[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4974-H4981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1998
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3853) to promote drug-free workplace programs, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3853
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Workplace Act of
1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) 74 percent of adults who use illegal drugs are
employed;
(2) small business concerns employ over 50 percent of the
Nation's workforce;
(3) in over 88 percent of families with children under the
age of 18, at least 1 parent is employed; and
(4) employees who use and abuse addictive substances
increase costs for businesses and risk the health and safety
of all employees because--
(A) absenteeism is 66 percent higher among drug users than
nondrug users;
(B) health benefit utilization is 300 percent higher among
drug users than nondrug users;
(C) 47 percent of workplace accidents are drug-related;
(D) disciplinary actions are 90 percent higher among drug
users than nondrug users; and
(E) employee turnover is significantly higher among drug
users than nondrug users.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) educate small business concerns about the advantages of
a drug-free workplace;
(2) provide financial incentives and technical assistance
to enable small business concerns to create a drug-free
workplace; and
(3) assist working parents in keeping their children drug-
free.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) businesses should adopt drug-free workplace programs;
and
(2) States should consider incentives to encourage
businesses to adopt drug-free workplace programs. Financial
incentives may include--
(A) a reduction in workers' compensation premiums;
(B) a reduction in unemployment insurance premiums;
(C) tax deductions in an amount equal to the amount of
expenditures for employee assistance programs, treatment, or
drug testing.
Other incentives may include adoption of liability limitation
as recommended by the President's Commission on Model State
Drug Laws.
SEC. 4. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636 et seq.) is amended
by--
(1) redesignating sections 31 and 32 as sections 32 and 33,
respectively; and
(2) inserting the following new section:
``SEC. 31. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established a drug-free
workplace demonstration program, under which the
Administration may make grants, cooperative agreements, or
contracts to eligible intermediaries for the purpose of
providing financial and technical assistance to small
business concerns seeking to start a drug-free workplace
program.
``(b) Eligibility for Participation.--An intermediary shall
be eligible to receive a grant, cooperative agreement, or
contract under subsection (a) if it meets the following
criteria:
``(1) It is an organization described in section 501(c)(3)
or 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is
exempt from tax under section 5(a) of such Act, a program of
such organization, or provides services to such organization.
``(2) Its purpose is to develop comprehensive drug-free
workplace programs or to supply drug-free workplace services,
or provide other forms of assistance and services to small
businesses.
``(3) It has at least 2 years of experience in drug-free
workplace programs or in providing assistance and services to
small business concerns.
``(4) It has a drug-free workplace policy in effect.
``(c) Requirements for Program.--Any drug-free workplace
program developed as a result of this section shall include--
``(1) a written policy, including a clear statement of
expectations for workplace behavior, prohibitions against
substances in the workplace, and the consequences of
violating such expectations and prohibitions;
``(2) training for at least 2 hours for employees;
``(3) additional training for employees who are parents;
``(4) employee drug testing by a drug testing laboratory
certified by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, or approved by the Department of Health and
Human Services under the Clinical Laboratories Improvements
Act of 1967 (42 U.S.C. 263a), or the College of American
Pathologists, and each positive result shall be reviewed by a
Licensed Medical Review Officer;
``(5) employee access to an employee assistance program,
including assessment, referral, and short-term problem
resolution; and
``(6) continuing alcohol and drug abuse prevention program.
``(d) Evaluation and Coordination.--The Small Business
Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of Labor,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Director
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, shall evaluate
drug-free workplace programs established as a result of this
section and shall submit a report of findings to the Congress
not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(e) Eligible Intermediary.--Any eligible intermediary
shall be located in a state, the District of Columbia, or the
territories.
``(f) Definition of Employee.--For purposes of this
section, the term `employee' includes--
``(1) supervisors;
``(2) managers;
``(3) officers active in management of the business; and
``(4) owners active in management of the business.
``(g) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require an employer who attends a program
offered by an intermediary to contract for any services
offered as part of a drug-free workplace program.
``(h) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the provisions of this section,
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and such sums may remain
available until expended.''.
SEC. 5. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.
Section 21(c)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (R) by striking ``and'';
(2) in subparagraph (S) by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (S) the following new
subparagraph:
``(T) providing information and assistance to small
business concerns with respect to developing drug-free
workplace programs.''.
SEC. 6. CONTRACT AUTHORITY.
The Small Business Administrator may contract with and
compensate government and private agencies or persons for
services related to carrying out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 7. COLLECTION OF DATA AND STUDY.
(a) Collection and Study.--The Small Business Administrator
shall collect data and conduct a study on--
(1) drug use in the workplace among employees of small
business concerns;
(2) costs to small business concerns associated with
illegal drug use by employees; and
(3) a need for assistance in the small business community
to develop drug prevention programs.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Small Business Administrator shall
submit a report containing findings and conclusions of the
study to the chairmen and ranking members of the Small
Business Committees of the House and Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez)
each will control 20 minutes.
[[Page H4975]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) as an original
cosponsor of this important legislation.
House Resolution 3853 focuses attention on the important problem of
substance abuse in the workplace. As chairman of the Subcommittee on
Empowerment, I heard testimony from small business owners from
different parts of the country who shared with me the great difference
that drug-free workplace policy has made in their businesses.
Larry Guzman, from the district of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Salmon), told my subcommittee that a drug-free workplace policy not
only reduced stolen inventory and increased productivity in his truss-
building company, but did so to such an extent that the business
reached three times the size he had originally planned.
