[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2659-2665]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 2660]]

     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-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.

[[Page 2661]]

  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 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

[[Page 2662]]

     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 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.

[[Page 2663]]

  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. 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 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.

[[Page 2664]]

  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 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

[[Page 2665]]

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 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.

                          ____________________