John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself another minute and 30 seconds. The National Institute on Drug Abuse indicates that $140 billion a year is lost in this country from theft, loss of productivity, accidents, and absenteeism related to drug use. Let us send a clear message that drug use is incompatible with the kind of productive employment necessary to our survival. I think an intelligent policy is to say that we should have a random drug testing policy. Random testing will send a clear signal that drug utilization and job training are incompatible. A message that the Congress has failed to send in the past, but that we can and should send today. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2895 (Purpose: To reduce the Federal labor bureaucracy)

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment would provide for random drug testing for individuals in job training programs. The truth of the matter is that 89 percent of all manufacturers, 88 percent of all those in the transportation industry, 77 percent of all employers provide for drug testing prior to employment. If we expect for people who move through our job training programs to be really employable, we need to ask them to participate by getting drug free in the process. We need to send a clear signal that being on a track of drug use and job training or employability are incompatible and inconsistent tracks. We have limited job training resources. We do not have enough to go around. Let us make sure that we use them well by saying that those individuals who are drug-free will be the individuals for whom we provide job training. To ask that individuals undergo random drug tests in job training is merely to reflect the reality of the marketplace where 89 percent of manufacturers will require it. Let us not perpetuate a myth that somehow drugs are compatible with employment and that productivity and achievement are compatible with drugs. Let us say that we provide for random drug testing that will focus our job training resources on those who care enough to be drug free and will be employable upon the completion of the program. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for order in the Chamber.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am not sure how much is available in drug treatment programs. There are drug treatment programs.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. We have a limited number of dollars we devote to job training. We can either train people regardless of whether they use drugs, or we can decide to train people who are drug-free. If we train people who are drug-free, there will more people who will get jobs than if we train both the drug free and abusers of illicit drugs. It seems to me, if our ultimate objective is to train people to be employed, we should train people who care enough about working that they are willing to put aside a lifestyle of drug addiction and abuse. In the end, the reason this amendment is worthy of our consideration is that 77 percent of all firms test for drug use. So, we can continue to waltz people along in the sleepy myth that you can be on drugs and get a job or we can embrace the truth. Why waste the $2,000 or $4,000 in training a person only to have them disqualified when they get finished with the training? That is the difference between the farmer. That is the difference between the welfare recipient. There is reality at the end of the training. It is called employment and you cannot get it if you are on drugs. I urge the Members of this body to respond, to allocate our training funds to individuals who are drug-free. Thank you.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am pleased the Senator asked the question, because I have the answer. The farmer who gets assistance does not have to pass a drug test before he sells his cattle. But the employee who seeks training will have to pass a test before he can be hired. In the latter case, the benefit is denied, the benefit for which the training was undertaken. That is the answer to your question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I regret the fact that not everyone in the Senate was in attendance last night when we debated these issues. The Senator raises the question of why deal with job training? It is because reality is going to deal with job training applicants and participants on drugs. Mr. President, 89 percent of the employers will test for them in manufacturing; 88 percent in transportation. Why do we not move that test up and help people get started down the right path, instead of going through some kind of training and then being hit by this wall. We do not have that problem in farming. There is not going to be a drug test that keeps a farmer from selling his cattle. That issue is totally specious. I do not know why we choose to discuss the welfare situation here, but we just passed a welfare bill that provides that States may suspend benefits to welfare recipients who test positive for drugs. I do not know what we did in 1986, but I know what we did in 1995 and that is part of the welfare reform measure we just passed. The point is we do have scarce resources. Why waste them on individuals who are not going to be employable when they are through with the work training program? Since the resources are scarce, let us focus them on the individuals who are responsible enough, who care enough about their families, who care enough about their future