An owner of a printing company in Cincinnati in the district of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), shared his company's experience.
Their drug-free workplace program and the employee assistance component
led employees to thank management for helping to support their recovery
from addiction.
Larry Bennett, who helped lead Ohio's efforts to introduce the kind
of financial incentives for drug-free workplace programs contemplated
by this bill, shared the story of another small business where the
owner worked with his union employees to develop a drug-free workplace
policy to meet the requirements of a subcontractor for his clients.
Working together, unions and management developed a comprehensive
policy that helped the company retain clients and eventually grow.
We know that 71 percent of substance abusers are employed. We also
know that many more are employed by small businesses than larger
businesses, for a very simple reason: Most large companies in this
country have put together drug testing and drug treatment programs,
where small businesses do not have the resources to do so. They are
afraid they are going to get sued, they are afraid they are going to
have different problems.
We heard at an earlier subcommittee hearing from law enforcement that
at a local crack house which police had shut down, they found a list of
small businesses in the area that did not have drug testing programs
because small businesses had become targets of those who abused drugs,
because they know that they can get away with it there because small
business owners are so inundated and intimidated, inundated with the
problems that they have, with the cash flow problems, and intimidated
from the potential legal consequences, that they have become victimized
by a lot of drug abusers.
{time} 1030
The dealers had been helping these users find jobs in small
businesses with which to support their habit.
We also know that the drug-free workplace programs are cost-effective
for businesses. That is what we found with the experience of the
Fortune 200. Ninety-eight percent of the Fortune 200 have drug-free
workplace programs. It has taught us that these are cost-effective.
They have increased productivity, they have lowered their insurance
costs because of accident reductions, they have decreased absenteeism.
H.R. 3853 will help us spread this cost-effective lifesaving program
to small businesses around the country by giving grants to nonprofit
organizations that deal with drug testing training for small
businesses.
Our goal is to get the dollars not directly in another government
program, but to nonprofit organizations with an experience in this
training, so that they can work with small businesses in what have been
legal, effective programs to eliminate the scourge of drug abuse, to
help the individuals involved, to help the productivity in our economy,
and to regain the strength of the small business community and their
ability not to fall prey to the problems that are plaguing our society
in drug abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 3853, the
Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998. Mr. Speaker, we all want the goal of a
drug-free workplace. The damage that both drugs and alcohol have done
on our society can be seen everywhere we look. It is involved in 50
percent of domestic violence cases across the country. We see it in the
drug-related crimes that ravage our neighborhoods. It impacts small
businesses by robbing them of an estimated $60 billion annually.
To combat this crisis, we need to provide greater assistance on all
fronts in this struggle, including to our small businesses. It is
unfortunate that only 3 percent of the small businesses have drug-free
workplace policies. This is not due to a lack of recognition by small
business, but given the choice of meeting payroll, creating a safe
workplace, and serving customers, the value of investing time and money
into implementing a drug-free workplace can easily get lost in the
shuffle.
The question, then, is not whether we should act, but how we should
act to create a drug-free workplace. Unfortunately, this legislation
falls short in many areas. We have heard from the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and General Barry McCaffrey of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. It should come as no surprise that they support
stopping drugs in the workplace.
What should be of concern is that there are some very real issues
that must be addressed if we are going to create a successful program.
With the adoption of this legislation, the Small Business
Administration will begin a new venture into social policy.
I am very concerned that, once again, the committee is creating a new
program. This is an area in which the SBA has no knowledge or
expertise. Yet, Congress will be committing $10 million to this
program. That is the equivalent to the entire SBA budget for our
Nation's Women's Business Development Centers. With an estimated SBA
budget shortfall of more than $100 million, it is hard to understand
where the money will come from.
The reality is that it will be taken from existing programs, like the
Small Business Development Centers that exist in almost every community
across the country. It will come from the microloan program that is
widely depended upon. These and other programs will be curtailed in
order to pay for the program that SBA did not ask for and has no
experience in administering. Keep that in mind when one of your
constituents cannot get a microloan, or the local SBDC has insufficient
funds to serve your district.
We are constantly hearing the need to give business flexibility, but
the one-size-fits-all approach this legislation takes will severely
limit the ability of small businesses to tailor a program that meets
their needs. The outcome will be harming many of the businesses we
claim we are here today to help.
If we are truly serious about creating a drug-free workplace, then we
must create an environment where employees believe that they will be
treated fairly. The bill reported out of committee contains no clear
guidance about what happens to an employee who tests positive or
voluntarily comes forward. These types of inconsistencies will not
foster a drug-free workplace, but create an environment filled with
tension and uncertainty.
Mr. Speaker, thanks in large part to Democrats on the committee,
several improvements to H.R. 3853 were made in the areas of counseling,
training, and participation by local chambers of commerce. These
changes make the bill much more workable.
While these changes vastly improve this legislation, until we address
the cost, flexibility, and employee protections, we may be throwing
money at a problem without accomplishing our goal of creating a drug-
free workplace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points. In the
Committee on Small Business, the Democrats made 9 amendments. Seven
were accepted and only two defeated. The bill was not opposed in
committee. We spent 4 hours in markup trying to work through all of the
different concerns that were addressed there.
