribes. 

To make matters worse, the NLRB’s actions have had ramifications that extend beyond threatening tribal sovereignty. The subjective nature of the Board’s process for determining jurisdiction 

has also produced a mess of legal confusion. And that, I think you 

can say with the legal confusion, is an understatement. 

Years of litigation have produced inconsistent and misguided 

Board decisions, compounding the uncertainty felt by Native American tribes and their businesses. To help address these concerns 

and preserve tribal sovereignty over labor policies our colleague, 

Todd Rokita introduced H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. The bill would prevent the NLRB from asserting its jurisdiction 

over businesses owned by Native Americans on tribal lands, codifying a Board standard that existed long before the San Manuel decision. 

In doing so, it would protect Native Americans from NLRB interference and provide legal certainty to the nation’s Indian tribes. It 

is a common sense proposal that has attracted bipartisan support. 

Today, we will hear from tribal leaders who will share their experiences and discuss the importance of protecting your cherished 

sovereignty. I look forward to hearing the views on the reforms outlined in the bill. 

And with that, I will now recognize the senior Democratic member of the subcommittee from Colorado, Representative Jared Polis, 

for his opening remarks. 

Mr. Polis, you are recognized. 

[The statement of Chairman Roe follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. David P. Roe, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

Good afternoon. I’d like to welcome our guests and thank you all for joining us 

today to discuss the very important subject of tribal sovereignty. For our witnesses, 

I realize this issue is not only important, it’s deeply personal, and I appreciate you 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

being here to share your views and your experiences. I believe they will be valuable 

in our discussion of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015. 

Upholding Native American rights of self-determination has long been a priority. 

As far back as the 1830s, when the governmental authority of tribes was first challenged, our courts have held that ‘‘tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government.’’ For decades, policymakers have agreed on the 

importance of protecting these fundamental rights. We should never stand idly by 

while the sovereignty of Native Americans is threatened, and that is exactly why 

we’re here today. 

A little more than 10 years ago, the National Labor Relations Board overturned 

long-standing precedent with the landmark San Manuel Bingo & Casino decision 

and began using a subjective test to determine when and where to exert its jurisdiction over Indian tribes. 

This action was met with significant opposition from the Native American community and considered by many to be an attack on tribal sovereignty. In fact, at a 

hearing of this subcommittee in 2012, Robert Odawi Porter, president of the Seneca 

Nation of Indians, called the move ‘‘unfounded’’ and a violation of treaty rights. During the same hearing, I myself expressed concern with the board’s policy and its 

flawed interpretation of the law. Unfortunately, the board has ignored these and 

similar concerns and continues to exert its authority over Indian tribes. 

To make matters worse, the NLRB’s actions have had ramifications that extend 

beyond threatening tribal sovereignty. The subjective nature of the board’s process 

for determining jurisdiction has also produced a mess of legal confusion. Years of 

litigation have produced inconsistent and misguided board decisions, compounding 

the uncertainty felt by Native American tribes and their businesses. 

To help address these concerns and preserve tribal sovereignty over labor policies, 

our colleague Todd Rokita introduced H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. 

The bill would prevent the NLRB from asserting its jurisdiction over businesses 

owned by Native Americans on tribal lands, codifying a board standard that existed 

long before the San Manuel decision. In doing so, 

it would protect Native Americans from NLRB interference and provide legal certainty to the nation’s Indian tribes. It’s a commonsense proposal that has attracted 

bipartisan support. 

Today, we will hear from tribal leaders who will share their experiences and discuss the importance of protecting their cherished sovereignty. I look forward to 

hearing their views on the reforms outlined in the bill. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by 

thanking the chairman for pursuing regular order with this legislation. I am glad we are, first, having a hearing on this legislation 

in order to collect facts and get feedback from various perspectives. 

This really shows how this committee should work. And I am glad 

for this opportunity to listen and ask questions on this important 

issue. 

And thank you to our terrific group of panelists for taking your 

time to give us your in-depth perspective. 

As all legislative hearings should, I believe this hearing needs to 

be about fact-finding. This bill highlights the inherent tension between two important principles that many of us hold dear: tribal 

sovereignty over Indian nations and workers’ rights. 

I fully support the sovereignty of our Native American nations, 

and I know many of us place a great deal of importance on their 

right to self-governance, control, and independence. I also believe 

deeply in the right of workers to organize, including Native American workers. And the ability of workers to fight for a safe and fair 

working environment. 

All legislation and National Labor Relations Board decisions 

must balance these competing principles. They should try their 

best, as should we, to make them complimentary rather than competitive. We should not favor one at the expense of another. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

Reconciling these two priorities may be difficult, but we as a 

committee have a responsibility to dig in to how we can effectively 

and fairly reconcile the issues and ensure that we protect tribal 

sovereignty while also respecting workers’ rights. And discussing 

the implications of this bill on these two issues is where we begin 

the process. 

We should investigate knowing that this issue is about more 

than tribal sovereignty, it is about more than gaming restrictions 

or the National Labor Relations Act. It is not only about our respect for tribal sovereignty, it is also about whether the majority 

cares about unions and the right of workers to form unions. And 

as we have discussed hundreds of times, unions are the key to 

shrinking the wage gap, raising up the middle class, and creating 

good-paying jobs. 

Under current law, tribes are subject to many federal employment laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, ERISA, 

the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Which begs the question, if this conversation is not solely about the 

right to join a union, should we also be having a discussion around 

due process and federal exemptions for a variety of American workers, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act, OSHA, ERISA and others, or even laws that prevent the use of 

child labor. 

I will also point out that I believe most of the companies operated by our Indian nations would not take advantage of workers. 

As is always the case, however, there can be bad actors and good 

actors. And in circumstances like these we want to make sure that 

we don’t overburden good actors. But at the same time, we want 

to make sure that workers, including Native American workers, 

cannot be taken advantage of by the rare bad actor. 

American tribal sovereignty is a core principle that I believe in. 

We also need to analyze the issue with the knowledge that many 

of these businesses and casinos are part of interstate commerce, 

and that there are many people who work at businesses owned and 

operated by Indian nations who may not be enrolled in the tribe 

that owns the casino. 

That means these individuals have no ability to raise the issue 

of workers’ rights within the context of tribal law. So the question 

becomes: what laws protect them and what rights do they have 

under American law? I am very interested in hearing from our witnesses on both sides of the issue about how this affects sovereignty, 

local control, and the health and economic vitality of working families. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Mr. Polis follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

I first want to thank the Chairman for pursuing regular order with this legislation. I am glad we are first having a hearing on this legislation and issue in order 

to collect the facts, and get feedback from various perspectives. I am glad for the 

opportunity to speak on this important issue. And thank you to our great group of 

panelists for taking their time to give us an in-depth perspective. 

As all legislative hearings should, I believe this hearing must be about fact finding. This bill highlights the inherent tension between two important principles of 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

American law: tribal sovereignty and workers’ rights. I fully support the sovereignty 

of Native Americans, and I know many of us place a great deal of importance on 

self-governance, localized control, and the independence of tribal nations. 

But I also believe deeply in the right to organize, in protecting our workers and 

allowing workers, including Native American workers, to fight for a safe and fair 

working environment. All legislation and NLRB decisions must balance these competing principles, not favor one at the expense of the other. So reconciling these two 

priorities may be difficult, but we as the committee have a responsibility to dig into 

how we effectively and fairly reconcile these issues. We must work to honor and protect tribal sovereignty while also respecting workers’ rights and discussing the implications of this bill on these two issues is where we begin. 

We must analyze this issue in its true context. We should investigate knowing 

that this issue is about more than tribal sovereignty; it is about more than gaming 

restrictions or the NLRA. It is not only about a respect for tribal sovereignty and 

control, it is also – perhaps primarily – about the Majority’s dislike of the NLRB 

and Unions. As we have discussed hundreds of times, unions are the key to shrinking the wage gap, raising up the middle-class and creating good paying jobs. Without unions we wouldn’t have weekends, we wouldn’t be moving towards equal pay, 

and there would be many fewer jobs that a family can live comfortably live on. 

Under current law, tribes are subject to many federal employment laws, including 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, ERISA, and the Family Medical Leave Act. 

Which begs the question, if this conversation is not solely about the right to join 

a union, then shouldn’t we also be having a discussion around due process and federal exemptions for a variety of American workers – including those under the 

American Disabilities Act, OSHA, ERISA and the Federal Labor Standards Act 

which keeps companies from not using slave labor or child labor. 

I will also point out that I believe most of the companies operated by Indian nations would not take advantage of workers. As is always the case, however, there 

are bad actors and there are good actors. In circumstances like these, we cannot and 

should not overburden good actors. Nor, though, can or should we allow workers to 

be taken advantage of by the rare bad actor. 

American Tribal sovereignty across this country is vital, but we must also analyze 

this issue with the knowledge that these businesses, casinos and more, are part of 

interstate commerce, and that there are many people who work at businesses 

‘‘owned and operated by Indian nations’’ who may or may not be of Native American 

descent. In fact statistics show that an overwhelming majority of workers (75% or 

more) come from outside the reservation and are not members of an Indian nation. 