to be able to benefit from the training program because they are not high on drugs. Let us not stick our heads in the sand, while someone else is sticking a needle in his arm. Let us say if you have to be drug free to work then drug testing ought to be a fundamental part of your training. You have to learn to be drug free because that is the way the work force is going to survive. It is that simple. Let us not perpetuate a myth that somehow you can go down the dual highway, one of the roads being drug utilization and the other road being job training or job seeking. The truth of the matter is, American industry is clear. Mr. President, 77 percent of all employers test for drugs, 89 percent in manufacturing, 88 percent in transportation. We ought to send a signal loudly and clearly to individuals who are part of our training program. Part of your training is to adopt a lifestyle which will be productive and which will result in employability, not to persist in a lifestyle which will send you slamming into a wall of unemployment and despair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for providing this time for explanation and debate regarding the amendment I have proposed. The amendment which I have proposed is an amendment which would allow us to target and focus our scarce job training resources on individuals who would be most likely to use those resources effectively, most likely to benefit from training. The amendment requires random drug testing for all job training applicants. The number of the individuals tested and the frequency would be left to the localities. The amendment would also ask the States to test participants in the program based on a standard of reasonable suspicion. If an applicant or participant tested positive they could reapply after 6 months from the date of disqualification but they must show for reapplication that they passed a drug test within the last 30 days. Mr. President, as the chart behind me indicates, 89 percent of all the manufacturers test for drug utilization; 88 [[Page S 14976]] percent of all people in the transportation industry. It is true that in the financial services sector only 47 percent of employers test for drugs. The fact of the matter is, however, we are not in the business of developing mutual fund managers. We are talking about applicants and participants who will seek jobs in major industries like manufacturing and transportation. Mr. President, it seems to me that if we have a scarce resource, we ought to focus it on individuals who will be able to get jobs at the conclusion of the program. Those individuals who are going to be placed are the ones who are drug-free. Let us not perpetuate the myth that you can travel down the road of drug utilization and job development at the same time. You cannot. The truth of the matter is if you want a job, you are going to have be drug-free. These are the facts, and to suggest otherwise is both inaccurate and inappropriate. So a vote ``yes'' for this amendment is a vote for the belief that a finite resource should be focused on individuals who are employable. Are we interested in saving millions of dollars for the taxpayers? That is what the American people have asked us to do. Why should we spend thousands of dollars to train individuals who are going to hit this wall? Do we want to reduce the $140 billion companies lose to drug-addicted workers every year?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. No. There are separate funds available in every jurisdiction for drug treatment programs, some of which are Federal funds and some of which are State funds.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator raised a number of questions. If we are going to drug test individuals who are in the job training program, why not drug test farmers in Missouri who get crop subsidies in some way? Here are the reasons to drug test individuals. They are going to be drug tested anyway, and the benefit we give them is going to be lost. They are not going to get the jobs. Madam President, 89 percent of the manufacturers are going to say, ``No dice. You are on drugs. You cannot work here.'' We are going to have spent $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, up to $20,000, $21,000, $22,000, $23,000 on these individuals and what are they going to do? They are going to run into a brick wall. The idea that somehow it is compassionate to say, ``That is quite all right. Just stay with your drugs. Don't worry, we aren't going to test you. Because we are not going to test everybody, we cannot test you.'' These are the folks who are going to run into the wall of tests as soon as they try to get jobs. These tests I am recommending are related to the fact we are trying to give them a benefit for purpose of employment. And one of the things that will stop them from enjoying the benefit is the fact they will have to take a drug test. It seems to me it is eminently reasonable that, instead of saying we will spend the $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 on your training and then you take the drug test, why do you not take the drug test first? Why do you not make a part of your preparation for the rest of your life, part of the development for the workplace--why do you not make it so you move yourself into a drug-free category? No. 2, he said, ``Why do we not do the farmers and the flood relief people,'' as if we pick and choose between farmers and individuals who get flood relief. Not so, we