[[Page H4976]]
I believe we have an excellent bill. It requires that small
businesses have a written plan that spells out consequences of any
policy, and training sessions to review the policy. Employees,
supervisers, managers, partners, and owners who actively manage the
small business will all be subject to any drug-free workplace. We felt
we needed to lead by example.
Nonprofit groups with expertise in drug-free workplace policies that
will administer the bill must have a long history, and the bill does
not in any way change laws that protect workers. I think we have gone
out of our way to meet all of the concerns that the minority was
raising, in addition to some of the majority members, and made a very,
very good bill even better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the distinguished author of this bill, the
leader in the House of many of the prevention and demand reduction
efforts.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, for allowing me to talk on the legislation, and for all the good
work he did in shepherding this bill through his subcommittee and
through the Committee on Small Business.
The markup that he just explained was a rather comprehensive and
sometimes long series of exchanges, but I think it was good in terms of
perfecting the legislation. I applaud the full committee for doing
that.
I want to particularly commend the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) for his support of drug-free
workplace programs, and in particular, his willingness to expedite this
legislation.
Notwithstanding some concerns that the gentlewoman has expressed this
morning, I want to also thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Nydia Velazquez) for her support of the legislation, and
again, for working with us to help to perfect it.
Let me try to put this bill in some kind of perspective. It is really
part of what we hope will be a measured response here in Congress to a
vexing national problem, which is how to substantially reduce the
growing problem in this country of substance abuse and move towards a
drug-free America.
Unfortunately, we are far from that today. In the 1960s about 3
percent of the American population had used illegal drugs. Today that
figure is close to about 40 percent. The trends are not helpful. When
we look at the last 5 years, for instance, we see a doubling of teenage
drug use in this country.
Congress has attacked the problem on a number of fronts. We have
expanded efforts to cut off the supply of drugs by increasing funding
for so-called source country efforts: destroying coca fields, using the
military more efficiently to interdict drugs. We have passed
legislation just last month, in fact, to tighten border controls in our
country.
Even more encouraging, from my perspective, we have begun a concerted
effort here in Congress to get at the heart of the problem by reducing
the demand for illegal drugs. That is why this Congress took the
unprecedented step last year of working in partnership with the private
sector to launch the most aggressive antidrug public service campaign
in history. Working with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, we have started a $380
million campaign to change the hearts and minds of America's young
people, and to engage parents again in this battle to turn the tide
before it is too late.
That is why we passed the Drug-Free Communities Act last year, to
jumpstart prevention and education efforts at the local level that are
actually working in our communities to mobilize parents, teachers,
coaches, ministers, rabbis, law enforcement officials, kids, and yes,
employers, in a concerted effort to make our streets safer, to allow
our schools to teach, and to reverse the troubling trends we talked
about in the last 5 years.
That is why we are putting existing Federal prevention programs under
the microscope, to see which ones are working and which ones are not,
and to try to maximize the impact of the Federal dollars we are
spending on prevention, education, and treatment.
That is why we are working on innovative strategies to try to improve
the frankly very disappointing treatment outcomes we see around the
country for addicts, and why we are moving legislation this session to
put effective treatment into our prisons and our jails.
Today's bill is a part of this overall strategy. It is a critical
part of it, because if we do not deal with the workplace, we are not
going to get America to kick the habit. The Drug-Free Workplace Act, as
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez) have already talked about, is bipartisan
legislation that addresses the workplace.
The data tells us that targeting the workplace makes a lot of sense.
Over 74 percent of drug users are employed. Substance abusers file 5
times, 5 times the number of workers' compensation claims in this
country. Those who use drugs will have 3 to 4 times the number of
workplace accidents as nonabusers, and drug users are 2\1/2\ times more
likely to have absences of 8 days or more.
These numbers highlight the fact that drug abuse threatens safety, it
raises costs, it lowers productivity, and most significantly, it has a
detrimental impact on the worker that can and must be addressed.
Fortunately, there does seem to be a growing consensus, I think, on
both sides of the aisle, cutting across all partisan and really
ideological lines, that the workplace is one of the key sectors where
we have to address the drug abuse problem.
The bill has garnered strong bipartisan support. The gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Sanford Bishop), who we will hear from in a moment, a
Democrat from Georgia, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mark
Souder), a Republican, join me as original cosponsors of this
legislation. General Barry McCaffrey, the Administration's drug czar,
director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, sent a letter
expressing the Administration's support of this legislation.
Both sides of the Committee on Small Business, as we have said
earlier, have worked hard together constructively to perfect a bill.
The amendments from the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green) the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Manzullo), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald),
and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) all offered
thoughtful, well-considered amendments, and I am glad they were
included in the legislation before us today.
Fortunately, the private sector already recognizes that drug-free
workplace policies are good for employees, the community, and
businesses. But while 98 percent, 98 percent, of Fortune 200 companies
have drug-free workplace policies, only 3 percent of companies with
fewer than 100 employees have such policies. So larger businesses are
fully engaged in this. It is the smaller businesses where we are not
seeing the kinds of results that we would like.
It is certainly not due to any failure on small business's part to
recognize the importance of the programs. Like the Fortune 200, small
businesses understand that drug-free workplaces will reduce absenteeism
and accidents, lower workers' comp costs, health care costs, help to
educate parents in the workplace to talk to their kids about the
dangers of drugs, and most important, I think, help workers, both those
who are not substance abusers who want and demand and deserve a safe
workplace, and those who are struggling with addiction and need help.
