[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1200-H1206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO DRUG
TESTING OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION APPLICANTS
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 99, I
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) disapproving the rule
submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of
unemployment compensation applicants, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 99, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 42
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Labor
relating to ``Federal-State Unemployment Compensation
Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug
Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants'' (published
at 81 Fed. Reg. 50298 (August 1, 2016)), and such rule shall
have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
general leave
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 42,
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Next Wednesday, February 22, will mark 5 years since the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act was signed into law. This 2012 law has
made important reforms in the unemployment insurance system,
improvements that were specifically designed to help more out-of-work
Americans successfully return to the workforce.
{time} 1330
This included a key provision which overturned a 1960s-era ban by the
Department of Labor on drug screening and testing of unemployment
insurance applicants.
Unemployment insurance serves those that have lost their jobs through
no fault of their own. It seeks to promote swift reemployment through
several key requirements. Namely, to be eligible for unemployment
insurance benefits, applicants must be able to work, available to work,
and actively seeking work. So if a worker loses his or her job due to
drug use, that worker is not truly able to work. In addition, if a
worker cannot take a new job because they can't pass a mandatory drug
test from their employer, this worker is not truly available to work
either.
In recognition of this issue, the 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act allowed but did not require States to drug screen and
test certain unemployment applicants, specifically those seeking a job
or an occupation that regularly required new employees to pass a drug
test. I was proud to lead this effort in 2012 because I knew it would
have a meaningful impact on the lives of many Americans struggling with
drug use.
The goal is simple: get the incentives right in unemployment
insurance so that Americans can confront and overcome these challenges.
With a growing number of employers now requiring drug tests for new
workers, we wanted to empower these out-
[[Page H1201]]
of-work Americans to be ready to pass that drug test, take that new
job, and get back on the path to earning their own success.
My home State of Texas was one of the first to step up when this
provision was established by the 2012 law. They even changed their own
laws to get ready. But before this provision could be implemented by
States, the law required the Department of Labor to issue a regulation
defining those occupations that regularly conduct drug testing. The
intent was to match real-world expectations from employers.
In a 2012 hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means' Human Resources
Subcommittee, an official from the Department of Labor assured us the
rule could be drafted quickly and according to congressional intent.
Well, despite those assurances, months went by with no action from the
Obama administration.
During that time, the Ways and Means Committee held another hearing
on this issue and even sent a letter to the Department of Labor in
anticipation of the regulation. We urged them to craft the rule
broadly, which was consistent with what we were hearing from
businesses.
In October of 2014, more than 2 years after the law was passed, the
Department issued its proposed rule. Counter to our recommendations,
the draft rule was incredibly narrow. So narrow, in fact, that States
like Texas would be severely limited in their ability to successfully
implement an unemployment insurance drug testing program.
Again, the Ways and Means Committee made our concerns known to the
Obama administration by submitting a public comment on the draft rule,
calling for significant revisions. We made clear that the proposed rule
did not faithfully adhere to the intent of Congress, and these same
concerns were also echoed in other public comments from prominent
stakeholders.
Two more years went by. Meanwhile, Congress continued to press the
administration to revise the rule so it followed the intent of the
bipartisan law.
That brings us to August of last year, when, at long last, the
Department of Labor published its final rule. And just like the
proposed rule 2 years earlier, it ignored the intent of Congress. It
disregarded most of the comments and the concerns of stakeholders.
Above all, the final rule directly undermined the ability of States to
implement this important bipartisan reform that would help unemployed
workers in their quest to find a good-paying new job.
So on his way out of office, former President Obama flat out refused
to implement the law he signed in 2012. Instead, he directed the
Department of Labor to issue a regulation that effectively blocks
States from taking action.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick of Washington not keeping
its promises. They are sick of unaccountable Federal bureaucrats
abusing their authority to undercut the will of Congress and the
American people. And this eleventh-hour regulation by the Obama
Department of Labor is a prime example of just that.
The debate we are having today is not about the merits of drug
testing unemployment insurance applicants. That is now for the States
to decide because, in 2012, Congress passed a law providing them--not
the Federal Government--with the ability to do so.
This debate is about placing a check and balance on blatant executive
overreach that all but prohibits States from moving forward with this
reform. More importantly, it is about ensuring that the will and the
intent of this body is upheld.