These individuals have no ability to raise the issue of worker’s right within the context of tribal law, so the question becomes what laws protect them? 

I am interested in hearing from our witnesses on both sides of this issue about 

how this bill impacts not only sovereignty and local control, but also the health and 

economic vitality of all ethnicities and beliefs. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back my time. 

Closing Statement 

Thank you to everyone for your impassioned and honest testimony and answers. 

I truly hope that everyone on the committee today will analyze this issue objectively, and with an understanding of what has been said here. As you consider this 

issue, please keep in mind the needed nexus between balancing critical domestic 

sovereignties with the protection due to all American workers – regardless of whether you are white, black, Hispanic or Native American. 

Without the right to self-governance we would not have the strong communities 

present across this country today, and without the right to collectively bargain we 

would not have the strong and growing economy that all Americans rely on. 

I look forward to continuing this discussion with individuals and experts on both 

sides of the issue. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Pursuant to 

committee rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to be included in the permanent 

hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure and privilege to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Richard Guest. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

He is a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund in 

Washington, D.C. Mr. Guest is the lead attorney for the NARF on 

the Tribal Supreme Court Project, which is based on the principle 

that a coordinated and structured approach to tribal advocacy before the U.S. Supreme Court is necessary to preserve tribal sovereignty. Welcome, and thank you for being here. 

It is now my privilege to introduce our second witness. But, I 

would like to recognize for that privilege Mr. Courtney, our colleague. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a privilege 

to introduce my friend and neighbor, the Chairman of the 

Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council, Rodney Butler, who is here 

today to share his thoughts and perspectives on this issue. He is 

the leader of an extraordinary tribe in southeastern Connecticut 

which has literally transformed the landscape in terms of the contribution that they have made to employment and economic growth 

in that area. And Chairman Butler has been chairman since 2010, 

a challenging time with a difficult economy and has made great 

strides in terms of trying to achieve those goals. 

I worked with the tribe in terms of dealing with the leasehold 

term that BIA requires. And just a couple days ago, he cut the ribbon for a new mall that is adjacent to the casino; 900 new jobs, and 

there is a job fair that took place a few days ago because they need 

more. And that is music to everybody’s ears. 

He is, as I said, a native of southeastern Connecticut, graduated 

from Marvelwood High School. He also graduated from the University of Connecticut. By the way, Mr. Chairman, did you know that 

the University of Connecticut women won the 10th— 

Chairman ROE. Now, I did not want to talk about that this afternoon, being a UT alum. 

Mr. COURTNEY. As you know, he has an orange tie. I will just 

stop right there in terms of mentioning that. And, again, contributes greatly to non-profits and charitable groups throughout the 

area. The nice thing about being in a democracy is that friends and 

neighbors can work together on many issues, and sometimes agree 

to disagree on some. But I, again, look forward to hearing his testimony here today and certainly welcome him to our committee. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Butler, 

welcome. 

It is now my privilege to introduce one of our colleagues from 

California, Mike Thompson, to introduce our next panelist. 

Mr. Thompson of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, and Ranking Member Polis for organizing this very, very important hearing. 

And for your courtesy in allowing me to come down and join you 

at the dais today to introduce a constituent of mine, Mr. Gary 

Navarro, who lives in my congressional district in Santa Rosa, 

California. He is an enrolled member of the Pomo Tribe from the 

Round Valley Reservation, and he is an employee at the Graton 

Casino and Resort in Rohnert Park, which is also in my congressional district. 

Mr. Navarro can speak first-hand on the important work unions 

are doing on behalf of workers employed in tribal casinos. He was 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

part of the organizing effort at the Graton Casino and serves on 

the bargaining committee for UNITE HERE! Local 2850. He was 

also elected from Sonoma County as a senior chair to the California 

Rural Indian Health Board and serves as a Santa Rosa Little 

League Baseball board member. 

Accompanying Mr. Navarro are workers employed at tribally-run 

casinos in California, including Thunder Valley, Cache Creek, San 

Pablo, and Graton Rancheria. The questions that you are going to 

be dealing with today are extremely important, and I am very 

happy that you are taking this up. And I know that Mr. Navarro 

will add much to your debate and to your hearing. So thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I would also like to thank one of your other witnesses, Lieutenant Governor Keel for his service to his country, as a fellow Vietnam veteran. Thank you, and welcome home. 

Chairman ROE. Mr. Navarro, welcome. 

And it is my privilege now to introduce our last witness. The 

Honorable Jefferson Keel is the lieutenant governor of the Chickasaw Nation. Mr. Keel is a retired U.S. Army officer, with over 20 

years of active duty. His combat experience included three years of 

service in Vietnam as an infantryman, where he received a bronze 

star, with V for Valor, two purple hearts, and numerous other 

awards and decorations for heroism. He has management experience in the private sector and tribal programs and operations. And 

as a fellow veteran, welcome home and thank you for your service. 

I will now ask our witnesses to stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

You may take your seats, and thank you, gentlemen. 

Before I recognize your testimony, let me briefly explain our 

lighting system. You will have five minutes to present your testimony. When you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. 

When one minute is left, the light will turn yellow. When your time 

is expired the light will turn red. 

And we do have votes, so I am going to be pretty precise on the 

five minutes. We have votes later today, and I want to make sure 

we make those. At that time, I will ask that you wrap up your remarks as best you are able. Members will each have five minutes 

for questions. 

Now, Mr. Guest, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. RICHARD GUEST, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. GUEST. Thank you, Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Polis, 

and distinguished members of this subcommittee. The Native 

American Rights Fund, NARF, is honored to provide this testimony; the purpose of which is to demonstrate that in furtherance 

of long-standing policies of Indian self-determination, tribal selfgovernance, and tribal economic self-sufficiency it is time for this 

Congress to provide both clarity and parity for tribal governments 

under the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRA. 

For the record, NARF fully supports H.R. 511, as well as its companion bill in the U.S. Senate, S. 248. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

As you are well aware, the NLRA was enacted by Congress in 

1935 to govern labor relations in the private commercial sector. 

Under Section 2 of the NLRA, the term ‘‘an employer’’ is defined 

to include any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly 

or indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any state 

or political subdivision thereof. 

Therefore, workers in the public sector, employees of federal, 

state, and local governments, were not afforded the rights and protections of the NLRA. Based on sound policy determinations, Congress provided those governments an opportunity to choose how 

best to regulate union organizing, collective bargaining, and labor 

relations with their workers, given the essential and often times 

sensitive nature of their employment. 

So in this context, for tribal governments, parity encompasses 

the quality of being treated equally under the law, alongside federal, state, and local governments. Tribal governments are entitled 

to the same freedom to choose for themselves the appropriate time, 

place, and manner for regulating union activity on Indian lands 

and collective bargaining for their employees. 

H.R. 511 provides the necessary clarity and certainty, recognizing that those sound policy determinations apply with equal 

force to tribal governments. 

In terms of parity with the Federal Government, it was not until 

1978—43 years after it passed the NLRA—that Congress enacted 

the Federal Labor Relations Act to regulate labor relations with 

federal workers. To meet the special requirements and needs of the 

Federal Government, Congress chose to exclude employees of certain federal agencies, limited collective bargaining with no right to 

negotiate wages, hours, or employee benefits, and eliminated the 

right to strike of federal workers. 

In terms of parity with state and local governments, according to 

the 2002 GAO report only 26 states and the District of Columbia 

had statutorily protected collective bargaining rights for their employees. Twelve states had allowed collective bargaining only for 

specific groups of workers, such as teachers and firefighters, and 12 

states did not have any laws protecting the rights of its employees 

to collectively bargain. 

According to the GAO report, most state government workers entitled to collective bargaining rights under state law are all prohibited from striking. Instead, those states provide compulsory binding 

interest arbitration, a procedure not available under the NLRA. 

Mr. Chairman, we hope that you and each member of the Committee will recognize that each of the 566 federally recognized 

tribes, as governments, must have the opportunity to make their 

own policy judgments regarding labor relations on their reservations based on the values and priorities that best serve the needs 

of their community. 

In general, there are four areas of concern for Indian tribes. One, 

a guaranteed right to strike threatens government revenues and 

the ability of tribes to deliver vital services. Two, the broad scope 

of collective bargaining will undermine federal and tribal policies 

requiring Indian preference in employment. Three, preemption of 

the tribal power to exclude diminishes the ability of tribes to place 

conditions on entry, on continued presence, and on reservation conCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

duct. And four, the potential for substantial outside interference 

with tribal politics and elections. 

Although there are several examples to choose from in my testimony, I provide summary of the Navaho Preference and Employment Act of 1985, and include as an attachment to my written testimony the collective bargaining regulations promulgated by the 

Office of Navaho Labor Relations. 