do not do it that way. But we do pick and choose. How often has it been said in this debate alone, ``I wish we had more money. I wish we had more training. We need more training.'' So we are picking and choosing, except we are not picking and choosing wisely. We have decided we will just ignore the fact that some of the individuals who are in the program have a far lower opportunity to succeed than others. They are people on drugs. Why do we not--since this resource is scarce, since we do not have a lot of money, since we have limited resources--why do we not focus it on people who are likely to succeed? It seems to me that is a question that hardly demands an answer. Then, that is an unfunded mandate; somehow, that this is costly to the States, when you could spend $35 to find out you are not going to waste $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 on people because people will later run into a wall or not have the kind of training for the job for which they were seeking training. It seems to me this is a classic case of the ounce of prevention is better than the pound of cure. They get a pound of cure. They get pounded when they go to ask for a job. They ought to have this clear statement made earlier. The Senator kindly says, if I would just agree to build drug treatment centers all over the country and fund drug treatment, he would be a cosponsor. I really think we ought to be involved in something other than treatment. This is a way for us to say let us prevent this. Let us not try to slam this gate after the horses are gone. Do you know what the success rate is for drug treatment centers that are sponsored by the Government? It is so low, it is less than 5 percent. It is less than 5 percent. And we want to do that instead of telling people up front they should not be involved in drugs? It is no wonder what is happening to us is that we are seeing this escalation. We need to stop this escalation. We need to say it is time for us to wake up to reality. Let us not focus our resources on those who will not be able to benefit from them. Let us not perpetuate the myth that they can be a part of the drug culture and the work culture at the same time, and send them out to have these doors slammed in their faces. That is not compassion. That is not kindness. We are sticking our heads in the sand while they are sticking needles into their arms. We need to be real, and we need to ask them to confront reality. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, the training of an appropriate and productive work force is essential to the future of America. We are not speaking this evening about some marginal enterprise. The success and survival of this society in the next century depends on our ability to be productive and our ability to be competitive in a global marketplace which, more frequently than not, now requires us to match the productivity of people around the globe. It is important for us, then, to do those things which we can to help our work force be the most competitive and productive work force on the face of the Earth. There are a variety of challenges to productivity and worker success in America. One of the challenges which our workers face is the challenge of narcotics and drugs. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has found that illicit drug use costs about $140 billion annually in lost productivity, thefts, absenteeism and accidents. It is as if a $140 billion tariff were to be placed upon American goods in the world marketplace. It is a cost which must be undertaken, a cost which must be covered. It hurts our ability to compete. It substantially impairs our ability to deliver to consumers goods at an appropriate price. And it challenges the sense in which this society can be successful, not only in this decade but in the next century. Just to give you an idea, we are debating a bill of $7.8 billion in terms of job training, and yet we are talking about $140 billion a year that we find is basically levied against our system because we have the problem of drug abuse in the workplace. The amendment which I have sent to the desk and which I called to the attention of the U.S. Senate, for which I urge Senator's serious consideration, is an amendment which would seek to signal very clearly that this Government does not endorse drug use in the marketplace. As a matter of fact, we could not endorse it and make it work. Seventy-seven percent of all the companies that hire employees in the United States do drug testing because they know that, as a matter of fact, individuals who are on drugs are not productive, are not capable, do not turn out to be good employees. The Utah Power and Light Co. ran a survey, and they found that individuals who had tested positive on drugs were 77 percent more likely to be fired during their first 3 years of employment. So this challenge to America, the challenge to our productivity, the challenge to our ability to appropriately deploy a resource which is scarce--training dollars--is an important challenge, and it is the drug challenge. There are a few facts about drugs in America which are not inspiring, but they are instructive. We began to make progress in the war on drugs. From 1989 to 1992, we were driving down the number of individuals who had used an illicit drug during the last 12 months. Unfortunately, since 1992, we have seen that on the uptake and on the increase. We will not be competitive or successful if drug use continues