But the challenges that small businesses face are daunting. Without
the economies of scale achieved by larger companies, it is costly.
Without human resources staffs, developing written anti-drug policies
and providing employee assistance programs can be risky from a
liability perspective.
Small businesses are starting to recognize the need for drug-free
workplace programs, but they need assistance in implementing these
important programs. The high costs of workers' comp insurance for drug-
related accidents, the expense of replacing stolen inventory, stolen to
pay for a drug habit, the lost productivity of somebody dealing with
substance abuse in their family, all are issues small business owners
need to address.
[[Page H4977]]
Just as we provide technical assistance in developing business plans,
identifying loans and other small business services, we need to provide
assistance for drug-free workplace programs.
This legislation has three components. First, it urges States to help
make drug-free workplace programs more affordable for all companies
through innovative programs like workers' compensation premium
discounts. Second, it provides grants to nonprofits to help empower
small businesses to work together on developing drug-free workplace
policies, and to save money by forming consortia to contract for
employee assistance and drug testing programs.
Finally, it uses the existing network of over 900 Small Business
Development Centers all over the country to provide technical
assistance to small businesses as they develop drug-free workplace
policies.
Workers' compensation is a natural; in Ohio, we now have a 20 percent
discount in place. Seven other States are doing it. It is working well.
If we can get more States to do it, we will see a lot more businesses
having that financial incentive getting involved in drug-free
workplaces.
The nonprofit program in the bill I mentioned will help expand small
networks of programs, like the Regional Drug-free Workplace Initiative
in Portland, Oregon, the Houston Drug-free Workplace Business
Initiative, and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce plans, to help
these small businesses develop written workplace policies and achieve
economies of scale in testing and employee assistance programs.
These programs have met with great success wherever they have been
used, and small businesses participate with enthusiasm when they are
available.
{time} 1045
We can spread the success with a very small Federal investment in a
short-term grant program that authorizes the program just for one year
to jump start this effort.
Nationwide, communities that implement these programs find that
businesses and charitable organizations have been eager to support the
programs once they see the effect that they have.
Finally, the last part of the bill, the technical assistance provided
by the Small Business Development Centers, will greatly expand access
to policy development resources. Over 900 centers would provide support
to small businesses in developing drug-free workplace programs,
expanding on the excellent work those current SBDCs do in other areas.
We have to remember that small businesses employ over 50 percent of
the workers in this country and generate the majority of new jobs in
this country. If we are to achieve our goal of a Drug-Free America,
they cannot be left out.
With this targeted legislation, we can make a difference with a
modest, one-time investment. By reaching out to small businesses that
are increasingly interested in getting involved in drug-free workplace
programs, we can reach out to them and dramatically expand the reach of
these programs to cover 74 percent of the drug users in this country
who are employed, and, just as importantly, the working parents of 84
percent of our children.
By expanding these efforts to identify and combat drug use in the
workplace, we can reduce the human cost to our society and the direct
costs to our economy of drug use. But we will also create a safer work
environment for those who work in smaller companies, help the bottom
line, and educate parents on getting the message to kids that drug use
is wrong and harmful.
For all these reason, this legislation has the strong support of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, the
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, the Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America, the Small Business Administration, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, and the Association of Small Business
Development Centers.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
join us in supporting this important bipartisan bill to make workplaces
all across America drug-free, safe, and healthy environments. I commend
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez) who led this fight in the committee.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), one of the main sponsors of
the bill who has worked tirelessly on this issue.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) for allowing me to speak on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman),
the bill's cosponsor with me, the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman
Souder), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), ranking member,
and the members of the Subcommittee on Empowerment for their
expeditious consideration of this bill.
I would also like to commend the United States Chamber of Commerce
for being willing to step up and get involved.
Mr. Speaker, government cannot do everything and certainly we need
law enforcement, we need interdiction, and we need more people policing
our streets for drugs. But at the same time, we need to stop the market
for them. We need to relieve those people who are addicted.
This bill, I believe, goes a long way to doing that. And the fact
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stepped up to the plate and
gotten involved demonstrates how well we can work together to create a
partnership in addressing such a serious concern as the epidemic of
drug use and drug abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend my colleagues in this
House, on the committee and across the House, for the bipartisan effort
in support of this measure.
Drug abuse and drug use is not a Democrat nor a Republican issue. It
is a people issue. It is an issue that compromises the effectiveness of
the people and the workers of the United States of America. For that I
would like to commend my colleagues for coming together in a bipartisan
manner to address this problem.
As a cosponsor, I rise to support this very important legislation
which provides funding and the necessary infrastructure to help small
businesses, that are the lifeblood of our economy, implement drug-free
workplace policies. Ninty-eight percent of the Fortune 200 companies
have drug-free workplace programs in operation. They understand the
importance of this issue.
According to a 1997 Department of Health and Human Services Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration study, 11 percent of
workers in businesses with 25 or fewer employees admitted current
illegal drug use, over twice the rate reported by employees in larger
firms.
Small businesses understand the necessity for drug-free workplace
programs, but do not have the resources and the expertise to implement
these programs. This bill will provide them with that assistance.