It was the legislative intent of the Navaho Nation Council to incorporate the most basic protections of the NLRA to tribal employees whom the council acknowledged were otherwise exempt from 

the NLRA. Included as attachment C is the Model Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance, the result of the great experiment with the 

tribes in the State of California in their gaming compacts, resulting 

in labor relations being granted in that state. 

So in closing, today, as a result of the successive Indian Gaming 

and the San Manuel decision, the NLRB no longer draws a distinction from whether the tribal business was located on or off reservation, but rather what it determines to be commercial activities of 

an Indian tribe versus what it deems to be traditional governmental functions. 

I see my time has expired, so I will end my testimony there, willing to take questions. 

Thank you. 

[The testimony of Mr. Guest follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 94926.001
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 94926.002
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 94926.003
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 94926.004
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 94926.005
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 94926.006
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 94926.007
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 94926.008
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 94926.009
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 94926.010
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 94926.011
21 

Chairman ROE. Thank you, Mr. Guest. 

Mr. Butler, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RODNEY BUTLER, CHAIRMAN, 

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL COUNCIL, 

MASHANTUCKET, CONNECTICUT 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Polis, my good friend, Joe Courtney and distinguished 

members of the committee. I am Rodney Butler, the Chairman of 

the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation in Connecticut. 

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify in support of the 

Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act because it is critically important to 

protect the sovereign rights of tribal governments. First, I would 

like to thank Congressman Rokita for introducing this legislation, 

and the nearly 50 bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation. Indian 

country has always received bipartisan support in Congress, and I 

hope this bill will continue in that tradition. 

H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, is a very straightforward bill. The legislation expressly confirms that Indian tribes 

are on equal footing with state and local governments under the 

National Labor Relations Act. That is all that it does. It reaffirms 

the fact that tribes are sovereign governments, and should be treated that way under all federal laws. 

The issue of tribal government parity has been a priority in Indian country for decades. We have successfully worked with Congress to reaffirm our tribal sovereignty under the Violence Against 

Women Act, federal unemployment taxation, general welfare, tax 

issues, and a host of other laws. Today, we continue to fight for 

tribal parity on issues relating to municipal bonds, pensions, the 

bankruptcy code, and the NLRA. I am pleased that all of these efforts have been supported in Congress, again, on a bipartisan basis. 

However, I am concerned today that some people have tried to 

portray this legislation as being anti-union, and I wholeheartedly 

disagree with that assessment. I would like to share with the committee our experience with organized labor at our Foxwoods gaming facility. 

In 2007, the United Auto Workers filed a petition with the NLRB 

to organize the dealers at Foxwoods. Applying its wrongly-decided 

San Manuel standards, the NLRB asserted jurisdiction over the 

Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and our Foxwoods Casino. At 

that point, our tribal council had to make a decision: pursue this 

issue in the courts, which would have led to years of distracting 

and hurtful litigation, or work with the UAW to help them understand how they could organize and protect collective employee 

rights under our tribal labor laws. 

Our government decided to reach out to the UAW, explain that 

this was an issue of tribal sovereignty, and encourage the use of 

tribal law to reach a solution that respected both tribal sovereignty 

and workers’ rights to organize. These discussions gave the Tribal 

Nation an opportunity to educate the UAW regarding the importance of tribal sovereignty, the importance of tribal culture and tradition, and the significance of tribal laws and institutions that were 

in place. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

22 

At the same time, it gave the UAW an opportunity to educate the 

Tribal Nation on the importance to the union of protecting employee rights to organize and the UAW’s efforts and successes over 

the years protecting those rights. Both the UAW and the Tribal 

Nation were open to listening and learning from each other. 

Over a period of time, we reached an agreement with the UAW 

to pursue collective bargaining under tribal law, and entered into 

a collective bargaining agreement with the UAW. 

I think both the tribe and the UAW believe this agreement has 

worked well for both sides. In fact, today three additional unions 

represent our government employees at Mashantucket. They include the International Union of Operating Engineers, the International Association of Firefighters, and United Food & Commercial Workers. All of these unions have collective bargaining agreements with our tribe. 

The San Manuel decision was not only a complete reversal of the 

NLRB’s recognition of the tribes as sovereigns, it is also an affront 

to Indian country. It suggests that Indian tribes are incapable of 

developing laws and institutions to protect the rights of employees 

who work on our reservations. 

Our experience proves nothing could be further from the truth. 

The Mashantucket Pequot labor relations law protects the rights of 

employees to organize, to vote to select union representation in secret ballot election, and to bargain collectively with their employer. 

Elections are conducted and the law is enforced by the 

Mashantucket Employee Rights Office, a separate government 

agency headed up by a labor lawyer with over 25 years of experience, including eight years of experience as a field examiner and 

attorney for the National Labor Relations Board. 

Similar to other public sector labor relations laws, our labor law 

requires the parties to negotiate in good faith. And when negotiations fail to result in a contract, the dispute may be submitted to 

a binding interest arbitration. The law provides for a dispute resolution by a three-member panel selected by the parties. 

All of these developments have been praised by unions, labor 

lawyers, and even former NLRB officials alike. In addition to our 

labor law, the Tribal Nation has enacted legislation allowing employees the right to challenge terminations from employment and 

suspensions of five days or more. We adopted ERISA as tribal law, 

we have created remedies for denial of health benefits, and a tribal 

civil rights code allowing employee discrimination claims. 

Our tribe made the sovereign decision to permit collective bargaining with unions when designated by the majority of the employees under our laws. It should be the right of any sovereign government to make decisions that are best for their people. 

H.R. 511 simply allows tribal governments to make those decisions. Section 2 of the NLRA expressively excludes the U.S. government and state and local governments from the Act’s jurisdiction, 

and that makes sense. Sovereign bodies have unique employment 

concerns, and the sovereign is best suited to address those concerns. We seek to be treated just like every other sovereign under 

the NLRA; nothing more, nothing less. That is why this legislation 

enjoys wide support in Indian country. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

The National Congress of American Indians and organizations 

that represent all Indian tribes in the United States unanimously 

adopted a resolution supporting this legislation. In fact, we have 

not heard from any tribe opposing this bill. With over 560 fairly 

recognized Indian tribes, it is truly remarkable to have such unanimity in Indian country. 

Mr. Chairman, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act simply reaffirms 

our sovereign rights, and we urge the committee to pass this legislation and move quickly to get the law enacted. Thank you. 

[The testimony of Mr. Butler follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 94926.012
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 94926.013
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 94926.014
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 94926.015
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 94926.016
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 94926.017
30 

Chairman ROE. Thank you, Mr. Butler, for your testimony. 

Mr. Navarro, you are recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. GARY NAVARRO, SLOT MACHINE ATTENDANT AND BARGAINING COMMITTEE MEMBER, UNITEHERE 

LOCAL 2850, THE GRATON CASINO AND RESORT, ROHNERT 

PARK, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NAVARRO. Congressman Roe, Ranking Member Polis, and the 

members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. My name is Gary Navarro. I am from Santa Rosa, California. I am an enrolled member of the Pomo National and a worker at Graton Casino and Resort in northern California. While I am 

appearing here today as a Democrat witness, I am a registered as 

a Republican. 

As a Native American, I am strongly opposed to the idea that in 

the name of my heritage, one of the most important rights Americans have—namely the right to form a union and collectively bargain—would be taken away from thousands of people like me who 

work in a Native business. 

I have become active in my union because of unjust treatment of 

casino workers by the managers and how nothing could be done 

about even sexual harassment because of sovereignty. Exercising 

our rights to organize turned out to be the only way to protect ourselves and our coworkers. Please do not strip us of these rights. 

My grandmother and her children grew up on the Round Valley 

Reservation in Covelo, California. My family has lived there many 

generations. People there were poor, they did not have an education. There is much crime there because of a lot of alcohol and 

drug abuse leading to violent crimes. 

My grandmother left the reservation at a very young age to bring 

her family to Santa Rosa because she didn’t want them to deal 

with the same life of poverty. My whole life, my grandma has 

taught us to hold our own and stand up for what is right. 

As I grew up, she always would teach us our heritage and to be 

proud of who we are. But also to be hard-working and understanding towards others. Today, I am a slot attendant at Graton 

Casino. In total, there are about 2,500 employees at the casino, but 

only five are Native Americans and one of them from the Graton 

Rancheria. No managers are Native, the casino is managed by Station Casino on behalf of the tribe. 

I have seen sexual harassment at the casino. A general manager 

going up to women telling them if they want promotions they had 

to sleep with him. The women were fired. We all complained. Managers at the Stations Casinos told us it was a sovereign nation. It 

was bad enough that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act doesn’t apply 

to Native businesses. 

Congress should not make the situation worse by taking away 

protections under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA enables workers who have been subjected to harassment and other 

forms of discrimination to get together and complain about it. Take 

away the NLRA, you don’t only have sexual harassment but no 

ability to speak about it. 

I was also part of an organizing effort to help collective bargaining at Graton. I have never been in the union before, but we 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

31 

needed the union to help us organize ourselves so we could speak 

up about abuses without having to worry about our jobs being 

taken away from us. Even though Stations Casino’s management 

was opposed to having a union, the Graton tribal leadership went 

and told them to back off. 