to go in this direction. We need, as a Government, as a society, and as a culture, to send a signal, to make it a signal which is unmistakably clear that individuals cannot contemporaneously be involved in illicit narcotics in the work force and in the achievement of other goals and dreams that are common to America. Certainly true in the private sector--77 percent of the firms in the private sector test for drug use. Even small firms, from 1 to 499 in number, 62.3 percent of those firms test. Of course, in the large firms, 88 percent test; 88.6 percent of those firms having between 2,500 jobs and 10,000 jobs test; 88 percent of the firms with over 10,000 test. It is important to note the categories in which firms do drug testing. Manufacturers--these are the places where people who are trained to work, who go through training programs need to find jobs. Eighty-nine percent of the manufacturers involve themselves in drug testing; 88 percent in transportation; and sales, 71 percent; financial service, only 47 percent. I venture to say that our job training program is not going to be training mutual fund managers. We are talking about folks who will have to find themselves employed in these categories. I think in fairness to individuals who will be looking for jobs in these industries where they will be drug tested, we should say to them, you need to be drug free to be part of the job training program. [[Page S 14879]] We should not allow them to continue along a pathway of mythology which says you can go ahead and be involved in illicit drugs and still be involved productively in society. You can still get a good job. The truth of the matter is, you cannot. We need to ask ourselves whether we are really being compassionate if we have a program of job training that ignores drug use and suggests that the mythology that you can just waltz along in drug use and get a job is reality, or whether we ought to introduce people to the reality of the fact if you want a job, you want to be on the payroll, you have to be off the drug role. It is that simple. I think these are compelling facts that we do an injustice to a population of individuals that wants to aspire to and wants to prepare for the work force if we fail to tell them very clearly and unmistakably, you cannot have both of these tracks going. It does not work. It is bad national policy. It costs the country $140 billion a year. It will not work for you personally, because 90 percent virtually of the kinds of businesses where you get jobs will not allow you to come to work without first taking a drug test. I believe it is time for us to say we ought to have drug testing for those who are involved in job training. We need to prepare them at the earliest time possible to understand the reality of the work force. The reality of the work force is you cannot be on the payroll if you are on drugs. These numbers, these conditions, I think compel us to a conclusion that we need to have drug testing. I think there are other reasons to have drug testing. We have talked over and over again, we hear people remark how scarce job training funds are, how we need more job training funds, how there is a population that needs job training but we do not have all of the resources to meet the needs. When you have a universe of scarcity, when you have more people needing training than you have funds to train them, you have to decide who you will train. It seems to me you ought to decide to train the people who are most likely to get jobs and most likely to be able to keep those jobs. Now, the amendment which I have sent to the desk and for which I ask consideration and approval is an amendment that says we will train people who are drug free. It is really a way of saying we want to use our training funds efficiently. We want to use them effectively. We do not want to spend a lot of money training someone, then sending them to one of the manufacturers and having them wash them out of the system. I think that is eminently reasonable. I think it is important for us, it is fair to the worker to say we need for you to confront reality now. It is fair to America to say we ought to deploy our resource for training where it is most productive and where it will have a positive effect and where it is likely to help someone get a job, instead of perpetuating a myth for them until they run into their application which requires them to be involved in drug testing. Millions of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted on individuals expecting to receive or receiving training but not capable of being trained as they ought to. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to try and train someone who was on drugs? It seems to me that it is eminently reasonable we ought to say to individuals, if you want a job, you need to get off drugs. Our program ought to make a clear and unmistakable statement. I think a vote for this amendment is a vote that says we as a country ought to say to individuals honestly and early, you cannot follow both tracks. You cannot follow the drug culture and also the culture of industry. I think we ought to make that clear. It is unfair to them. If you vote against drug testing, you vote in favor of saying continue the current policy of ignoring drug use. I think ignoring drug use is like ignoring a cancer on the body of this great Nation. We may be able to ignore it today but its presence will be felt and it will erode and undermine and the canker