I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 103

To amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to protect Indian tribes from

coerced labor agreements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. HAYWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to protect

Indian tribes from coerced labor agreements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tribal Sovereignty

5 Protection Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress makes the following findings:

8 (1) In response to a California Supreme Court

9 decision that overturned Proposition 5, the passage

10 of which in 1998 confirmed gaming rights for Cali-
2

•HR 103 IH

1 fornia tribes, the United States attorney declared

2 that all tribal gaming in California must cease un3 less Tribal-State compacts were signed by October

4 13, 1999.

5 (2) It is estimated that Indian gaming in Cali6 fornia directly supports more than 16,000 jobs and

7 indirectly supports another 34,000 jobs in Cali8 fornia, while it has reduced welfare payments by

9 $50,000,000.

10 (3) Faced with the prospect that their most val11 uable economic assets would be shut down, 61 Cali12 fornia tribes were essentially forced to sign gaming

13 compacts with California Governor Gray Davis.

14 (4) The Governor of California acted in bad

15 faith by conditioning those compacts on the tribes’

16 signing separate labor agreements that could result

17 in the forced intrusion by labor unions on sovereign

18 tribal lands and the unprecedented unionization of

19 Indian casino employees.

20 (5) The United States Constitution recognizes

21 Indian tribes as sovereign governmental entities.

22 (6) Indian tribes have an inherent right to gov23 ern themselves consistent with the United States

24 Constitution, treaties, laws, and court decisions.
3

•HR 103 IH

1 (7) The National Labor Relations Board has

2 held that tribally-owned and operated businesses lo3 cated on Indian lands are exempt from the National

4 Labor Relations Act under the Act’s exemption for

5 government entities.

6 (8) The labor agreements forced on the tribes

7 in California establish jurisdiction outside of the Na8 tional Labor Relations Board and would instead be

9 enforceable in State court.

10 (9) By signing these labor agreements, Cali11 fornia tribes were forced to cede their sovereignty

12 and their constitutional rights to the State of Cali13 fornia in order to save their enterprises from being

14 shut down by the United States Department of Jus15 tice.

16 (10) The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was

17 established to ‘‘[promote] tribal economic develop18 ment’’ and ‘‘for the regulation of gaming by an In19 dian tribe adequate to shield it from organized crime

20 . . . and to ensure that the Indian tribe is the pri21 mary beneficiary of the gaming operation’’.

22 (11) Labor agreements have never been part of

23 Tribal-State compacts outside California and could

24 undermine the stated purposes of the Indian Gaming

25 Regulatory Act.
4

•HR 103 IH

1 (12) The situation in California is part of a

2 broader attack on tribal sovereignty led by labor3 backed interests.

4 (13) The recently-released report of the Na5 tional Gambling Impact Study Commission, at the

6 insistence of commission member John Wilhelm,

7 president of the Hotel Employee and Restaurant

8 Employee International Union, recommends that In9 dian tribes voluntarily enter into agreements with

10 organized labor that could lead to the unionization

11 of Indian casino employees, and states that if the

12 tribes do not reach such agreements within a ‘‘rea13 sonable period of time’’ that ‘‘Congress should enact

14 legislation establishing’’ labor organizing rights, es15 sentially forcing the tribes to unionize their casino

16 employees.

17 (14) The decision to allow access to tribal em18 ployees and the unionization of tribally owned and

19 operated casinos located on tribal lands should be

20 determined solely by the individual sovereign tribes,

21 not the State or Federal Government.

22 (15) Amending the Indian Gaming Regulatory

23 Act to ensure that Indian tribes cannot be forced to

24 provide access to or otherwise unionize their casino

25 employees as a condition of obtaining a federally ap-
5

•HR 103 IH

1 proved Tribal-State gaming compact under the In2 dian Gaming Regulatory Act would protect the con3 stitutional rights of all federally recognized tribes

4 and honor the Federal Government’s treaty obliga5 tions to Native Americans, and would ensure that no

6 tribe could be forced into any labor agreement

7 against its will.

8 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON LABOR AGREEMENTS AS PART OF

9 TRIBAL-STATE COMPACTS.

10 Section 11(d)(3) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory

11 Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(3)) is amended by adding at the

12 end the following:

13 ‘‘(D) No Tribal-State compact negotiated

14 under subparagraph (A) shall include, or be

15 conditioned by another agreement which in16 cludes, any provision relating to labor terms or

17 conditions (including terms or conditions re18 lated to free association, organizing, or collec19 tive bargaining) for employees of tribally owned

20 businesses located on Indian lands. Any such

21 provision entered into before, on, or after the

22 date of the enactment of this subparagraph

23 shall be null and void. If such a provision is in24 cluded in, or otherwise is purported to condition

25 the effectiveness of, a Tribal-State compact,
6

•HR 103 IH

1 such provision shall be deemed as severed from

2 and not conditioning the effectiveness of the

3 Tribal-State compact which shall remain in

4 force as if such provision had never been exe5 cuted.’’.

Æ