The union is recognized now, and we are at the end of our negotiations for the first contract right now. The union and tribe 

worked together to help the tribe pass their compact in Sacramento. 

I cannot sit back and watch and see legislation that would take 

the rights to organize and collective bargaining away from every 

worker at Tribal Enterprises in the name of Native heritage. It is 

especially troubling when I have family members who were all in 

the major wars: World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam 

War. And I had relatives who died in that war. Spilling blood for 

an American flag has always been something my family has been 

proud of. 

My family died for these rights and for everyone to have, not just 

for Native Americans to have but for all races to have. These are 

rights that they believed everyone should have. Even though casinos are on a piece of Native American land, it is still America. It 

is embarrassing as a Native American to think that this legislation 

could pass and my coworkers have no rights because my band of 

brothers, my family, my heritage took them away thinking it was 

okay, when it is not. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you have. 

[The testimony of Mr. Navarro follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 94926.023
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 94926.024
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 94926.025
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 94926.026
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 94926.027
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 94926.028
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 94926.029
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 94926.030
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 94926.031
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 94926.032
42 

Chairman ROE. Thank you, Mr. Navarro, for your testimony. 

Now Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Keel, you are recognized for five 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, LIEUTENANT 

GOVERNOR, CHICKASAW NATION, ADA, OKLAHOMA 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other members for the 

opportunity to speak before you today. To us, today’s discussion is 

solely about sovereignty. It is about our government-to-government 

relationship with the United States, and it is about the Federal 

Government living up to the principles that have shaped successful 

self-determination policies for the past 40 years. 

All governments must be afforded the respect all governments 

are due. We accordingly call on Congress to correct this understanding that arises from the NLRA not expressly including tribal 

governments in its list of those that are already exempt from the 

NLRA. As recognized since the earliest days of this republic, the 

Chickasaw Nation is a sovereign government. Acting under our 

constitution and laws, our leaders provide citizens with a broad 

range of government services, including health care, housing, and 

education. 

And our government’s direct operation of economic development 

initiatives and the revenues we raise from them are critical to 

those programs. Fundamental principles of federal law provided 

American Indian tribal governments should be treated as other 

governments are under federal law, including treatment with respect to the right to government-employee labor relations. 

When Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, or ‘‘the 

Act,’’ in 1934 it expressly exempted government employers. For 

seven decades the National Labor Relations Board, or the Board, 

properly construed the act as exempting the American Indian tribal 

governments. In 2004 however, the Board moved away from that 

settled practice and began to assert jurisdiction over tribal governments based on a case-by-case determination that focused not on 

the sovereign status of tribal governments but on an inquiry as to 

whether the tribal government’s actions were sufficiently governmental in nature. 

This is an inquiry for which neither the Act nor other common 

law provide any meaningful criteria and is applied to no other government. The Board applies this test to not federal, not state, not 

municipal; only tribal. 

In 2011, it was alleged that the Chickasaw Nation violated the 

NLRA at our WinStar World Casino. We contested those charges, 

asserting both our fundamental status as sovereign nations and 

our treaties with the United States. Earlier this month, we won a 

ruling from the Board that recognized our treaties as barring 

NRLA jurisdiction over our workplaces. Our win is a long overdue 

victory for sovereignty, but it remains incomplete. 

First, it rests on treaty provisions that are unique to us and our 

sister sovereign, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Instead of relying on broader federal law principles, the Board appears to instead 

have found the narrowest path possible for coming to the right conclusion. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

Second, the test that the Board applied is only 10 years old. More 

to the point, that test reversed 70 years of the Board’s prior understanding of the law. What assurances do we have, today, that the 

Board will stay with this understanding? The governments of Indian country deserve stability and certainty under federal law. 

Tribes have demonstrated their ability, as you have heard, to address these issues on their own. For example, the tribal governments in California have negotiated compacts that address tribal 

workplace unionization. That may have been a sound decision by 

those tribal sovereigns. It may not be one that all tribal governments or even state governments might make. Certainly, it is not 

a decision that the Board should make for tribal governments. 

Franklin Roosevelt himself argued for not subjecting governments to the NLRA, which he emphasized, was developed for purposes of regulating private enterprise labor relations. His caution 

was well founded and should apply with respect to all governments, including tribal governments and their sovereign rights to 

regulate their own government labor relations. 

The Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act would provide Indian country 

with the stability and certainty it deserves, and the Chickasaw Nation accordingly calls on Congress to correct its prior error by adding tribal governments to the list of those already exempt from the 

NLRA. 

Thank you again for inviting me to appear. I urge you to do everything you can to ensure swift passage of the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. 

Thank you. 

[The testimony of the Hon. Keel follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 94926.018
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 94926.019
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 94926.020
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 94926.021
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 94926.022
49 

Chairman ROE. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. And again, 

thank you for your service to our country. 

I am going to yield myself five minutes and get started. And really, I think this is about as clear an issue as I have ever seen. And 

I am amazed that you can get 566 Indian tribes. I was at the doctors meeting this morning, with 13 of us and we couldn’t agree on 

anything. So I am astonished that you have that. If you have 

watched the Congress operate, we will never agree 100 percent. So 

it is pretty amazing. Look, I think this is fairly simple. Let me just 

show you how I see it. 

One is, either you are sovereign or you are not. You can either 

make your decisions or you cannot. The NLRA—and I want to read 

this—does not cover all employees and employers in the United 

States. For example, public sector employers—that is state, local, 

and Federal Government employers—are covered by the Railway 

Labor Act; that is airlines and railroads. Agriculture labor and supervisors are not covered under the Act, 29 United States Code. 

So, it is clear, you are correct, Mr. Keel, you made the point that 

it was just left out. And then, 70 years of basically what we 

thought was law, changed in 2004. 

So, I see this very clearly. We should clear it up with one small 

bill—it is a very simple bill—and it would then allow you to make 

those decisions. I am for making those on a local basis. And I think 

Mr. Butler made a great point in his testimony, and I will turn it 

over to you: this is not anti-union. If you want to unionize where 

you are, that is perfectly okay to do. And people have, clearly, and 

you have worked with the unions. 

I have said this since I have been on this committee and the time 

I have been in Congress. It is a right in this country; if you want 

to do it, you can. If you are fully informed, you want to vote for 

a union, you can do that. I grew up in a union household. I absolutely understand how that works. 

But you also have a right not to unionize if you don’t want to. 

And I think your point was well taken, Mr. Butler, and if you 

would like to comment on that I would like to hear your— 

Mr. BUTLER. First, my condolences to UT. I apologize for being 

a Husky. But no, absolutely. I mean, look, we have a tremendous 

relationship with our unions. We work hand-in-hand on many 

things. In fact, we just worked on an expansion of the gaming bill 

in the state of Connecticut that was, you know, in concert with 

union support. And so, those are union jobs, they are going to get 

impacted. And we realized that because of the way that we care 

about our employees. We worked with them together to get that 

legislation passed. And so, we work together throughout the community in charitable organizations, and it has been a very successful partnership, again that we chose to enter into. 

Chairman ROE. And I think, Mr. Keel, I want you to comment. 

I think you made a point a minute ago about—at least the way I 

understand it—the NLRB made this ruling was that if you are 

using the profits, some of the profits, of your casinos for travel, for 

services in the tribe. Am I correct on that? 

Mr. KEEL. That is correct, yes, sir. 

Chairman ROE. And when you do that, that would seem to me 

like if you are a sovereign nation you need those revenues to be 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

able to provide the services that your constituents expect from you. 

Am I correct? 

Mr. KEEL. Yes, that is correct. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ROE. And have I missed the point at all in this? It is 

a fairly simple, straightforward—I don’t see how there could be 

much discussion. Either we have—in these treaties that we did 

with 566 tribes in this country—allowed you to be a sovereign nation or we have not. And I think we have. Any comments? 

Mr. Guest? 

Mr. GUEST. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman— 

Chairman ROE. I said the point is, what we have done is, in this 

country we have either said to these treaties that we have had 

with the nations, the Native American Nations—that you are a 

sovereign piece of property or you are not. And I think clearly you 

are, and are able to make your own decisions. Am I interpreting 

that wrong? 

Mr. GUEST. No, sir. I mean, that is exactly the point that tribal 

leaders are bringing to you today is that they are no different than 

states, than the United States. The challenge is that Congress was 

silent with respect to the language in the NLRA, and due to that 

silence it has created the opportunity for a lot of confusion in this 

area of the law. 

Chairman ROE. Mr. Polis, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question, for Mr. 

Guest. And what is the implication of this bill, if passed, on the applicability or the precedent that is set with the applicability of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, OSHA, FLSA? 

Mr. GUEST. Well, H.R. 511 only addresses Congress’ silence in 

the NLRA in including tribes in the exemption to the definition of 

employer, along with state and local governments in the Federal 

Government. It doesn’t have any impact on any other federal law. 

