[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.

                          ____________________