In closing, I thank the House for its consideration of H.J. Res. 42.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Smith) be permitted to control the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 42, a measure
disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor regarding
drug testing unemployment compensation applicants. This legislation
would overturn a Department of Labor regulation which, as directed by
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, defines the
occupations in which States may require unemployed workers to take drug
tests as a condition of collecting earned unemployment benefits.
Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against
searches without reasonable cause, the regulation limits drug testing
to occupations where drug testing is required, like pipeline safety,
some transportation operators, and jobs that require carrying a gun.
Many communities are facing a rising rate of drug use, including my
hometown of Springfield. Congress could and should do more to help
people struggling with addiction, but the legislation that we are
debating today has nothing to do with fighting drug abuse. It is about
allowing States to put one more time-consuming, humiliating obstacle in
the way of Americans who work hard and were laid off from their jobs
and need unemployment insurance to pay the bills while they look for
new jobs. As a reminder, in the aftermath of the recession, the
unemployment rate in America went to 10 percent.
There is no evidence that unemployed workers have higher rates of
drug abuse than the general population. In fact, logic suggests that
rates of serious drug abuse are lower. To be eligible to collect
unemployment, a worker must have substantial, recent work experience.
He or she must not have been fired for cause. And workers can only
collect unemployment insurance if they demonstrate they are actively
searching for work.
Instead, it appears that some States may be trying to limit the
number of workers who collect unemployment insurance when they are laid
off as a way to reduce pressure on underfunded unemployment trust
funds. More than half of the State unemployment trust funds are still
insolvent, years after the Great Recession.
Dozens of States have changed their eligibility criteria for
unemployment benefits, imposed administrative hurdles to filing for
unemployment, or cut the number of weeks benefits can be received while
individuals search for a job. Partly because of those changes, only
about one in four unemployed workers in the United States receive
unemployment benefits, even though the vast majority of them worked for
employers who paid unemployment payroll taxes on their wages. That is
the lowest level of benefit receipt among laid-off workers since the
Federal-State unemployment insurance program began.
Instead, we should be here crafting bipartisan policies to strengthen
unemployment insurance protections to help workers who genuinely want
to work to pay their bills while they are looking for new jobs. I
remind our colleagues to look at the worker participation rate, not
encouraging States to create more obstacles.
I hope that both sides of the aisle will vote ``no'' on this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Danny K. Davis) control the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 42 disapproving the rule
submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of
unemployment compensation applicants.
The goal of the 2012 bipartisan law signed by President Obama in
February 2012 is to reassure employers who fund the unemployment
compensation system that unemployment compensation claimants reentering
the workforce are truly able and available for work.
When I speak with employers in Nebraska's Third District, they
express a strong desire to hire individuals in a way that is beneficial
for both the employer and the employee.
According to UWC, the national association representing businesses in
the areas of unemployment compensation
[[Page H1202]]
and workers' compensation: ``The regulations adopted in final form not
only severely limited the circumstances under which a state may conduct
a drug test, but also unduly limited the types of tests that a state
would be permitted to conduct. . . .''
States, which are responsible for administration of the unemployment
compensation program, are also concerned.
Back in 2014, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker wrote to the Secretary
of Labor saying: ``Providing States more flexibility in defining
occupations that regularly conduct drug testing not only better serves
the public interest, but recognizes the unique labor force and
diversity in industry in each State.''
In recognition of the support we have received from employers who
fund the system and States which administer it, I include in the Record
their letters of support.
February 10, 2017.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Brady: We write to you today in support of
H.J. Res. 42, your legislation that would disapprove of the
United States Department of Labor's recent regulation
regarding states' ability to drug test individuals who apply
for unemployment insurance (UI).
Congress authorized the Labor Department to craft a rule
that would provide states the option to drug test
unemployment insurance applicants. Unfortunately, the Obama
Administration drafted the rule too narrowly, undermining the
intent of Congress and permitting drug testing in too few
instances.
Drug testing UI applicants can help individuals suffering
from substance abuse to access necessary care and treatment
so they may re-enter the workforce as healthy and productive
members of society. We believe this rule should be replaced
with a new rule that allows increased flexibility for states
to implement UI drug testing that best fits the needs of each
state.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and we
look forward to working with Congress on this issue going
forward.
Sincerely,
Scott Walker,
Governor of Wisconsin.
Gary R. Herbert,
Governor of Utah.
Greg Abbott,
Governor of Texas.
Phil Bryant,
Governor of Mississippi.
____
State of Nebraska,
Office of the Governor,
Lincoln, NE, February 14, 2017.