Mr. POLIS. So how does one differentiate, for instance, among the 

right of those with disabilities to have reasonable accommodations 

at work versus the right of workers to organize? I mean, why this 

particular set of rights as opposed to some of the other national 

protections that exist even in tribal nations? 

Mr. GUEST. If my recollection serves me, Indian tribes are exempted from the definition of employer in the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, in other employment legislation, Congress 

again has been silent with respect to Indian tribes. The courts have 

interpreted that silence to create the rule regarding laws of general 

application apply to Indian tribes, in the employment context, saying that those laws like FLSA and OSHA do apply. 

Mr. POLIS. And in your opinion, should those laws not apply to 

our sovereign nations, OSHA and FLSA? 

Mr. GUEST. Well, I think the difference here is that with respect 

to the NLRA and its impact on tribal sovereignty is vastly different 

than the impact with respect to OSHA or the Fair Labor Standards Act. It really is about safety and health regulations, wages 

and overtime, which is a very different set of rules versus union 

organizing on the reservations. Inviting third parties to come on to 

the reservation and the tribes having no ability, no authority, to 

regulate their presence. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Navarro, do you, as a general principle, do you support the sovereignty of our Native American nations? 

Mr. NAVARRO. Yes, I support sovereignty. 

Mr. POLIS. And so how would you view that this bill would impact both workers’ rights, and how do you reconcile your support 

and the support of many of us of Native American sovereignty with 

your support of workers’ rights? 

Mr. NAVARRO. The workers’ rights, they are just given rights 

that people have. You can’t really go and take them away and say 

this is a sovereign nation. This is America. Honestly, it is America. 

You can’t just say I am taking your rights today because it is a sovereign nation. You can’t use that against people. Those are hardworking Americans who are busting their butts in their workplace 

for these tribes. And to come in and say we are going to use sovereignty against you to take rights away isn’t fair to them. 

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Butler, with regard to employees of Native American nations’ enterprises that are not affiliated with a tribe— either members of other tribes or non-Native Americans—they clearly don’t have the same rights under tribal governance. And my 

question is: is there any mechanism under this bill where non-tribal employees could somehow influence the process around the conditions of their employment if they are not enrolled members of the 

tribe? 

Mr. BUTLER. If they are not enrolled members of the tribe? So 

we treat all of our employees— 

Mr. POLIS. About 75 percent, I think, of the employees, I understand across the industry are not members of the tribe. 

Mr. BUTLER. We have non-native employees, we have native employees, who aren’t enrolled members of our tribe, as well, and we 

treat them all the same, right? And again we have chosen, as Richard spoke to, the other laws that don’t necessarily apply to Indian 

country, you know. That is our sovereign right to accept those and 

apply those. And we have chosen to do so. In this case, again, we 

have put in place our own labor law. We have a disability law; we 

have a civil rights code. And so those all, on our sovereign actions, 

have been applied to all of our employees. 

Mr. POLIS. And if it was a tribe that didn’t have those protections, would you then argue that those protections simply shouldn’t 

be afforded to the employees? Or should there be some federal or 

national backstop on that? 

Mr. BUTLER. Well again, in our case as an independent sovereign, just as each state is independent we have chosen to afford 

those opportunities to our employees. Now, same thing with states. 

Not every state has afforded those opportunities, as well, under the 

NLRA. But we have, so we look at it in the same fashion. 

Mr. POLIS. Yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Dr. Foxx, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our guests for 

being here today. 

Mr. Guest, just last week, in NLRB v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indian Tribal Government, a divided U.S. court of appeals for 

the 6th Circuit ruled the NLRB may apply the NLRA to a MichiCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

gan casino run by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians on tribal land. How does a treaty with the Little River Band of Ottawa 

Indians differ from the Chickasaw treaty? 

Mr. GUEST. Well, in the Little River Band case they did not 

make the treaty argument directly, although they have a treaty 

with the United States. And the language in their treaty and the 

language in the Saginaw Chippewa, which is the next case up in 

front of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the distinction is that 

there is much more general language. They don’t have the same 

language as in the Chickasaw treaty that basically precludes any 

laws enacted by Congress unless it is made specific to the tribe. 

I mean, it is very narrow language for the Chickasaws and the 

Choctaws that the board recognized. And the impact is going to be 

felt because not all federally recognized Indian tribes have treaties 

with the United States. Indian tribes entered into relationships 

with the United States in a variety of ways. 

And so, not every tribe is going to have the benefit—even those 

with treaties, as my friend Jefferson Keel indicated—have that 

good of language. It is just the exception, not the rule. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Let me follow up, if I could. If the NLRB 

determines it has jurisdiction over an Indian tribe, then what will 

become of the tribal labor laws? 

Mr. GUEST. Well, that is a good question. And in the San Manuel 

case it came up, as well. Initially, with the model tribal labor relations ordinance in California, now with the assertion of jurisdiction 

by the NLRB in Little River Band, there are existing tribal laws. 

And what the NLRB has said is, well, those that conflict with the 

NLRA are no longer applicable. 

So now there is going to be litigation over, well, what conflicts 

with the NLRA and what doesn’t, creating more litigation and 

more uncertainty. The decision by the NLRB in Chickasaw and the 

decision by the 6th Circuit in the Little River Band case again illustrate for us why Congress needs to act and act quickly with respect to H.R. 511. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. 

Lieutenant Governor Keel, the NLRA includes the right to strike. 

Would a strike at your casino affect government operations in the 

Chickasaw Nation? 

Mr. KEEL. Absolutely. I would liken it to what happened with the 

air traffic controllers strike a number of years ago to this country, 

where a group of individuals basically crippled the transportation 

system of this whole country. We obviously are not on as large a 

scale, but that is the type of activity that would interfere with what 

we are doing. 

We depend on the revenues to make sure that we provide services, whether it be housing, health care, or emergency assistance 

to our citizens. And we could not stand for that. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. Let me go to one more question. I believe 

I have time. In July 2013, a Board panel concluded that it had jurisdiction over the Chickasaw Nation. Can you tell us what was the 

basis for that holding? And have the treaties between the Chickasaw Nation and the United States changed since 2013? 

Mr. KEEL. No, ma’am. They have not changed. The treaties have 

not changed and will not change. But thank you for that question. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

The specific language that applies to the Chickasaw is that no 

laws—as Mr. Guest has stated—would ever be passed that would 

be contrary to the Chickasaw Nation, or unless it was passed specifically for and to the Chickasaw Nation. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

I now recognize our ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Lieutenant Governor Keel, apparently some federal laws apply to 

tribal activities and some don’t. If you believe in sovereignty, why 

shouldn’t they all apply or none of them apply? 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you. The Chickasaw Nation, we have adopted 

laws, ordinances, and employee relations that cover all of our employees. And we treat, as you have heard, all of our employees the 

same. We go through a process every year at a master planning 

session, where we sit down and we look at what our needs of our 

employees are in terms of benefits. They— 

Mr. SCOTT. We are talking about, in this hearing, we are just 

talking about NLRB. What about other laws of general application? 

Why shouldn’t they all apply on tribal lands or none of them apply? 

How do you tell what applies and what doesn’t? 

Mr. KEEL. Well, the federal laws that we operate under, many 

of our programs are federally funded so we operate by those rules. 

Many of the benefits that are afforded to our citizens are the derivative of that. The Fair Labor Standards Act, we operate under 

those rules and regulations and those laws, so— 

Mr. SCOTT. Should you have to? 

Mr. KEEL. We don’t feel that we should have to, but we do. 

Mr. SCOTT. So I guess the question, again, is why should some 

apply and some not? What would happen if the business involved 

hires a vet. The vast majority of employees are not Indians. Should 

the NLRB apply to that kind of business? 

Mr. KEEL. If it is a tribal business operated by the tribal government, by the Chickasaw Nation, the fact is the answer is no, the 

NLRB should not be. We are capable of developing our own laws 

and rules and regulations that would far exceed those needs. In 

fact, the wages of our employees meet or exceed any of the standards. The benefits of our employees are better. They have better 

health care, better benefit packages than anywhere around. So we 

don’t feel that the NLRB has any say at all in our affairs. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about other laws? OSHA, should that apply? 

Occupational Safety and Health Act? 

Mr. KEEL. Again, sir, as many of our programs that we operate 

are covered under those federal laws we operate under those rules. 

And we do make sure that we are within the law. 

Mr. SCOTT. Why should you have to operate under that and not 

NLRB law? 

Mr. KEEL. As I have said, sir, I believe that we are capable of 

developing our own rules, laws, and tribal ordinances that would 

actually improve on those conditions. 

Mr. SCOTT. The discussion involves businesses on Indian land. 

There have been occasional land swaps, where you take some Indian land and trade it with some downtown land so that the hotel 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

is actually on Indian-owned land. Should these exemptions apply 

to a downtown casino? 

Mr. KEEL. Once again, the Chickasaw Nation is a sovereign nation and we operate our businesses as a sovereign nation. So our 

laws apply to all of our businesses regardless of where they are located as long as they are within—on trust lands, as you would 

refer to. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I mean, if you swapped land and had trust land 

and really downtown, and had a downtown casino, should that be 

considered exempt from the various laws that we are talking 

about? 

