I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2992
To amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to protect Indian tribes from
coerced labor agreements.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 1, 1999
Mr. HAYWORTH (for himself and Mr. CAMP) 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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tribal Sovereignty
Protection Act’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In response to a California Supreme Court
decision that overturned Proposition 5, the passage
of which in 1998 confirmed gaming rights for Cali-
fornia tribes, the United States attorney declared
that all tribal gaming in California must cease un-
less Tribal-State compacts were signed by October
13, 1999.
(2) It is estimated that Indian gaming in Cali-
fornia directly supports more than 16,000 jobs and
indirectly supports another 34,000 jobs in Cali-
fornia, while it has reduced welfare payments by
$50,000,000.
(3) Faced with the prospect that their most val-
uable economic assets would be shut down, 61 Cali-
fornia tribes were essentially forced to sign gaming
compacts with California Governor Gray Davis.
(4) The Governor of California acted in bad
faith by conditioning those compacts on the tribes’
signing separate labor agreements that could result
in the forced intrusion by labor unions on sovereign
tribal lands and the unprecedented unionization of
Indian casino employees.
(5) The United States Constitution recognizes
Indian tribes as sovereign governmental entities.
(6) Indian tribes have an inherent right to gov-
ern themselves consistent with the United States
Constitution, treaties, laws, and court decisions.
(7) The National Labor Relations Board has
held that tribally-owned and operated businesses lo-
cated on Indian lands are exempt from the National
Labor Relations Act under the Act’s exemption for
government entities.
(8) The labor agreements forced on the tribes
in California establish jurisdiction outside of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and would instead be
enforceable in State court.
(9) By signing these labor agreements, Cali-
fornia tribes were forced to cede their sovereignty
and their constitutional rights to the State of Cali-
fornia in order to save their enterprises from being
shut down by the United States Department of Jus-
tice.
(10) The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was
established to ‘‘[promote] tribal economic develop-
ment’’ and ‘‘for the regulation of gaming by an In-
dian tribe adequate to shield it from organized crime
. . . and to ensure that the Indian tribe is the pri-
mary beneficiary of the gaming operation’’.
(11) Labor agreements have never been part of
Tribal-State compacts outside California and could
undermine the stated purposes of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act.
(12) The situation in California is part of a
broader attack on tribal sovereignty led by labor-
backed interests.
(13) The recently-released report of the Na-
tional Gambling Impact Study Commission, at the
insistence of commission member John Wilhelm,
president of the Hotel Employee and Restaurant
Employee International Union, recommends that In-
dian tribes voluntarily enter into agreements with
organized labor that could lead to the unionization
of Indian casino employees, and states that if the
tribes do not reach such agreements within a ‘‘rea-
sonable period of time’’ that ‘‘Congress should enact
legislation establishing’’ labor organizing rights, es-
sentially forcing the tribes to unionize their casino
employees.
(14) The decision to allow access to tribal em-
ployees and the unionization of tribally owned and
operated casinos located on tribal lands should be
determined solely by the individual sovereign tribes,
not the State or Federal Government.
(15) Amending the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act to ensure that Indian tribes cannot be forced to
provide access to or otherwise unionize their casino
employees as a condition of obtaining a federally ap-
proved Tribal-State gaming compact under the In-
dian Gaming Regulatory Act would protect the con-
stitutional rights of all federally recognized tribes
and honor the Federal Government’s treaty obliga-
tions to Native Americans, and would ensure that no
tribe could be forced into any labor agreement
against its will.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON LABOR AGREEMENTS AS PART OF
TRIBAL-STATE COMPACTS.
Section 11(d)(3) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(3)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
‘‘(D) No Tribal-State compact negotiated
under subparagraph (A) shall include, or be
conditioned by another agreement which in-
cludes, any provision relating to labor terms or
conditions (including terms or conditions re-
lated to free association, organizing, or collec-
tive bargaining) for employees of tribally owned
businesses located on Indian lands. Any such
provision entered into before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this subparagraph
shall be null and void. If such a provision is in-
cluded in, or otherwise is purported to condition
the effectiveness of, a Tribal-State compact,
such provision shall be deemed as severed from
and not conditioning the effectiveness of the
Tribal-State compact which shall remain in
force as if such provision had never been exe-
cuted.’’.
Æ