Mr. Speaker, the abuse of drugs and alcohol in the workplace is a
significant hazard to working Americans and it is a serious drain on
the economy in terms of lost productivity, increased health costs, and
wasted potential. The 1996 Fortune 500 companies Conference Board
Survey estimated the cost to the economy from absenteeism, injuries,
diminished productivity, to be $200 billion.
The U.S. Chamber's Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace estimates that
annual productivity losses from substance abuse amount to $640 for
every American workers. This is too high a price to pay, both
monetarily and emotionally, as substance abuse not only affects the
abuser but everyone around him or her as well.
H.R. 3853 addresses the problem by providing incentives and
assistance that will help businesses help their employees as
approximately 70 percent of drug users are employed. The bill
accomplishes this in three ways.
First, it creates a demonstration grant program for nonprofit
intermediaries to provide assistance to small businesses in developing
a drug-free workplace by using a variety of strategies to include
employee assistance, training, and intervention.
Second, the bill encourages States to provide incentives to
businesses that adopt a drug-free workplace policy, such as reducing
worker's compensation insurance premiums for drug-free businesses.
[[Page H4978]]
And third, the bill uses the over 900 Small Business Development
Centers around the country to assist in providing technical assistance
to businesses in developing effective drug-free workplace policies.
Mr. Speaker, drug use in all sectors of our society is prevalent and
must be attacked on all fronts. H.R. 3853 attacks our drug problem in
the workplace. According to the Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, the
workplace therefore provides an ideal opportunity to steer the addicted
into treatment and to educate both employees and family members on the
dangers of drug use.
Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure and
vote ``yes'' for a drug-free workplace. Again, I thank my colleagues,
the committee, the ranking member, the chairman, for their courtesies,
their kindnesses, and their hard work in bringing this bill to the
floor in a very expeditious manner.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy), who should be commended for her work on
improving the training component of this bill.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2853, the Drug-Free
Workplace Act of 1998. I also commend my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle on bringing this bill to the floor. I think it is an
important bill and I think it is going to help our small businesses. It
has been a pleasure working on the Committee on Small Business on a lot
of the issues that we have been doing this year.
Mr. Speaker, drugs in the workplace is a serious and costly problem.
Drugs among employees result in increased sick days, accidents, and
decreased productivity. Large companies have always recognized this
problem and have set up drug-free workplace programs. Unfortunately,
although small businesses employ over half the workforce in the
country, most small businesses do not have drug-free workplace
programs.
We must give small businesses the tools they need to ensure their
workplaces are drug-free. The Drug-Free Workplace Act does just that.
It provides incentives for small businesses to set up drug-free
programs.
One important piece of a drug-free program is training. Training for
the supervisors. Training for the employees who participate in the
program. As a nurse, I know how complicated drug addiction can be. That
is why it is so important for people who are participating with the
program to have proper training.
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted that the committee adopted my amendment
to strengthen the training requirements. My amendment ensures that
small business owners, supervisors, and employees receive the training
necessary to make them effective in identifying possible substance
abuse problems.
I think this is a commonplace improvement to the bill that will
ensure small businesses are able to successfully implement a drug-free
workplace program. I think we are doing our small businesses a great
service, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), my friend who has been an active member of the
Drug Task Force.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
3853, the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1998. This legislation is critical
in addressing the many problems that result in a workforce that uses
drugs.
But I would also like to register my support for the section of the
bill that assists working parents in keeping their children drug free.
I am currently working on legislation that builds on this provision in
H.R. 3853. Specifically, I am looking at establishing incentives to
businesses that provide resources and training to parents regarding the
importance of speaking to their children about drugs.
Mr. Speaker, as we know, parents are the first line of defense in the
prevention and in protecting their children from this terrible plague.
Unfortunately, studies show that not enough parents are talking about
this important issue with their children.
By giving companies tax breaks, it will encourage them to come up
with creative ways to provide parents with the necessary tools to open
this discussion. In the end, this will be beneficial to the employer,
the employees, the family, and the community.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with members of the Speaker's
Task Force for a Drug-Free America on this legislation. In the
meantime, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman)
for his efforts, and ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3853.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green), the newest member of the
committee, who was instrumental in bringing before our committee the
issues of having certified counselors, providing the proper training,
and ensuring that the U.S. territories were covered.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez), our ranking member, for yielding me this time and
for her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3853, the Drug-Free Workplace
Act of 1998. I am pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
consented to include my amendment to ensure that the drug-free
workplace counselors and educators provided to small businesses under
the demonstration program be fully certified by their State and
territorial governments as qualified providers.
Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner and physician in family
practice, I know the value of a drug-free workplace. There are benefits
for both the worker and the employer. In light of this measure's
provision for mandatory drug testing of businesses who avail themselves
of this program, it is important that counselors are not just well-
meaning but well trained to advise employers on setting up programs
that are well structured, that are based on both employer and employee
input, that assist affected employees rather than punish them, and that
fit the varied realities of each workplace, considering health, family
and confidentiality issues and which can counsel on the consequences of
drug testing for both employer and employee.
Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, I am disappointed that my colleagues
did not see the wisdom of including in H.R. 3853 the requirement that
any training provided to small businesses as a consequence of this bill
be culturally appropriate. The American workplace is becoming
increasingly diverse. Culturally appropriate training is important
because of the very sensitive nature of the issue of drug use and of
the need for counselors to be able to communicate clearly when
explaining policy and doing counseling for persons of different
backgrounds. It is also important to ensure that certain nationalities
are not targeted, but that objectivity is maintained in this process.
But, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Small
Business for including another of my amendments which specifically
includes U.S. territories, of which my district, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, is one.
There are many instances where Americans who live in the U.S.
territories are denied access to programs not due to malice, but due to
oversight on the part of this body. As an example, the SBA HUBzone
program does not include the insular territories due to technicalities
in the language, even though the intent of the legislation was to
include every American everywhere who is in need of the benefits of the
program.
{time} 1100
Mr. Speaker, as my office works diligently with my colleagues to
ensure that the territories can benefit from this program, I take this
opportunity to remind everyone that the territories are an important
part of the American family. I commend the sponsors of this bill. I
urge its passage.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, a
warrior in the antidrug effort.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
[[Page H4979]]
Let me first of all just sing the praises for the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), and the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) for bringing this bill to the floor. It is so terribly
important.
Three points need to be made very quickly. Seventy-five percent of
all the illegal drug use in America today is not used by people in the
inner core cities. It is used by suburbanites who live outside of the
cities, who use drugs illegally, recreationally, seventy-five percent
of all the drug use in America. If we were to solve that problem, we
would knock the value out of drugs.
The other statistic is that 75 percent of all the violent crime in
America today is against women and children and it is drug related.
Think about that.
Then when you look at the third point, with the skyrocketing use of
illegal drugs by our children, not just 17 and 16 and 15 and 14-year-
olds but 11, 10, 9, even 9-year-olds, that is just terrible, Mr.
Speaker. We are destroying a whole new generation of people.
Back in 1983, President Reagan, at my urging, implemented random drug
testing in our military. At that point, 25 percent of all the military
were on illegal drugs, 25 percent. Once we implemented random drug
testing for everybody, from the buck private to the admirals and
generals, within four years the drug use in our military dropped 80
percent. It dropped from 25 percent down to 4 percent.
If we could stop drug use in all Federal employees, all State
employees, all county, town, city and village employees and then all
the Fortune 500 companies and all of the midsize entrepreneurial
companies, drugs would no longer be expensive. People would not use
them. There would not be any need for them. And in Colombia they would
be making bathtubs instead of importing drugs into this country. That
is how important this is. That is why I praise all of my colleagues for
bringing this bill to the floor. It is so badly needed.
God bless them all.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), whose work in addressing the need to have testing
done by a certified lab was critical in ensuring employees have some
protections.
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all commend and
congratulate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and actually all of the members of the
committee for the outstanding bipartisan manner in which we arrived at
bringing this legislation to the floor today.
As a matter of fact, many people throughout America recognize drug
use and abuse as having gotten out of hand and as a real menace to
society. Therefore, I rise in support of this legislation, and I would
note, Mr. Speaker, first of all, that this is a voluntary demonstration
project which provides opportunities for small businesses to be
meaningfully engaged in efforts to reduce drug use and create safe work
environments.
This program is obviously no panacea. However, it is a positive step
in the right direction. Therefore, I urge support for it. It provides
testing for not only workers but also for managers, for supervisors,
for everybody in the workplace. Therefore, no one can accuse it of
being discriminatory.
We know that drug use and abuse continue to plague America, and we
need bold efforts to really rid it. There are those who would say that
this is a minor approach, but I believe, Mr. Speaker, that every step
that we take moves us closer to the goal and the goal is to have a
drug-free environment. I commend the sponsors. I commend again the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) and all of my colleagues for an outstanding piece of
work and a meaningful piece of legislation:
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend both
sides for their leadership in bringing such an important topic to the
floor.
I am glad that I had a part in this markup, as I brought the issue of
alcohol to this program and to ensure that we included language that
would require that we had alcohol abuse prevention programs as well as
drug abuse prevention programs.
I also want to mention that violence in the workplace, domestic
violence is a critical issue with me. I am sorry that we were unable to
bring in the counseling for domestic violence in this bill because it
is critical. It is an ever-increasing need to address this problem in
our workplace.
In one year alone, almost 4 million American women are physically
abused by their husbands or boyfriends. With over half of the female
population and nearly 90 percent of the male population employed in
this country, domestic violence is a public health issue.
I am sorry that we were unable to get this issue in the bill.
Domestic violence is a public health problem that we can no longer
ignore in the workplace. The issue of domestic violence must become a
priority for our country and our Nation's leading businesses.
I thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman for their time, and I would
hope that some day we would put domestic violence as part of the Drug
Free Workplace Act.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my thoughts on the Drug-Free
Workplace Act of 1998 which is aimed at reducing drug abuse in the
workplace. The Small Business Committee marked-up this legislation in
an attempt to improve its effectiveness. I am glad to say that many
improvements were made. In particular, I am proud of the fact that we
were able to include language that would require any drug-free
workplace program developed as a result of this bill to include a
continuing alcohol and drug abuse prevention program. Prior to my
amendment to this bill, there was no mention of alcohol abuse. It is
critically important that we address alcohol abuse and addiction when
we address drug abuse in the workplace. Prevention of both alcohol and
drug abuse is essential for any drug-free workplace program to be
successful.