Mr. KEEL. Sir, there is a process by which the lands are taken 

into trust that we go through a lengthy process to determine 

whether or not these lands are placed into trust. Once that process 

is completed, then yes, we operate those businesses just as any of 

the other business we operate as a sovereign nation. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you would be—you would expect to be exempt 

from the NLRB in that situation, where you have what is essentially a downtown casino that you own? 

Mr. KEEL. If it is on our lands, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Salmon, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Mr. Guest, my first question is going 

to be for you. Is it your understanding that state and federal governments, that their employees have to operate under OSHA? 

Mr. GUEST. I am not an employment or a labor law attorney. 

Mr. SALMON. My understanding is that they are. In fact, if anybody can dispute that—in fact, the ADOT folks, as they are building highways—they have to comply with OSHA regulations. And so 

this isn’t really about whether or not you guys want to pick and 

choose the laws. You want to be treated the same as the other 

carve-outs, whether it is the Federal Government or the state governments. In fact, you had mentioned in your testimony that Section 2 of the NLRA states that the term ‘‘employer’’ is defined to 

include any person acting as an agent of an employer directly or 

indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any whollyowned government corporation or any Federal Reserve bank, any 

state of political division thereof. 

And so, they are okay with not having those guys comply with 

the NLRB rules and regulations, but they have kind of singled you 

out. I hear some of the argument on the other side, asking you if 

you should be exempt from OSHA. Well, the states aren’t exempt 

from OSHA, the Federal Government is not exempt from OSHA. 

And so all you are asking for is to stop being treated like some second class government entity. Isn’t that what we are saying? 

Mr. GUEST. I think that you have brought an argument to the 

table that we have not directly thought of, Mr. Salmon. I think that 

is exactly right, is that the fact that federal and state employees, 

or governments, are not exempted from OSHA, from the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, and others—again, brings the parity issue right 

back into focus: tribes should not be second-class governments. 

And again, the difference between those laws and the NLRA is 

the fact that over the course of time tribes are working directly 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

with folks at the Department of Labor who enforce the employment 

laws. They are dealing directly with OSHA, and enacting statutes 

that reflect OSHA. That, as Mr. Butler said, they have enacted 

ERISA, they have adopted ERISA as tribal law. That is the act of 

a sovereign, that they are enacting their own laws. Some tribes actually increase the protections for their workers over and above 

what the federal minimum requirements are. So, again, it is allowing tribes to act in that sovereign capacity. 

Mr. SALMON. I guess I just resent you being singled out as the 

one government entity that has to either—you know, has to accept 

this or somehow you are not caring about the tribal members that 

you have purview over. I don’t buy that. In fact, I think that either—I think this is very, very consistent with the other laws that 

are on the books. And that, you know, these other government entities are exempted; then if they are exempted, you should be exempted. That, to me, is pretty cut and dry and the way it ought 

to be. 

Lieutenant Governor Keel, in your testimony you did an excellent 

job emphasizing the basis for, and the importance of, tribal sovereignty. And I am a proud co-sponsor of the bill for the reasons 

you stated. And Todd Rokita is a great American. So thanks for introducing this bill. Do you anticipate much opposition to the bill? 

And then if so, what interests do you believe are going to be interested in restricting the rights of sovereign tribes to handle their 

own affairs in this area? 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being 

a co-sponsor of the bill. I am not sure of the opposition. I am not 

sure what level of opposition we would receive. I am not sure why 

they would oppose tribal governments being treated as every other 

government in this country, as it has been recognized. Our inherent sovereignty is recognized in the Constitution of the United 

States in Article 1. I am not sure why there would be any opposition to this. This simply clarifies misunderstandings that have arisen with the NLRB over the past 70 years. So— 

Mr. SALMON. Well, if the NLRB is going to be consistent then it 

ought to go after the state and the federal governments, as well, 

if it is going to be consistent. All we are asking for is to quit having 

this darn double standard. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. KEEL. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Pocan, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses. 

So let me try to follow up on Mr. Salmon and Mr. Polis’ question, 

and even the chairman when he said you are either sovereign or 

you are not. And as I hear some of this discussion, it sounds like 

there is more than one inconsistency with how the law is applied 

and, Mr. Guest, I think specifically the questions that were asked 

by Mr. Salmon and Mr. Polis. So it sounds like it is not just this 

one law where you are treated differently, but it sounds like there 

is other labor, consumer protection, and environmental laws that 

are treated differently. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

So if I understand right, the Fair Labor Standards Act has been 

applied to tribes. Correct? 

Mr. GUEST. Correct. 

Mr. POCAN. And I believe the OSHA we were talking about has 

been applied to tribes? 

Mr. GUEST. Correct. 

Mr. POCAN. Okay. ERISA, the federal pension law? 

Mr. GUEST. Correct. 

Mr. POCAN. Age Discrimination in Employment Act? 

Mr. GUEST. I believe there is an exemption for tribes. Not under 

the age discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities— 

Mr. POCAN. Yes, not the ADA but specifically that. So I guess 

when I look at that, and when we asked before about that we said, 

well, courts have made this determination. So I guess my question 

is, are you looking for a legislative fix to all of these areas? Because 

clearly, you are either sovereign or you are not is the argument, 

then there are some other things that need fixing. So are you looking for a legislative fix across the board on these issues? 

Mr. GUEST. I don’t believe so. I think that what we are looking 

for is exactly what the testimony is; is about parity with respect 

to the way Congress is treating tribes with respect to labor relations. It allows state governments, local governments, and the Federal Government to enact their own labor relations laws for their 

employees, but does not allow tribal governments to do that. 

Mr. POCAN. But if understand it right, local governments aren’t 

under some of the same things that you are under and some of 

these other laws. So I mean if you really want the parity shouldn’t 

we address each of these areas? Or are we just going after labor 

unions as an issue? I mean, that is I am just trying to understand— 

Mr. GUEST. I think it is— 

Mr. POCAN.—the consistency, I think, it would be all these areas. 

Mr. GUEST. I think it is a policy decision that is considered by 

tribal leaders with respect to where the challenges are. As a result 

of treaty-making, Indian tribes ceded much of the land in this 

country over to the United States and also ceded much of their authority— 

Mr. POCAN. Sure. 

Mr. GUEST.—outside of their own lands. And as a result, they 

have this unique relationship with the United States. It is the 

same principle that applies under federalism with the state governments and United States government. 

Mr. POCAN. Sure. 

Mr. GUEST. You know that certain powers were ceded to the central government, and those— 

Mr. POCAN. Yes, but perhaps I am misunderstanding it. But 

wouldn’t all of these issues that I mention that you said apply to 

you that aren’t applying to local units of government? Wouldn’t 

that also be then something that needs to be fixed. I mean, it 

seems like we are picking one little area, but it sounds like we 

found about five or six areas at least that there is some inconsistency on. 

Mr. GUEST. Well, again, I don’t think anyone would argue that 

there is a need for safety and health regulations in the workplace 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

across the board or that there is a need for a minimum standard 

with respect to the Fair Labor Standards Act. That there are minimums, and the tribes and tribal leaders are looking at those and 

determining for themselves, no, that federal law works for us. We 

are going to enact it as tribal law. 

Mr. POCAN. But then doesn’t that make you pick and choose 

which laws? Because I understand you could have, under your sovereignty, labor laws. You have got unions in your facilities, you do 

not have unions in your facilities. Great example, but all these 

other things you are now saying there are minimum standards, 

that is why you comply with them. But there is still a direct inconsistency with some of these other laws. 

I mean, so I guess, you know, if we make it you are sovereign 

or not we should fix things across the board and not just pick on 

the labor relations. Because I understand, Lieutenant Governor 

Keel, your argument was that if the blackjack dealers struck it 

would be a—what was the exact term?—it would cripple government operations. 

I might argue with that a bit. I think, you know, that may not 

cripple your government operations. But you are picking and choosing this is the one law you want to fix on, but not all the other 

laws. 

You just said there are certain minimum standards you have to 

have for safety, therefore you are complying with OSHA. But really, you probably shouldn’t be under OSHA, by the argument you 

are making today. So I am just wondering how we come across the 

board to fix it, or why we are picking and choosing which ones we 

want to attack and which ones we don’t want to attack. Because 

I think it is kind of a holistic approach. You are sovereign or you 

are not, then we should really have everything included or else we 

are really not doing our jobs. 

Mr. GUEST. Well, again, there is the limited nature of sovereignty with respect to the states themselves. They have chosen 

to limit their sovereignty, as the tribes have chosen to limit their 

sovereignty in their relationship with the United States. 