Re H.J. Res. 42--Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation
Recipients.
Hon. Adrian Smith,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Smith: Thank you for being a co-introducer
of House Joint Resolution 42. The regulations which H.J. Res.
42 seeks to disapprove greatly exceed the authority granted
to the U.S. Department of Labor under Section 2105 of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L.
112-96).
The U.S. Department of Labor regulations effectively limit
the application of P.L. 112-96 authorized drug testing to the
point that a state is, for all practical purposes, prevented
from adopting a meaningful drug testing program for
unemployment compensation claimants. These regulations are an
exhibit of executive overreach where the U.S. Department of
Labor effectively seeks to block the implementation of an Act
of Congress.
I thank you for your efforts to restore to the states their
right to enact drug testing requirements for unemployment
compensation claimants.
Sincerely,
Pete Ricketts,
Governor.
____
UWC,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2017.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Neal,
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: I am writing
on behalf of UWC--Strategic Services on Unemployment and
Workers' Compensation (UWC) in support of Resolution H.J. Res
42 that would disallow the final regulations posted by the
United States Department of Labor on August 5, 2016.
UWC is a national association representing business,
specifically in the areas of Unemployment Compensation and
Workers' Compensation. UWC members include many Fortune 500
companies as well as business associations and small
businesses impacted by unemployment law and policy.
The regulations as posted in final form are inconsistent
with the intent of Congress in enacting the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and unduly restrict state
agencies choosing to test applicants for the use of
controlled substances.
Drug testing is a critical requirement of employment in
many industries and generally in determining whether a
prospective employee will be able to perform the
responsibilities of work for which the individual has
applied. The results of drug tests are also indications of
whether an individual is able to work and available to work
so as to be eligible to be paid unemployment compensation.
It is a federal statutory requirement of administrative
grants to states that as a condition of being paid
unemployment compensation for a week or weeks an individual
must be able to work, available to work, and actively seeking
work. The additional authority provided in Section 2105 of
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
permitted states to test for controlled substances consistent
with the able to work and available to work requirements that
were also included in the act.
The regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Labor
were so narrowly drawn as to severely limit states from
electing to provide for drug testing of applicants. By
limiting the time within which a test may be conducted to the
period between the date of application and the date at which
the applicant began to claim a week of unemployment
compensation, such a test would be less likely to connect a
positive drug test with a subsequent week of unemployment
compensation that could be claimed up to 52 weeks after the
date of initial application.
The effect of such an interpretation is to render a test
useless for weeks claimed many weeks after the individual
became unemployed and prohibit testing for the weeks of
unemployment compensation as they are claimed.
The regulations adopted in final form not only severely
limited the circumstances under which a state may conduct a
drug test, but also unduly limited the types of tests that a
state would be permitted to conduct, the claimants that could
be tested, and the occupations with respect to which tests
could be conducted.
A number of states have indicated an interest in enacting
legislation consistent with federal law to permit drug
testing, but the severe limitations imposed by the
regulations have frustrated administration of drug testing as
part of the UI administrative process.
Employers pay the federal and state unemployment taxes
required to fund administration and benefits paid through the
Unemployment Insurance system. Drug testing of UI claimants
should be permitted as part of proper administration by
states to assure that only eligible claimants are paid and
that unemployed workers are able and available to work to
meet workforce needs of employers.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our support for
H.J. Res 42.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Holmes,
President.
____
Secretaries' Innovation Group,
Milwaukee, WI, January 31, 2017.
Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman Brady: I am writing you on the topic of drug
screening and testing of Unemployment Insurance claimants in
my capacity as the Executive Director of the Secretaries'
Innovation Group, after consultation with Texas Workforce
Commission Executive Director Larry Temple and workforce
secretary members of SIG on a recent national conference
call. As you know, the Secretaries' Innovation Group is a
network of state workforce and human service secretaries from
states with Republican governors making up about half of the
country. We meet to exchange state program innovations and
opportunities and to press for national policies favoring
work, healthy families, federalism and limited government.
By way of background, in 2012, the bipartisan Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act made a number of reforms to
the UI program, including overturning a 1960s-era DOL ban on
the screening or testing of UI applicants for illegal drugs.
The 2012 provision allowed (but did not require) states to
test UI applicants who either (1) lost their job due to drug
use, or (2) were seeking a new job that generally required
new employees to pass a drug test. However, in implementing
this law through regulation, DOL issued an overly
prescriptive final regulation making it almost impossible for
most states to implement the provision.
Our SIG state secretaries who run UI, WIOA and welfare to
work programs routinely meet with employers to seek their
input as to what characteristics they require to meet their
business needs. By far the most common stated requirements
are requests for individuals who are reliable and can pass a
drug test. Therefore it is highly important that states to
have the ability and authority to operate drug screening and
testing. It is also important they have the option to
condition UI benefits on cooperation in such tests and to
mandate treatment, if and when necessary, on a case by case
basis. States do not have the ability to operate this way
under the current restrictive regulation promulgated by the
Department of Labor.
During the national conference call with SIG workforce
secretaries to discuss drug screening and testing which took
place on
[[Page H1203]]
January 24th and included TX, AL, AR, ID, KS, ME, MD, MS, NE,
NM, NH, NV, ND, OH, OK, UT, WI, WY, none of the secretary
participants endorsed the DOL rule in question as written.
We hope the Congress will take up this issue and permit
states who wish to do so the ability to implement screening
and testing of UI claimants with the flexibility intended by
Congress.
Yours truly,
Jason Turner,
Executive Director.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman Brady highlighted
earlier, Members of this body have clearly stated their intent time and
time again over the last few years through letters, hearings, public
comments, and meetings. Yet, the Department of Labor has continued to
push Congress' concerns to the side and legislate from the executive
branch.
Supporting this resolution means supporting the role of Congress to
write laws and for them to be implemented as intended.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Workers collecting unemployment benefits earned their benefits by
working hard. Workers only receive benefits if they are out of work
through no fault of their own and are actively searching for new jobs.
There are considerable challenges facing our unemployment system.
More than half of the State trust funds, including that in my home
State, are insolvent and could only pay earned benefits for a short
period of time if a recession hits. Only about one in four unemployed
workers currently receives unemployment insurance benefits. Some States
have cut benefits, increasing the chance that workers will exhaust
benefits before finding jobs. H.J. Res. 42 does not address these
challenges.
There are also real problems with drug use in this country and a
severe shortage of treatment options for those who need them. H.J. Res.
42 does not address these problems either.
Instead, we are considering a policy that slanders unemployed workers
by assuming that they are drug users; that ignores all research showing
that drug use is not higher among unemployed workers than in the
general population; and that violates the constitutional protection
against illegal search and seizure, a protection that courts have
clearly said exists regardless of whether one receives public benefits.
The statutory provision that has required this regulation was
appropriately limited to a very narrow group of workers, those for whom
finding suitable work required a drug test.
Counter to some GOP arguments, this resolution is not about helping
those with drug problems get treatment. It is about cutting benefits.
States with drug-testing provisions do not pay for expensive treatment
services for those who test positive. Moreover, workers cannot receive
benefits while in treatment because they are not actively seeking work.
Thus, they lose their earned unemployment benefits.
Congress should be helping communities suffering from high
unemployment, addressing persistent long-term unemployment, aiding
workers in upgrading their skills to get good jobs. Congress should be
strengthening our unemployment insurance system to make sure it is
ready to respond in the next recession.
{time} 1345
We should not encourage States to waste resources on an
unconstitutionally-based drug testing requirements for struggling
unemployed workers who claim benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J.
Res. 42. This resolution is the latest effort in the House to undo the
wave of bureaucratic overreach from the Obama administration.
Five years ago, Congress passed a bipartisan law that included a
commonsense provision giving the States flexibility to drug test some
applicants for unemployment insurance.
Instead of following the law Congress passed and allowing--not
requiring--States to implement the policies right for their citizens,
the Obama administration decided to tie States' hands. It issued a
regulation that left no flexibility for States, the opposite of the
bipartisan law Congress passed.
Mr. Speaker, frankly, it is sad that we are even here today. This all
could have been avoided if the Obama administration had simply followed
the congressional intent, but yet here we are.
I support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), former chairman of this committee
and, certainly, a former ranking member on this side.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, at the onset of the Great Recession, our
unemployment insurance system was completely inadequate. Democrats took
the lead, against increasing Republican opposition, to improve the
system and to provide unemployment benefits to Americans who lost their
jobs through no fault of their own. The result was an emergency Federal
unemployment compensation program which helped more than 24 million
people.
Research from a broad array of experts shows these Federal UI
benefits, in combination with State-provided benefits, saved more than
2 million jobs, prevented 1.4 million home foreclosures, and kept an
estimated 5 million Americans out of poverty. In short, a strong
unemployment insurance system helped prevent the Great Recession from
turning into another Great Depression.
Today, our unemployment insurance system is again inadequate and
totally unprepared to respond to a future recession; and once again,
rather than stepping up with solutions, Republicans' answer to working
people is a cold shoulder. Instead of responding to the deterioration
of our unemployment insurance system, Republicans today want to shame
and blame Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their
own, while also violating their constitutional rights.
Here are the real problems this legislation completely ignores:
Number one, only one out of every four jobless Americans now receives
unemployment benefits, near a record all-time low.
Two, eight States have cut back on the maximum number of weeks of
benefits available for unemployed workers, including my home State of
Michigan.
Three, the value of UI benefits has declined over time, with 30
States now having maximum UI benefits that are less than half of the
State's average weekly wage.
Four, the triggers for the federally funded Extended Benefits
program, EB, are extremely out of date, so they do not turn on when
unemployment begins to rise significantly.
Five, our Nation's UI system is underfunded, with only 18 States'
funds reaching a minimum level of adequate solvency, according to a
2016 DOL report.
Six, the Federal UI trust funds, which support extended benefits
during downturns in the economy, have a deficit of over $8 billion,
hurt by the majority's decision to allow part of the revenue stream to
those funds to expire in 2011.
Seven, our spending on workforce development as a percentage of GDP
is now only one-seventh of its 1979 peak; and since 2010, Republicans
in Congress have cut workforce education programs by $400 million. So
we are doing less to help the unemployed while they look for work and
less to help them prepare for a new job.
Today's bill ignores these problems completely and, instead, attempts
to demean those needing help. In discouraging access to unemployment
benefits, it reminds me of a massive problem we have uncovered in
Michigan that involved at least 20,000--and perhaps many more--UI
claimants being wrongly accused of fraud and ordered to pay huge
penalties.
We should be focusing today on ensuring our UI system is ready for
the great challenge, not to mention helping Americans who are seeking
work right now. Instead, this majority has
[[Page H1204]]
brought up this misguided bill, and I urge all Members to oppose it.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res.
42, to eliminate the Obama administration's intentionally unfaithful
execution of our laws.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the previous administration knew
exactly what they were doing when they wrote this regulation. President
Obama signed off on the underlying law to allow States to drug test
certain unemployment insurance recipients, then he worked to block its
implementation. Today, we will vote to end President Obama's
obstruction.
Instead of faithfully executing the law, as our Constitution demands,
the Obama administration effectively blocked States from making sure
hardworking taxpayer dollars only go to deserving citizens.
The Congress spoke in 2012, before I arrived here, but here is what
happened. Congress spoke, and the President signed a bill into law to
give States an option--not a mandate, an option--to drug test.
I stand today to say let's roll back and undo our previous
President's unfaithful execution of the law and allow States like
Missouri to have the freedom to decide for themselves. This is not a
mandate; this is simply about states' rights.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this joint
resolution.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a tireless protector of the
rights of individuals.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong
opposition to H.J. Res. 42.
I think most Americans are tired of hearing about what President
Obama did or didn't do while, at the same time, it seems like it has
been years since we had his stable leadership and we have been
proceeding under the chaos of the current administration. It seems like
much longer than 25 days.
But I will tell you, the campaign is over. It was a long campaign.
Throughout the entire campaign, the Republicans controlled both Houses
of Congress, House and Senate, and we had the President who was a
Democrat. So the Republicans complained that they weren't able to do
anything and they needed a Republican President.
Now they have a Republican President, and what have they done during
this last 25 days in terms of a jobs bill? Not one, not one job created
in the last 25 days.
If the public goes back and looks over the calendar of proceedings
for this body, they will find that it has simply been one regulatory
bill after another, to change a regulation that was set during the
Obama administration. That is all we have been doing over the last 3-
plus weeks is trying to reverse regulations--not one affirmative bill
that establishes one job.
So what are they doing? They are kind of dancing for the American
people, while the House burns, while the President is conducting
foreign policy at Mar-a-Lago, in the open air, to impress all of his
well-heeled friends that have paid $100,000 and now have to pay
$200,000 to join his club, while we should be overseeing the operations
of the Trump Hotel and who is paying millions of dollars to reserve
banquet facilities in that taxpayer-owned location.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). The time of
the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield the gentleman an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Those are the issues that the American people
certainly would be interested in knowing, what is happening with their
property.
But instead of creating a jobs bill, what we are dealing with here is
a measure that would repeal a Department of Labor rule that limits
which unemployment compensation applicants can be tested for drugs.
Supporters of this resolution are suggesting that there is a nexus
between losing your job and being unemployed and illicit drug abuse.
However, there is no evidence that suggests higher drug use among
unemployed workers compared to the general population; though I will
concede that it has been a time-honored tradition that when you lose
your job, you go down to the local bar and drown in a glass of beer.
But nobody is talking about disabusing alcohol abuse with this
legislation--no alcohol testing, just drug testing.
Why?
It is because they want to get at a certain group of people who they
want to deprive of the ability to receive the unemployment compensation
that they have paid in and earned.
It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to take away the financial
security for people who have the least. That is the only thing they
have, and you are going to take it away from them and make them pay for
the drug test, too. It is ridiculous.
We should be considering legislation that would create jobs and
address economic disparities, but instead, we are looking to roll back
provisions that undergird the financial security of the most vulnerable
among us. I would ask that my colleagues oppose this H.J. Res. 42 and
get on with the business that matters most to the American people.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 42, and I
thank Chairman Smith for taking the lead in fighting for American
workers with this commonsense piece of legislation.
I believe there has been a misconception about the intent of this
CRA. Congress is not acting because we have a malicious intent to
punish American workers. We are not even trying to disincentivize them
from participating in the program.
My colleague, Mr. Davis, said we should strengthen our programs, and
what we are attempting to do is exactly that: strengthen the system
that is intended to help unemployed Americans and allow them to prepare
to reenter the workforce.
The 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act made
commonsense reforms to the unemployment insurance system with the goal
of assisting Americans in returning to gainful employment. Yes, this
included allowing States, like my own of Florida, to determine whether
or not they wanted to include drug screening and test unemployment
insurance applicants. And, yes, the law specifically stated two
conditions: if the applicant had lost their job due to drug use and if
they were seeking a new job that regularly required new employees to
pass a drug test.
Now, when the Department of Labor drafted the rule, they clearly went
beyond the intent of Congress and tailored it too narrowly. This will
only hurt prospective employees in the long term.
The rule covers occupations such as those that require the employees
to carry firearms, flight crews, transportation, and the like.
{time} 1400
The problem here is that employers in occupations outside of this
narrow scope also regularly require drug testing of their employees.
So under this rule, unemployed Americans who are using and looking
for employment outside of the specific occupations outlined in the rule
could potentially find employment in a different industry, be drug
tested, and subsequently terminated.
How is this helping American workers? It doesn't make sense to me,
and it shouldn't make sense to any of my colleagues either. This is a
bad rule, and it needs to be repealed so the Department of Labor can go
back to the drawing board and craft a rule that will actually
strengthen the unemployment insurance, help the American worker, and
ultimately strengthen the economy.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Congressman Davis for
yielding and for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable
everywhere.
I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 42, which is really another
baseless attack on the poor, on low-income individuals, and on the
unemployed. Drug testing unemployed individuals is downright wrong.
Let me be clear. This resolution is another way for Republicans to
stop
[[Page H1205]]
workers from claiming their right to unemployment benefits. It also is
a scare tactic that flies in the face of facts.
First, there is no evidence that people who receive public assistance
use drugs any more frequently than those in the general population.
Unemployment compensation, mind you, is not public assistance.
By unnecessarily drug testing jobless workers, we are throwing them
out in the cold when they are simply trying to get back on their feet.
Mr. Speaker, workers receive unemployment benefits because they
worked hard, they played by the rules, and they were laid off through
no fault of their own.
More importantly, working people have earned their right to apply for
these benefits. They pay into the program. Their constitutional rights
should not be violated.
I also know that people want to work. People don't want to be on
unemployment insurance. They want to provide for themselves and their
families.
Let me remind you, there is an opioid and heroin drug epidemic in
this country, and it not only affects Democrats, this drug crisis is
affecting Republicans, Independents--everyone. Yet, once again, you are
throwing them out in the cold.
Instead of passing this appalling resolution--and this resolution is
appalling--we should be expanding job training, unemployment benefits
for all, and provide resources for drug treatment. It is hard to
believe that you want to punish people. That is what this resolution
really does. It punishes people for working. That is really a shame and
disgrace.
So I strongly oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,''
and I also urge you to encourage people to work, to provide those job
training resources and drug abuse resources for our mental health
centers, for our drug counseling centers, and for everyone who needs
treatment rather than drug testing to keep them from getting a job.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) who had an office next to mine
for many years. I know she has tremendous commitment, energy, and
fortitude.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman,
and I thank the manager of this legislation. But my distinguished
friend, Mr. Davis, and I have worked on societal issues dealing across
the gamut, and the respect that he holds in the communities across
America that recognize that second chances, unemployment compensation,
summer jobs, and a whole manner of opportunities for individuals to
restore their lives is the right way for America to go.
In the backdrop of an executive order that saw one of my
constituents, a 16-year-old with proper papers coming in from Jordan,
held for 50 hours at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, in defense
of those employees that I respect, CBP, they had no information how he
got in, but they took this young man. Lo and behold, he wound up in
Chicago because he didn't speak English, and that was the only bed they
have.
Why am I mentioning this? I am mentioning this because sometimes
government gets it wrong. They get it wrong. This disapproval is wrong.
What did happen was right, because what happened was that this rule
didn't just pop up in the administration, meaning the Obama
administration. It came about through a compromise--an intelligent
compromise--dealing with middle class tax relief and job creation.
Because at that time, there were people who randomly wanted to drug
test, but wise individuals said this, they said that you could allow
drug tests if you had lost your job or you are a drug user, so we want
to get you right; therefore, you could be tested.
Some people agree to disagree, but that is reasonable. Or that the
job that you were looking for or had a job that required the kind of
criteria and the kind of skills that drug use would impair or impact,
that makes sense.
But now you are talking about someone at the lowest ebb of life,
losing jobs through no fault of their own, giving States that may be
sensitive to human needs or reckless the ability to randomly test
people because they lost their jobs, because they have been defeated.
Well, I know it is too late, but maybe we should amend for
Congresspersons, Senators, and Governors who get unelected. They lost a
job; didn't they? It doesn't make sense.
I rushed to the floor. We are in the Judiciary Committee addressing
the question of how we are going to utilize the oversight plan, whether
we want to investigate and fix for the American people this horrible
scenario of the Russian involvement in the elections and the connection
to the present administration.
We want to fix things, but what you are doing here is that you are
casting a bad light on people who are in need. I just want to say
States have the ability to administer drug testing, and this change
would needlessly shift employer costs to the States. State unemployment
programs already penalize job-related drug use.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster of Florida). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman
an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Twenty States also explicitly deny benefits for any job loss
connected with drug use or a failed drug test. In addition, six
States--Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin--passed legislation equating a failed or refused
preemployment drug screen for refusing suitable work. We are already
condemning everybody. Other States have other programs. This is not one
that falls under the 10th Amendment.
But the specialist drug testing of government-benefit recipients
likely violates the Fourth Amendment, and it is cruel and inhuman
treatment.
I ask my colleagues to reject this cruel and inhuman treatment of
individuals who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed or they
may be poor or they may be needing public assistance. Let America's
humanity shine. Vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I want to hopefully draw some
attention to the fact that we have a problem on our hands. We have a
problem with the Federal Government going too far, and we have a
problem with the State governments coming to us as policymakers at the
Federal level wanting to help their own constituents, their own
citizens in need. Right now the Federal Government stands in the way.
It is time for us as policymakers hopefully to act in a responsible
fashion to assist States in their need and their desire to help their
own citizens. States are better at that than is the Federal Government,
and I hope that we can empower the States to help their own
constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to close,
let me just, first of all, thank the more than 40 organizations who
have sent letters in opposition to this legislation, especially the
African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African American Ministers in
Action, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and
many others. They have sent letters because they have a will to help,
not a will to hurt. They have a will to assist. They know that the
individuals we are talking about have lost their jobs, their
opportunity to work, and their connection, in many instances, with
humanity.
I would urge that we do everything in our power to help them find
their way back and not hurt them. Therefore, I would urge all of my
colleagues to oppose this legislation and vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, since the law was enacted some 5 years ago, Members of
this body have clearly stated their intent time and time again through
letters, hearings, public comments, and meetings, and yet the previous
Department of Labor continued to push Congress' concerns to the side
and legislate from the executive branch.
Again, supporting this resolution means supporting the role of
Congress
[[Page H1206]]
to write laws and for the laws to be implemented as intended.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 42, disapproving of the
Department of Labor's regulation of the drug testing on unemployment
insurance applicants.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint
resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________