[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 192 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. JACK KINGSTON

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 13, 2011

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the language 
included in this bill that would remove current barriers for states to 
strengthen the unemployment program through optional drug testing. The 
purpose of the unemployment insurance program is to be a safety net, a 
bridge to reemployment. However, when beneficiaries choose to abuse 
illegal drugs they are no longer at their competitive best within the 
jobs market.
  That is why I have proposed legislation, H.R. 3601 the ``Ensuring 
Quality in the Unemployment Insurance Program (EQUIP) Act,'' that would 
require screenings for applicants of unemployment insurance. Applicants 
would be screened using a non-invasive questionnaire that has a 94 
percent accuracy rate. If identified as likely to use drugs, an 
applicant for unemployment would be required to pass a drug test as a 
condition of benefits. This non-invasive practice has been upheld by 
state courts in New Jersey, Texas and Indiana. A federal court in West 
Virginia upheld that state's practice of screening applicants for 
Social Security Disability Insurance.
  The screening would not increase federal spending. The estimated cost 
is $12 per person. This would be more than offset by reducing the $7.5 
billion budget for the controversial Independent Payment Advisory Board 
(IPAB) and Consumers Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OPs), which was 
established to ration health care expenditures.
  At one of the several listening sessions I had with business owners 
earlier this year, I had an employer tell me of an overwhelming 
response for job openings. There was just one problem: half the people 
who applied could not even pass a drug test. Another told me about an 
employee they had to temporarily lay off when times were tight. A month 
later when he contacted his former employee to offer him a new 
position, he declined because unemployment was paying the bills. With 
our budget woes of more than $15 trillion in debt, how can we justify 
using unemployment insurance to pay someone not to work when they have 
voluntarily taken themselves out of the hiring pool? That is what we 
are doing when someone on unemployment is using drugs.
  Under the current system, workers can earn up to 26 weeks through 
employer contribution but are eligible for 99 weeks of benefits under 
current law. Your tax dollars make up the difference. Maximizing 
efficiency and effectiveness of programs like unemployment insurance 
has to be our society's goal.
  Drug screening beneficiaries incentivizes individuals to not abuse 
drugs, which would otherwise render them unfit to be employed. Some 
have said this proposal asks too much of those who have lost their 
jobs, but asking someone who is unemployed to do his or her part by 
staying eligible to work is common sense, not draconian.
  I look forward to working with the Committee on this proposal and a 
hearing in the spring.

                          ____________________