Again, I just would stress the fact that the NLRA is fundamentally different with respect to what it provides and authorizes: 

third parties coming on to Indian lands, organizing employees, the 

ability to interact in such ways that could interfere with political 

elections. And that is the concern that tribal leaders have brought 

to Congress, that concern. Not concerns about safety standards, not 

concerns about wages and overtime. It is about unions coming on 

to reservations. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Allen, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

panelists for appearing here today. I think we all agree today that 

tribal sovereignty is a long-standing treaty between tribal nations 

and the United States. And, you know, I will remind our colleagues 

today that we are talking about the NLRB infringing on the rights 

of Native Americans and our concern for that. And that is the subject of the day. We can take up the rest of these issues, and we 

will be glad to offer bills to take up those issues when they apply. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

Today, we are talking about labor. We need to ensure that Native Americans are protected from NLRB interference. And with 

that, Lieutenant Governor Keel, it is my understanding that Indian 

nations use the profits from the casinos to support tribal community and self-government. How are the profits from your casino 

used by the Chickasaw Nation? 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, sir. The revenues that are derived from 

our casinos are used to meet the shortfalls where the Federal Government does not provide services or enough funding for many of 

our services. These include elder care. Many of our senior nutrition 

sites are completely, totally tribally funded. We have youth camps, 

and we have scholarships, education. We have a number of other 

services that are provided for our veterans, and our health care, 

housing, emergency services, and other types of services that are 

provided to our citizens that are outside the purview of federal 

funding. 

We operate programs, for instance, for daycare for our employees, Head Start, and other types of assistance to our employees so 

that they can come to work and earn a living so that they can provide for their families. 

Mr. ALLEN. How do your employee wages and benefits compare 

to, say, local averages? And have the unions attempted to unionize 

the Chickasaw Nation casino? 

Mr. KEEL. Our wages and benefits either meet or exceed—in 

most cases exceed—the local averages anywhere in our area. We do 

comparisons to even the metropolitan areas of Dallas-Fort Worth, 

which is usually a higher standard than where we are located. 

Mr. ALLEN. Better than Georgia. It is better than the state of 

Georgia. 

Mr. KEEL. Yes. So our benefit packages are designed to at least 

meet or exceed in most cases, any of those, comparatively. 

Mr. ALLEN. Have the unions attempted to unionize your casino? 

Mr. KEEL. At WinStar World Casino, yes, there was a situation 

where an individual disagreed with our Indian preference, and that 

led to some other issues. 

Mr. ALLEN. And that is why it failed, do you think? 

Mr. KEEL. Yes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. You know, I believe that some federal laws do 

apply to tribal lands. In what federal laws apply, is there an application explicit in the law, and how has the Supreme Court determined whether federal laws apply in the event of ambiguity? Is 

there any mention of Indian tribes in either the NLRA or its legislative history? Anyone care to take that question? 

Mr. GUEST. No. The NLRA, in its legislative history, is absolutely 

silent with respect to Indian tribes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

Mr. GUEST. The Supreme Court has not yet addressed the issue 

other than through its Tuscarora ruling back in the 1960’s that established that under the Federal Power Act, which had a provision 

specific to Indian lands, Indian tribes, and Indian individuals. It 

nonetheless still went back and answered an argument, saying that 

federal laws of general application would apply to Indians. 

And from that decision, the lower courts have built up a framework that the NLRB now follows the Tuscarora-Cour d’Alene 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

Framework. Not all the circuits are in agreement with that framework. The D.C. Circuit in San Manuel went another way. The 6th 

Circuit appears to have adopted that framework. 

And other circuits, the 10th Circuit is still noncommittal on that 

question. So the courts are all over the place with respect to what 

is the test. To sort of clarify, the rule that was established by the 

U.S. Supreme Court early in its Indian law jurisprudence basically 

said that unless Congress spoke specifically and applied a law to 

an Indian tribe it would not apply. That is what has now been reversed. There was an understanding that if that law was going to 

impact tribal sovereignty, Congress had to be explicit that it intended that law to do just that. And Congress has. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you. 

I yield back— 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. 

Chairman, you said at the beginning of the hearing that was a 

clear issue, and with all due respect I don’t see it that way. I don’t 

see it clear at all. 

It is clear that we all respect tribal sovereignty. I don’t think 

there is a question about that. But I submit that there is also no 

question that tribal members and non-tribal members who work at 

tribal casinos deserve the protections and rights that are provided 

by the National Labor Relations Act. 

So we have, it is my understanding right now, 566 legally recognized tribes. And I know Chair Butler talked about the employees 

at Foxwood and how they were able to organize because your tribe 

has a labor relations law. 

And, Mr. Guest, you mentioned in your testimony something 

about the Navaho Nation labor code, California has a tribal labor 

relations ordinance. Lieutenant Governor Keel didn’t say whether 

the Chickasaw Nation has a tribal labor relations law that would 

allow workers to form a union. I do know there were troubles a few 

years ago when the employees tried to form a union. And to further 

complicate the issue, there are many employees who are not tribal 

members who work in casinos, and this issue tends to come up at 

tribal casinos. 

So, Mr. Guest, in your testimony you encourage the Committee 

to support this legislation because, you said, tribes should not be 

subject to a one-size-fits-all approach. But the NLRB’s current test 

for invoking jurisdiction over tribal enterprises involves a case-bycase analysis that accounts for the different legal, political, and 

economic circumstances of each enterprise. 

And it looks like really there are differences among the 566 

tribes. And so different tribal members have different protections. 

So the legislation simply eliminates the jurisdiction without considering any of the tribal diversity you cite. 

So isn’t it fair to say that it is the bill that is the one-size-fitsall approach, and that the current jurisdictional consideration 

would analyze whether those protections are there for tribal members. 

Mr. GUEST. Thank you, Congresswoman. I can see how you, and 

how others, might misinterpret what my intended meaning was 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

there. With respect to what it intends to address is no amendment 

to H.R. 511, which tries to impose additional restrictions on tribes 

because tribes are diverse. It wasn’t intended to address the fact 

that H.R. 511, what it would do is, allow each individual tribe to 

decide for itself what its labor policy is going to be on the reservation, on Indian land. I apologize for that confusion there. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I am going to go to Mr. Navarro. Thank you 

very much for your testimony. You mentioned that one of the 

things that motivated you to be part of an organizing effort at your 

casino is because you saw your colleagues face penalties for raising 

sexual harassment grievances. So tribal employees are exempt 

from the protections of Title VII. So as a result, employees who are 

subjected to forms of employment discrimination at tribally-owned 

workplaces don’t have any recourse. 

I read a story about a woman who worked at a swamp safari in 

Florida. And she filed a suit against her employer after he allegedly sexually harassed her, and the court dismissed her case because of sovereign immunity. 

So, Mr. Navarro, how does your membership in a union help you 

and your coworkers address things like harassment and employment discrimination issues? What difference does that make? 

Mr. NAVARRO. It gives us protection from everything, like for example from this harassment case as it happened. We had members 

from Stations Casino who represents Graton Rancheria Tribe. And 

I would like to thank them also for letting me be here today because they have been very supportive of our union. They have been 

absolutely wonderful. 

They let us go ahead and negotiate at the casino with them 

there. 

But this actually helps us because these women literally—I witnessed this—I watched the manager who was running this department would go up to them and tell them if you want a raise, let 

us go and have sex at my house. Or he would text them and tell 

them, hey, let us go to my house, we are going to have a party, 

the game is on, let us get in the pool afterwards. 

And when we took it up with our management, which is Stations, we were told that it was a sovereign nation and that they 

would deal with it how they would do it. And we sat back and 

watched these girls the next day get escorted out by security because they were fired for all the allegations they made. 

And it wasn’t until Chairman Sarris stepped up and said hey, 

you guys need to step back, you know, and be diligent when you 

fire people. And he said you guys need to let them go ahead and 

organize their casino. It helped us because we finally had a voice. 

And those women that were fired, I felt like there was some kind 

of repercussion because we were given the choice to stand and have 

voice. 

Unfortunately, they are no longer there. A couple months after 

Chairman Sarris came in the supervisor was removed from Stations Casino and moved to another casino in Minnesota. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much for being here, and your 

testimony. And my time has expired. 

I yield back, thank you. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

Mr. Pocan? 

Mr. POCAN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have five letters I would like to ask unanimous consent to have entered into the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 94926.033
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 94926.034
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 94926.035
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 94926.036
66 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 94926.037
67 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 94926.038
68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 94926.039
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 94926.040
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 94926.041
71 

Chairman ROE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Grothman, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay, couple questions. First question, just in 

general, we have covered this before. I think the appropriate parallel is not any other business, but local units of government. Because if I had to say, you know, traditionally I think we pass laws 

around here. We exempt state governments or exempt local units 

of government. How does it make you feel that compared to other 

locals of government you seem to be treated less important or less 

capable of self-governance? 

Mr. BUTLER. Congressman, we have been dealing with that for 

centuries, right? And it is unfortunate. And going back to Congressman Pocan’s point, I mean, an excellent point about why 

aren’t we addressing all these at one time. There are a lot of issues 

that, as in Indian country, we want to address at one time, right? 