Effective prevention does not occur with just one class or one
discussion on the dangers of alcohol or substance abuse. We must ensure
that a comprehensive approach will be utilized in accomplishing a
productive, drug-free work environment that promotes and protects the
life of employees. Such a continuing alcohol and substance abuse
program must provide quality prevention and education programs, assess
individual alcohol and drug problems, refer individuals struggling with
substance abuse problems or addiction to a trained substance abuse
treatment professional or facility. Furthermore, such a comprehensive
approach provides all employees with the necessary information to be
able to see warning signs of substance abuse problems among their
colleagues.
Continuing substance abuse prevention programs are a necessity when
you consider that more than 70% of drug users and 75% of alcoholics are
employed. This is a staggering number that can only be reduced through
the use of comprehensive drug-free programs that include prevention as
well as a range of effective on-going services that address the complex
problems of alcohol and substance abuse.
Although this measure addresses the many issues of alcohol and drug
usage on the worksite, the bill could go farther to address some other
related issues. One issue that deserves attention is the need to
provide counseling for and information on domestic violence. There is
an ever increasing need to address this problem. In one year alone,
almost four million American women are physically abused by their
husbands or boyfriends. With over half of the female population and
nearly 90 percent of the male population employed in this country,
domestic violence is a public health problem that we can no longer
ignore in the workplace.
The issue of domestic violence must become a priority for our
country, and our nation's leading businesses agree. In a recent
national survey of American businesses, 47 percent of senior executives
polled said that domestic violence has a harmful effect on the
company's productivity; 44 percent said that it increases health care
costs; and 66 percent said that they believe their company's financial
performance would benefit from addressing the issue of domestic
violence among their employees. The result of these statistics indicate
that this problem is affecting more than the women who are abused, but
the place in which they work.
Thus, there is the necessity and urgency to provide counseling and
education on domestic
[[Page H4980]]
violence. We must educate both female and male employees on domestic
violence. Furthermore, there is a need to recognize the signs of
potentially dangerous situations, and how to provide help once the
abuse has begun. With such a program in place, we would be able to
further address those problems that plague our work environments as
well as our homes. It is in this spirit that I encourage my colleagues
to continue to work to make the workplace as productive and efficient
as possible by addressing not only alcohol and drug abuse, but domestic
violence.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, let me once again state that everyone in this Chamber,
both Democrats and Republicans, support the goal of the drug free
workplace. H.R. 3853 attempts to address this very real problem
affecting every aspect of our society.
But if we are truly serious about ending drugs in the workplace, H.R.
3853 will not be fully successful until we address the issue of cost,
flexibility and employee protection. I am optimistic that before this
program is implemented, these problems will be worked out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I again want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for not
only his leadership on this bill but his leadership in focusing on
prevention and on treatment as an important part, in addition to
interdiction and the judicial approaches to the drug problem, because
if we can reduce the usage at the front end, then we do not need to do
as much, hopefully, long-term in law enforcement interdiction.
I also want to thank our Speaker, who brought this drug issue to the
front of what we are doing in Congress. It is not just this bill today.
It has been bills on education. It will be amendments and funding in
appropriations bills. If we have a comprehensive effort against drug
abuse, illegal narcotics in this country, we, in fact, can make
dramatic advances in reducing this scourge in our country.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) as
well as the co-chairs, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) of the Drug Task Force, and all
the members of the Drug Task Force, the chairman of the Committee on
Small Business and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Talent) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and also the
staff, Al Felzenberg, Harry Katrichis, Tee Rowe, and Emily Murphy, who
helped accelerate a bill like this through the committee in a rapid
way.
This is a dramatic example of what can happen when both parties work
together to benefit the workers of America, the young people of
America, the families of America. We are seeing children's lives
destroyed by illegal drugs, families destroyed by illegal drugs, our
productivity and competitiveness in America destroyed by illegal drugs.
This bill is one small step, a part of a continuing effort by this
Congress to say, ``Say no to drugs,'' take active action, and we can
lick this problem.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3853, The Drug-
Free Workplace Act. Certainly there are many things the Federal
Government can do to minimize the negative impact illicit drug users
have upon society. Further expanding a philosophically bankrupt
national drug war policy with the creation of yet another costly
federally-funded program is not the answer.
Specifically, this bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 1999
thus further shifting the cost burden from the irresponsible drug user
to the taxpayer. Allowing the cost of drug use to fall on the
irresponsible drug user rather than allowing that user to socialize his
or her costs upon the innocent taxpayer would be a worthwhile step in
the right direction. The dangerous socialization of costs is a
consequence of various Federal actions.
A Federal Government which reduces the cost of drug use by supplying
free needles is one example. But this practice is but a minor example
of exactly how the Federal Government has made matters worse by
lowering the costs and encouraging the expansion of risky behavior. We
must, once and for all, expose the fallacy that problems can be solved
simply by cost spreading--in other words, that all risky behavior
should be socialized by the government. A Federal Government that
accepts responsibility for paying the rehabilitation costs and medical
costs of its citizens who act irresponsibly is certain to do only one
thing--increase the number of those who engage in such behavior.
If we lower the cost of anything, we necessarily increase the
incidence. But this is not only true when we are dealing with drugs. It
has to do with cigarettes, alcohol, and all risky behavior. The whole
tobacco legislation controversy is the natural consequence of the same
flawed policy. That is, because government ``must'' pay the health
costs of people who get sick from dangerous behavior with cigarettes,
government must also regulate the tobacco companies and deprive all
citizens of liberties which may at times involve risky behavior. Once
the taxpayer is called upon to pay, costs skyrocket.
