[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4238-4239]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 4239]]

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.

                          ____________________