[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1834-S1835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT RESOLUTION
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to take the chance to have just a
moment to be able to reflect on what the Senate has just completed. We
have worked through a process of identifying what is called the
Congressional Review Act. Most Americans are not
[[Page S1835]]
familiar with this because it is so seldom used. In fact, it has only
been used one time before this Congress successfully.
It is a moment for the Congress to be able to look back at
regulations that have been promulgated by the administration and say:
Was that the intent of the law?
It is something that we have worked at for a long time to be able to
get as a frequent part of this national conversation. We call it the
REINS Act. It allows Congress to be able to look at each major
regulation when it comes out from the administration and ask the simple
question: When the regulations are created, are they consistent with
the statute? That is what regulations are. No administration can just
invent policy and say: We think this is a good thing to do. That is the
task of Congress. That is why the Constitution says that all
legislative powers shall reside in the Congress, because an
administration can't make up the law. It has to come from this body,
from the House of Representatives, and then be signed by the President.
After that is done, then regulations are created that have to be
consistent with the law.
The Congressional Review Act was created years ago to allow Congress
to have a second glance at regulations as they are put out and say: Is
that consistent with the statute we passed? This Congress has already
gone through multiples of those.
In the last 6 months of the Obama administration, many regulations
were created. When they were created, they were not consistent with the
statute. This Congress has already turned back billions of dollars of
regulations from the American people. One of those was done this week.
Ironically, it is an issue that deals with unemployment benefits and
drug testing.
Many States have requested the ability to be able to do drug testing
for unemployment benefits. And this is not a situation where this
Congress believes that all people on unemployment benefits need to be
drug tested or are unemployed because of drug use--far from it.
In 2012, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act. In that, it allowed States, if they chose to--they don't have to
but if they chose to--to do drug testing for benefits eligibility, for
unemployment benefits under two circumstances. One of them is if the
applicant was terminated from their employment based on the unlawful
use of a controlled substance. In other words, if they were just fired
from a previous job because they were using drugs, they wouldn't be
able to get unemployment benefits because they had already been
certified as a drug user. The second one is that if the only available
suitable work meant that they had to be drug tested, then they could be
drug tested.
What is the design of this? The design of the policy was to encourage
people to get back to work. If they were fired from a previous job
because they used drugs, it is a natural thing to say: Before you can
get unemployment benefits, we want to make sure you have gotten off
drugs since that time period you were fired, or if you will be drug
tested for the only job that is available to you in your targeted area,
you are not available to be able to take that job if you haven't
already had some sort of drug testing.
It is a commonsense measure, and it is given to the States to say to
the States: You can choose to do this or not to do this, but if you
choose to do it, you can, because unemployment benefits are a
partnership between the Federal Government and local States.
We believe this is one tool of many to be able to help people who are
trapped in the addiction of drugs to have one more incentive to be able
to get off that addiction. Multiple different methods are also used
within States to enable them to walk alongside families and individuals
and help them get off their substance abuse habits as well.
It is a powerful motivator to say to people: If you want to get some
support into your family to help you transition back into a job, the
law says that to be on unemployment benefits, you have to be available
for work. And if this person is currently addicted to drugs and using
drugs, they are not available for work.
This measure was passed in 2012. The Obama administration took 4
years to promulgate the rules off of this commonsense measure, and once
they finally promulgated the rules, they created a set of rules so
complex, so complicated, with so many exceptions built into it, that
the rule meant nothing. It put us in the situation of saying: What
Congress passed 4 years ago, we actually wanted that to go into effect
to give those States the right to be able to do it.
So this Congress--the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted
and this week the Senate also voted to be able to block out that last-
minute regulation from the Obama administration, which they took 4
years to promulgate, and to be able to say to the States: If you choose
to do drug testing with someone who was fired from a previous job
because of drug use or because the only job available to that person
will have drug testing, if you want to help families be able to get off
substance abuse and to be able to set this standard for them, you can.
We have an epidemic of drug use in our Nation. We should do
everything we can to not only deal with the interdiction of drugs
coming into the country but to also deal with abuse of drugs in our
country. This is one of those measures, and I am glad my State and
other States will again have that opportunity to be able to use this.
____________________