of it all will make it impossible for us to succeed. I come to say stop suggesting that you can be involved in the drug culture and the culture of industry and the work ethic. That is the wrong set of values. It is wrong. It is morally wrong to suggest that you can come along, go ahead and get training, you will get a job, send them out to hit this 89, 90 percent of the companies, and then have them rejected, told that the money the taxpayers have spent for their training is wasted. I think that is morally wrong. I think it is also a bad allocation of public resources. If the resources are scarce, train the people for jobs who can benefit from the training. Make a statement to the people who pay their taxes, who send us here to Washington, that we will honor and respect those who care enough about themselves, their families and their futures to be drug free and to seriously deal with job training, and we will prefer them over people who do not care enough about themselves or their families to stay off drugs long enough to get job training. I cannot imagine that this body would want to reject this amendment and thereby say that we preferred to tell people that we do not have a preference between drug use and nondrug use. This bill is not an unreasonable bill. It provides for random drug tests. It provides for drug tests on reasonable suspicion. It allows individuals who have failed the drug test to clean up their lives and to come back. It allows firms to have greater confidence in graduates of drug training programs. It makes the right statement. It says to America we need to be productive. We need to be competitive. We need to be successful. Yes, we need to be compassionate, so compassionate that we will not allow people to sail along in the middle of a myth but we will ask people to respect reality. Early in the program if you want to be involved in training, you should be drug free. Let me just say this is not novel or new. There are Job Corps programs. Of course, they cost $23,000 a year for full-time people. There are requirements that there be drug training there. I think it is a good program. I think it is a good requirement. I think it is a requirement that should be extended to other individuals. I believe that this amendment which would provide for this random drug testing would provide for opportunities for individuals to be preferred if they were drug free, because it would say to individuals if you are not drug free, we will not waste the public's resource on trying to train you for a job you cannot get because of your drug habit. I think this is an amendment which ought to have the approval of the U.S. Senate because I believe it carries a strong endorsement of the people of this country. I urge the Members of the Senate to respond constructively and vote in favor of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois. I really regret the fact he is leaving, because I would like to have a chance to respond. But I understand people leave this Senate very frequently. I would like to address, and I hope he will not be offended if I address very specifically, the arguments which he has raised, in his absence. I do not do that because he is leaving in anticipation he will not refute me, but I do it because, though he is leaving, I cannot do it at any other time.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, let me just address these issues. And I thank the Senator from Kansas. I particularly thank her for providing me the opportunity to offer this amendment. First of all, as it relates to whether or not this is a mandate, we are sending Federal money--$7.8 billion--in block grants. That money can be used to conduct the test. That is not an unfunded mandate. It is an opportunity to deploy the money that the Federal Government invests wisely. To take a $35 test and decide we are not going to spend $2,000 or $5,000 or $10,000 on someone who is going to fail a drug test when they go out to get a job--you can call it a Federal mandate, if you want, but any condition at all in the law, I guess, is called a Federal mandate. But the funding is in this bill. I am delighted that the Republican Governors have written about mandates. But there are lots of other conditions in this bill. I would be most pleased to agree with the chairman that we would take all of the mandates out of this bill, but I would withdraw all of the conditions, and I would withdraw these conditions. I hope she will submit the letters of the Republican Governors for the Record so that they can be clear about the fact that all of the other things in the bill that they objected to are not really less onerous. Many of them are far more onerous than this particular idea. The Job Corps obviously is the tough area. It is a residential program. It costs a lot of money. It takes the toughest cases, and in those toughest cases that is where they have problems with drugs more frequently than others. But they have recognized that it is inappropriate to spend this kind of resource and expect, having spent the kind of resource, to get good results unless we get people to be drug free. Because they have some failures does not mean that they should not do it. As a matter of fact, if they did not do drug testing, we would never know about the problem. People would just whistle through the program taking their drugs, and then hitting the wall when they go to apply for work. That is what we are really setting up as the way of handling this. Two