And whether it is tax parity, whether it is, again, the bankruptcy 

code that I mentioned earlier, whether it is fair access to health 

care. And there are so many things that we would absolutely want 

to address at one time and would have liked to have addressed 150 

years ago. 

But, that is just not the way the legislative process works. And 

so, clearly, we have felt like we have been dealt an unfair hand. 

And as these issues and the opportunities to address them come 

up, we want to address them. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Under San Manuel, the Board will not assert jurisdiction if the application of law would abrogate treaty 

rights. Under this standard, who determines whether the application of law would abrogate treaty rights? Does the board have any 

special knowledge of Indian or treaty law? And what level of deference should the courts give this determination by the board? 

Mr. GUEST. Well, Mr. Grothman, the NLRB itself admits, in the 

Chickasaw decision, that it has no expertise in this area. The 6th 

Circuit, in its decision in the Little River Band case, says NLRB 

you have no expertise in this area so no Chevron deference for you. 

I mean, there is no question by the NLRB or anyone else that 

they have no expertise in Indian affairs, and yet they are calling 

upon themselves to interpret treaties, to determine what interferes 

with affairs on the reservation with the tribe that they simply have 

no expertise in whatsoever. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thanks. Did the NLRB engage with the public 

prior to deciding this? Did they request briefs, for example? 

Mr. GUEST. Yes. They followed their administrative process 

through the proceedings, yes, sir. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. 

I will yield the rest of my time. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Rokita, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the Chairman, not only for the time as I am 

not a member of the Subcommittee, but for your leadership in 

bringing this bill forward; it says you can tell it is greatly appreciated. I also thank Chairman Kline for his leadership in getting 

this bill to the stage it is in today. I thank all the witnesses for 

your testimony. I think it has been very enlightening and very 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

helpful to many of us who are honestly trying to learn more about 

this situation and get to an equitable and proper resolution. 

I am a little concerned, if not dismayed, about some of my colleagues who want to get themselves wrapped around the axle about 

why the NLRB and not OSHA and not some of these other things. 

And I would simply like to remind them of the title of today’s hearing: legislative hearing on H.R. 511, Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act 

of 2015. Now, this bill is certainly not my idea. I am carrying, and I love 

the idea. It has been around for quite a while now. But it focuses 

on the NLRB. Who knows? Maybe tomorrow, Lieutenant Governor, 

I will file a bill on OSHA for something else. 

Mr. KEEL. Could be. 

Mr. ROKITA. But I want to have Mr. Guest reiterate what I believe to be two points here about the differences. First of all, this 

is a bill about parity. If the tribal communities have a government, 

why shouldn’t it be treated just like the other governments in these 

United States, whether it be federal, state, or local level? 

And the second issue has to do with this third party you talk 

about, because I think that is also very important. OSHA doesn’t 

invite third parties into a situation and take away the rights of an 

otherwise sovereign nation. The NLRB does, and, in fact, is trying 

to do that. Mr. Guest, can you reiterate for the record these two 

points, just so we are crystal clear: parity and third parties. 

Mr. GUEST. Yes, thank you, Mr. Rokita. And I think that it clearly demonstrates in terms of IGRA itself, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, where Congress spoke. And Congress spoke about tribal 

gaming as a governmental activity that Congress itself says that 

gaming revenues are to be used for these limited purposes, particularly for supporting tribal programs and services, and not for anything else. 

When we were at the 6th Circuit in the Little River Band case, 

one of the judges said, well, aren’t those Indian casinos just like 

every other casino? Don’t those Indians just stick that money in 

their pocket? I mean, this is the challenge we have in the courts 

today with respect to a lack of real clarity on why it is that these 

are tribal governmental employees working at a casino. 

And so when we come in and we say you need to treat them the 

same, you need to treat tribes the same as all other governments, 

as the state and local governments, as the Federal Government. It 

is difficult for others to see it because they say, well, that is just 

like any other commercial enterprise, isn’t it? It is not. It is a governmental enterprise that generates revenues because tribes don’t 

have solid tax bases the way state and local governments may. And 

so there is no other source for revenues and why the concern with 

the NLRA applying on the reservation and allowing strikes to 

occur, which can cripple tribal government. That is where the concern— 

Mr. ROKITA. And, in fact, not in parity with other governments. 

Mr. GUEST. Right. 

Mr. ROKITA. Correct. 

Mr. GUEST. Exactly. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Guest. Now, I also was concerned 

about some of the questions being asked—and I think it was driven 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

by some of Mr. Navarro’s testimony—regarding crimes or other occurrences on reservations. And I want to give Chairman Butler and 

Lieutenant Governor Keel a chance to clear these things up. So I 

am going to ask questions, I want both of you to answer, okay? 

Do you have, as government leaders, an interest in keeping your 

government workers safe? 

Mr. BUTLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. KEEL. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROKITA. All right. Do you, in fact, have laws regarding this? 

Mr. BUTLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. KEEL. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes, you both answered yes. Do you know of any 

tribal community that doesn’t address this issue? 

Mr. BUTLER. No. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay, second question. Do you tolerate sexual assault or any other kind of misconduct in any of your enterprises? 

Mr. KEEL. Not at all. 

Mr. BUTLER. No. 

Mr. ROKITA. You have, both have answered no to that question. 

Do you have laws regarding this kind of conduct, criminal or otherwise? 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. Regarding sexual assault or any other— 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. KEEL. We have special— 

Mr. ROKITA. On a worker, right. Do you know of any tribal community that doesn’t? 

Mr. KEEL. No. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. Final question. Do you mistreat enrolled 

members who happen to have disabilities? 

Mr. BUTLER. Not at all. We actually have special programs for 

them. 

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Butler says no and has special programs for 

them. Lieutenant Governor? 

Mr. KEEL. We have special programs for all of our people. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. I think Mr. Butler answered that. And one 

final question. Do you know of any tribe that mistreats their members who have disabilities? 

Mr. BUTLER. No. 

Mr. KEEL. No. 

Mr. ROKITA. You take care of your own. 

Mr. KEEL. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROE. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would like 

to take this time again to thank each and every one of you for taking your time in preparation and in testifying before the Subcommittee today. I think all of you made excellent witnesses, and 

I appreciate you being here. I know you spent a lot of time and effort to get here, so thank you for doing that. 

I will now recognize my colleague, Mr. Polis, for his closing remarks. 

Mr. POLIS. Well, I want to thank everyone for your impassioned 

and honest testimony and answers. I truly hope that everyone on 

our committee will analyze this issue objectively and try to take 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

the effort to understand what has been said here. And as we consider this issue, it is very important to keep in mind the nexus between balancing our domestic sovereign nations’ rights with the 

protections that are due to all American workers regardless of 

whether they are white, black, Hispanic, or Native American. Without the right to self-governance, including additional rights that 

have often been afforded through treaty, we wouldn’t have the 

strong Native American communities and nations that are present 

across our country today. 

But so, too, without the right to collectively bargain we would not 

have the strong and growing economy that offers a pathway to the 

middle class for so many American families. I look forward to continuing this discussion with individuals and experts on both sides 

of the issue, as we seek to reconcile these two principles that many 

of us on this committee hold dear. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I, again, 

thank the excellent committee we have had here and the witnesses 

we have had. And I am going to just finish by saying this: to me, 

is fairly clear and fairly simple. You either are a sovereign nation 

or you are not. That is pretty simple. And I don’t know whether 

we can go to the British embassy, which is sovereign property here, 

and require them to do these things. I don’t think you can. 

So the National Labor Relations Act very specifically says the 

NLRA does not cover all employees and employers in the United 

States. For example, public sector employees—state, local, and federal –- and employees covered by the Railway Labor Act, airlines 

and railroads, agricultural laborers, and supervisors are not covered by the Act. 

Basically, what you are doing is to clarify this. That a sovereign 

Native American nation also is not covered by this Act. And we are 

not talking about the other things that were brought up, all very 

valid things. But, you should be able to make your own decisions 

on your own land. 

We have a 10th Amendment in the United States Constitution, 

which we have been fighting about who has the power in this government. Whether the state does—and I am a former mayor—I am 

always going to lean on the best government you have is local government. The further it gets from you, the worse, the least responsive, it is for you. 

So, I think this is very simple, and I would urge support; and full 

disclosure, I am a co-sponsor of this bill. And, once again, I appreciate each one of you coming. And with no further business, the 

Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Guest follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 94926.042
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 94926.043
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 94926.044
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 94926.045
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 94926.046
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 94926.047
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 94926.048
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 94926.049
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 94926.050
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 94926.051
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 94926.052
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 94926.053
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 94926.054
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 94926.055
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 94926.056
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 94926.057
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 94926.058
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 94926.059
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 94926.060
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 94926.061
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 94926.062
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 94926.063
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 94926.064
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 94926.065
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 94926.066
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 94926.067
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 94926.068
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 94926.069
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 94926.070
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 94926.071
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 94926.072
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 94926.073
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 94926.074
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 94926.075
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 94926.076
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 94926.077
111 

[Additional submission by Mr. Navarro follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 94926.078
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 94926.079
114 

[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER