Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1737, Reforming Cfpb Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 511, Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015; And for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of two important measures. First, the resolution provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1737, the Reforming Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, makes in order three amendments submitted to the Rules Committee which were germane to the legislation, and provides for a motion to recommit.

In addition, the resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, and provides for a motion to recommit.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule facilitates a conference with the Senate on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by replacing the text of S. 1177 with the text of H.R. 5, as passed by the House, and provides for a motion by the chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce to request a conference with the Senate.

Finally, the rule directs the Clerk to strike a provision from the reconciliation bill which was already enacted into law in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, facilitating consideration of the bill by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1737 passed out of the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 47-10. It nullifies a guidance put forward by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which the CFPB was specifically exempted from making in the first place. In addition to the CFPB's disregard for its statutory limitation, the CFPB's methodology is severely flawed. According to a study by Charles River Associates, the CFPB's methodology overestimates minorities by up to 41 percent, leading many to question the reliability of these results.

In addition, and more importantly to me, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2015. When Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, it specifically recognized all governments were excluded. Subsequent regulations and case law further recognized this exemption applies to territories, possessions, the District of Columbia, and State-operated port authorities. From the 1970s until 2004, the NLRB recognized that tribal governments are exempt from the NLRA as sovereign governments. Unfortunately, in 2004, the NLRB decided to reverse 69 years of prior precedent and strip tribes of their ability of self-government.

In our first terms in Congress, Chairman Kline and I both worked to try and restore the sovereignty this board had stripped away. While unsuccessful at that time, I am happy we are now able to rectify this injustice.

H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act would unequivocally state that tribal governments are not subject to the National Labor Relations Act. I respect my friends who hold different opinions, but in this case, they are simply wrong. In the NLRB's 2004 decision, they made an arbitrary distinction between commercial activity and government activity. If you are a tribe and it is commercial activity, they said the NLRB could regulate it. But that same standard isn't applied to any other government exempted from the NLRA, regardless of whether it engages in commercial activities or not. Their nature, as a government, precludes their regulation under the NLRA.

Practically every county and city in this country has a golf course. Most States have a lottery. The National Park Service operates hotels. Virginia and other States sell alcohol. Many cities operate convention centers. All of these activities are not regulated under the NLRA. It should be the same with tribes.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule sets up a process for us to go to conference on an ESEA reauthorization. The last time we considered an ESEA reauthorization was 13 years ago. It is far past time to reauthorize this critical program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I would differ from my good friend on whether or not we have an open process here. Frankly, I think we can all point to times in the past where each of us believe the other has been less than open. I recall, during the Democratic majority, we literally would bring appropriations bills to the floor with absolutely closed rules, something that violates the tradition of this House.

In terms of this legislation, I hope I am forgiven, but again, I find very little relevance of discussions of Benghazi and Planned Parenthood to this particular debate. I don't think it has anything to do.

The legislation in front of us really deals with two bills: H.R. 1737, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau bill, actually seeks to simply restrain an agency from exercising authority that it is prohibited from exercising under the legislation, and all the amendments that were germane to that piece of legislation were indeed made in order.

H.R. 511, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act, frankly, is just simply: Does the NLRB have this jurisdiction or not? It doesn't take a lot of amendments. It is just a straight question. Our assertion is, obviously, that it does not. It has claimed authority it should not have, and we are simply restoring that to tribal governments.

So I actually think the rule in question facilitates the debate, allows those who have different ideas to present them if they are relevant, and I think we will end up with a good result.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the debate so far because my good friends on the other side said absolutely nothing about H.R. 1737 and H.R. 511, so I assume that they support these bipartisan pieces of legislation.

Just to reiterate, with all due respect to my friends, we are not here to talk about campaign finance reform, always a worthy subject of discussion. I remember a number of years bringing up campaign finance reform, trying to get rid of taxpayer subsidies for political conventions. We finally got that done and redirected that money to research for pediatric diseases but could never get it made in order when my friends were on the other side of the aisle, so I understand the frustrations. But again, we have got two important bills to consider, and I think that is where we ought to focus our attention.

In H.R. 1737, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has literally gone beyond the mandate laid out in Dodd-Frank. So I must say I am mystified that I am up here defending a provision of Dodd-Frank, but in this case, it is actually the right thing to do. They have tried to extend their authority into auto lending, which is specifically prohibited under the statute, so we are trying to make that crystal clear.

H.R. 511 does something that, frankly, this House can be very proud of. It recognizes and extends and restores tribal sovereignty in a very important area. That has actually been an area of bipartisan cooperation.

We worked together in the Violence Against Women Act across party lines to extend tribal sovereignty with respect to domestic crime and domestic violence committed by non-Indians on Indian land against Indian citizens. Now we are trying in the labor area to once again restore tribal sovereignty to what it was before 2004 when the National Labor Relations Board, frankly, acted outside of its authority and seized jurisdiction it simply doesn't have under any statute ever passed by Congress.

I would invite my friends to focus on those two areas, hope they do, and certainly look forward to working with them in a bipartisan manner to pass both of those bills.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat mystified by the debate that my friends on the other side have offered. It has got a lot to do with campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the legislation before us that deals with that.

I beg to differ in terms of whether or not the rules here are closed or inappropriate. Frankly, every amendment offered to H.R. 1737 that was germane was actually made in order; and, frankly, amendments on H.R. 511 simply aren't necessary. It is a yes or no type of question. Either the NLRB has jurisdiction that we think it has claimed inappropriately over Indian tribes and labor matters or it does not, and we think that clarifies things considerably.

So again, we also are a little bit surprised to see what we do think is a housekeeping matter in terms of striking something out of the reconciliation bill objected to. I just remind my friends they voted overwhelmingly for the budget deal itself that included that measure. There is nothing untoward going on here. We are just trying to move forward legislation that we think is important and remove things that have already been enacted into law. So it is, indeed, as suggested, a housekeeping matter.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. H.R. 1737 undoes a regulation that should never have been made in the first place, and H.R. 511 restores a right, the right of self-governance, that should have never been taken away from tribal governments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source