Moreover, the Federal Government further makes matters worse by
imposing employment regulations which make it difficult to terminate
employees who engage in drug or alcohol abuse. Such a regulatory regime
further socializes the costs of irresponsibility upon innocents by
forcing employers to continue to pay the salaries and/or health
benefits of unsavory employees during rehabilitation periods.
Private employers should already be free to require drug testing as a
condition or term of employment. This legislation, however,
unnecessarily brings the Federal Government into this process. The
threat of liability law suits will dictate that drug testing will be
prevalent in jobs where abstinence from drug use is most critical.
However, setting up taxpayer-funded federal programs here are not only
unnecessary but ill-advised. The newspapers are replete with examples
of various lawsuits filed as a consequence of false positives resulting
from both scientific and human errors. This legislation involves the
Federal Government so far as to require drug testing be completed by
only a few government-favored drug testers. This bill also requires
those small businesses who participate to mandatorily test employees
for drug and alcohol abuse. This proposition treads dangerously on
grounds violative of the fourth amendment. While the bill of rights is
a limitation upon actions by the Federal Government, it does not
restrict the voluntary actions of private employers and their
employees. The case becomes far less clear when the Federal Government
involves itself in what should simply be a matter of private contract.
In fact, government involvement may actually constitute a hindrance
upon employers ability to adequately test those employees for whom they
feel testing may be a necessary job component.
It should never go unnoticed that, as is so often the case in this
Congress, constitutional authority is lacking for the further expansion
of the Federal Government into the realm of small business and the
means by which they hire reliable employees. The Report on H.R. 3583
cites Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 as the Constitutional authority.
This clause reads ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department or Office thereof'' (emphasis added). The
authority cited requires a foregoing Power which not only is missing
from the authority cited for this bill but in my close examination of
Article I, Section 8, simply seems not to exist.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill
because I believe that we should always strive to eliminate the vile
plague of drug abuse. This measure will provide small businesses with
protection from drug use at their workplace.
The bill aptly targets businesses consisting of 25 people or less.
Such businesses currently employ approximately over 50 percent of our
nation's workforce. Of those adults who abuse drugs, 74 percent are
members of the workforce. As the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace
estimates, the majority of illicit drug users work for these small
businesses.
The bill authorizes $10 million to the Small Business Administration
(SBA) for grants or contracts with not-for-profit organizations to
provide small businesses with drug-free workplace programs. This
funding is vitally important and seems justifiable in our war against
drugs. Compared to many programs, $10 million seems like a bargain.
Moreover, this measure is not simply measured based upon the millions
of dollars spent to arrest and prosecute illicit drug users. The
national economy is burdened with billions of dollars in losses due to
the effects of illicit drug users on small businesses. In fact, the
1996 Conference Board Survey estimated the cost to the economy from
absenteeism, injuries, and diminished productivity to be $200 billion.
These figures seem reasonable because absenteeism is 66 percent higher
among drug users than nondrug users, health benefit utilization is 300
percent higher among drug users than nondrug users, 47 percent of
workplace accidents are drug related, disciplinary actions are 90
percent higher among drug users than nondrug users, and employee
[[Page H4981]]
turnover is significantly higher among drug users than nondrug users.
To limit this disease to mere monetary figures, however, would ignore
less tangible, but equally important factors. Although harms such as
workplace injuries, lost productivity, and other effects of drug use
are readily obtainable, some wounds, such as the costs to families and
children, seem less obvious. In over 88 percent of families with
children under the age of 18, at least 1 parent is employed. Thus, it
seems clear that drug abuse among small business employees has
implications that extend well beyond mere economics.
Many small business owners corroborate the notion that illicit drug
use affects people on both tangible and intangible levels. One owner,
Mr. Guzman, noticed that after opening a successful business, he soon
found his business floundering. He discovered stolen inventory and low
productivity. Upon learning that drug use represented the sole cause of
such problems, Mr. Guzman implemented a drug-free workplace policy. Not
only did the problems related to drug use subside, but the owner's
business also flourished and profited beyond expectations. Such profits
likely filtered down from the business to its employees and those
employee's families.
This measure will standardize the policy implementation within Mr.
Guzman's business. I laud the goals of this Act, for it seeks to
educate the small businesses about the advantages of a drug-free
workplace, provided financial incentives and technical assistance to
enable small business concerns to create a drug-free workplace, and
assist working parents in keeping their children drug-free. Such
purposes should receive our praise and admiration. Regardless of
political persuasion, these goals further all of our interests.
The specifics of the bill seem both adequate and reasonable. The Act
establishes a strong relationship with the SBA and coordinates the
SBA's efforts with those of the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, and the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy. Together, these entities should be able to
implement this praiseworthy program. They may also act as a system of
checks and balances.
The measure properly requires written policies, training for
employees, additional training for employees who are parents, and
access to drug testing laboratories. By providing these standards, the
bill sets the foundation for a viable program.
I also commend the writers of this bill for providing a broad
definition of employees. By including supervisors, managers, officers,
and owners as employees, the measure encompasses those who are in the
greatest position of power where the opportunity for drug abuses are
conceivably greater.
Given the fact that small businesses must run on equally modest
budgets, they likely demand even more protection than the large
businesses. Moreover, the effects of drug abuse are more pronounced in
their small settings. We must protect these businesses, for they
represent the very image of America and the ideals we uphold.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3853, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________