last points: First, this is a very generous amendment which suggests to the States that they do not have to have a specific program of testing. It says they have to develop a program, and it can be a random testing program. It leaves it up to the States as to how to shape it, how often to have it, what numbers involved in the program. It does not say they have to do 10 per 1,000. It does not say they have to do 50 per 1,000. It says use your good judgment. It says to the States use your good judgment, but in spending this Federal resource find a way not to spend it so as to waste it, and do not lead people to believe they are on a track for a job when they are going to hit a wall of employers who say they are going to have to be tested. The last point. The bill does provide that in addition to the random approach that Governors are allowed to select, there is a reasonable suspicion test that can be used in the program. So we are very close to what the chairman has suggested as a compromise. We do require that a State would set up a random testing program to be determined by the State. We also allow the States to participate in a reasonable suspicion imposition of a test. I believe we should stop suggesting it is unimportant whether or not people who seek training are on drugs. We must make a statement to them. We must allocate our resource effectively, [[Page S 14882]] and that means we should stop devoting resource to those who are on drugs and begin to focus the resource on those who care enough to be ready to go on the payroll by being off drugs. I thank the Senator, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. No. We do not specify what can happen. We just say that they are eligible to apply again for participation, and, if they can apply and demonstrate that they are drug free, then they are eligible for participation. So there is no continuing prejudice as a result of a single negative drug test. The multiple drug test amendment provides that after several drug tests, all of which are positive, the person has to wait for about a 2-year period before coming in to ask again for an application in the program.

Mr. ASHCROFT. They could match this with resources of their own. The bill does not require that any particular funding, of course, be used to conduct the drug testing.

Mr. ASHCROFT. That is correct.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. If the Senator is inquiring of me under my amendment, there is no intention on our part to have additional funding from the Federal Government outside the block grant.

Mr. ASHCROFT. My understanding is that the local entity, whether it is the Governor or whether another institution, would be responsible.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on AmeriCorps. Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague and my good friend, Senator Bond, for his management of this bill as well as his unending commitment to the taxpayers of Missouri. His opposition to the Corporation for National Service is another example of the fiscal integrity that has marked his career in the Senate, and I am honored to join him here. Americans constitute a community of service. Last year 90 million Americans of all ages gave their time to civic and religious organizations. They cared for the poor, sick, the broken, and the lonely. They gave their time without regard to benefit or pay. They did it as a matter of personal devotion and out of their regard for each other as part of the way we live our lives as Americans. Their personal sacrifice is, in my opinion, mocked by a Government program with a catchy name like AmeriCorps. Mr. President, we have for most of this Congress been debating Washington's legitimate role in our daily lives. Some cases are tough, tough debates--debates on welfare, crime, and education. Others are not. This is not a tough case. AmeriCorps is a $27,000 per participant boondoggle for kids trying to find themselves. AmeriCorps is welfare for the well-to-do. Mr. President, for what AmeriCorps costs annually we could send two poor students to the University of Missouri for 4 years, all expenses paid, for everyone person we send through AmeriCorps. We could give 18 Pell grants to needy students for the annual cost of one AmeriCorps participant. AmeriCorps is wasteful and bureaucratic. At least $15,000 per AmeriCorps participant goes into overhead and administration here in Washington. Only in Washington could $15,000 a year be paid for paper turning, and as a result that would be considered volunteer service. Of the AmeriCorps participants, 1,200 serve--volunteer--at the U.S. Department of Agriculture; 525 volunteer at the Interior Department; and 60 serve at the National Endowment for the Arts. This is not in the spirit of volunteering. This is not in the spirit of service that we normally find for American communities. I rise to oppose this because I believe that a volunteer program should be a volunteer program. It should not be a way to subsidies the Federal bureaucracy and send individuals into the bureaucracy at rates of pay that deprive other needy programs, that displace the ability to meet other needs in our culture. So I am pleased to support my senior Senator's motion which would defund or otherwise take AmeriCorps out, because I do not believe we should be spending money at this level in an enterprise which masquerades as a volunteer program but is a very expensive program. Several Senators addressed the Chair.