* This message forwarded from private area of Rich Woods
  * Original message dated 30 Dec 96  05:59:47, from Burro 
 
 Apparently-to: rich.woods@245.genesplicer.org
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:59:47 +0300
From: burro 
Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU 
[132.236.56.15]) by wave.beaches.net (8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA19709 for 
; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:37:57 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 
listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA19054; Mon, 30 Dec 
1996 16:22:45 -0500
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6]) by 
listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA19036 for 
; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:22:30 
0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cornell.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA25731 
for CYBERNEWS-TALK-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:27:26 
-0500 (EST)
Received: from zeus.initco.net (zeus.initco.net [205.162.172.3]) by 
cornell.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA25721 for 
; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:27:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [205.162.172.32] (helena13.initco.net [205.162.172.42]) by 
zeus.initco.net (8.6.9/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15708 for 
; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 14:27:00 -0700
Message-Id: 
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 14:27:00 -0700
Reply-To: CYBERNEWS-TALK-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CYBERNEWS-TALK-L@cornell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Allen Comstock 
To: Cybernews Talk listserv  
Subject: Drug Tests for Congressmen
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
        
Congress Takes A Pass On Mandatory Drug Testing
By Mary Jacoby
Chicago Tribune
December 30, 1996
Dateline:  WASHINGTON
The House of Representatives may be dominated by get-tough
conservatives, but it's not particularly enthusiastic about one
distinctly law-and-order proposal: members submitting to
mandatory drug tests.
In a move one liberal Democrat called hypocritical, House
Republican leaders last month quietly scotched a proposal to
randomly test members of Congress for drugs, and then publish
the results before each election.
"Some of my colleagues have expressed reservations about it,"
admitted Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the proposal's chief
sponsor. A GOP leadership aide was more blunt: "There was a lot
of grumbling."
After the November elections cemented Republican control of the
House for the next two years, Barton's drug-testing proposal
appeared certain to become part of the rules for the upcoming
105th Congress.
Alarmed by reports of rising teenage drug use, conservatives
such as Barton, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Rep. Gerald
Solomon (R-N.Y.), head of the rules committee, sought to
reinvigorate the war on drugs by making an example of
Congress.
Burton and Solomon wanted to begin mandatory drug testing of
congressional staff. Barton wanted to go further by having
mandatory testing of the members themselves.
But a number of Republicans--whom aides and other
congressmen interviewed refuse to identify, saying they don't
want to hurt them politically--let it be known they considered drug
testing an indignity unworthy of their elected
positions.
As one GOP aide argued, since President Clinton doesn't have to
submit to a drug test, why should members of Congress?
"In talking to (Speaker Newt Gingrich), he felt there were some
issues we really needed a lot more public input into," Barton said.
"It is an issue of some sensitivity."
Instead, Gingrich has promised hearings on the issue and will
schedule a House vote in 1997 on legislation to make testing of
lawmakers mandatory, Barton said.
The subject is receiving attention in other quarters, too. In
October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging
the constitutionality of a Georgia law requiring candidates for
elected state office to pass drug tests.
But Gingrich is embroiled in controversy over admitted House
ethics violations and could face trouble winning re-election as
speaker when the new Congress convenes Jan. 7. His fate could
affect the chances that a House committee will hold hearings on
the drug-testing issue.
A prominent liberal Democrat, meanwhile, is questioning whether
Republicans who support drug testing in principle are being
hypocritical when they say it shouldn't apply to themselves.
"The general principle is, you don't assume people are breaking
the law and then subject them to an unnecessary
inconvenience," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a member of
the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
Frank said privacy and dignity are issues not just for lawmakers
but also for the millions of private- and public-sector workers
who undergo the tests. "I don't think members of Congress
should be drug tested, and I don't think you should, either," said
Frank, who has long been concerned with civil liberties issues.
The exception, Frank said, should be when safety is a concern,
such as when workers operate heavy equipment.
In the late 1970s, ads for drug paraphernalia occasionally
appeared in Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper. But in the 1980s,
when "Just Say No" became a national slogan, the movement to
institute drug testing on Capitol Hill began heating up.
In 1991, the House passed an amendment requiring drug tests
for members of Congress, but the legislation was later dropped
in House-Senate negotiations.
Then in 1993 Clinton took office. Reports that security clearances
for White House staff were being delayed because new
employees did not want to submit to FBI interviews about past
illegal drug use prompted an outcry among Republicans.
Even so, 21 people were allowed to work at the White House
although background checks indicated recent drug use. The
Secret Service insisted they submit to a special drug testing
program, begun in 1994. As of July 1996, nine remained in the
program; none were senior officials.
The White House also instituted a new, more stringent drug
testing policy
for its staff, then challenged Capitol Hill to do the same.
"We have a mandatory pre-employment drug-testing program
here," spokesman Mike McCurry said on July 24, responding to
Gingrich's suggestions of porous personnel policies at the White
House. "We have random testing of employees to ensure that
there is no drug use.
"The president has a zero tolerance policy for drug use," he
continued.
"And that's something the speaker can't say about his own office
or about the United States Congress. The procedures for
drug-testing on Capitol Hill are quite lax."
Michele Davis, press secretary to House Majority Leader Dick
Armey (R-Texas), said last week that GOP leaders "support the
idea of drug testing. But we don't support mandating anything."
Instead, GOP leaders would like to see House rules changed so
that official funds can be used to pay for drug tests for
lawmakers and their staffs who want to do so voluntarily, Davis
said.
Indiana's Burton, meanwhile, still is pushing for mandatory
testing of congressional staff. He said the issues are safety and
national security. Staff who use drugs should not have access to
classified intelligence documents. And congressional aides who
are high on drugs can endanger Americans through reckless
legislative drafting, Burton insisted.
"If you were getting on an airplane, would you like the pilot to be
high on cocaine? Why wouldn't you? Because airport safety's
involved. The same is true about people who are working on
airport safety legislation," Burton said. Frank scoffed at that
reasoning. Instead, he said, Congress is a "plane piloted by 535
people"--the members of the House and Senate. Even though he
does not condone drug use, narcotics abuse by a few is not
going to effect Congress's overall work, he argued.
Texas' Barton, however, said lawmakers should submit to drug
testing to show Americans they are serious about stopping
illegal drug use.
"I'm not proposing it because I think there's a drug use problem
among members of the House," Barton said. "But I do think role
models count."
************************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe send mail to:
caji-owner@pobox.com with:
(un)subscribe caji youremail@yourprovider.com
in the body of the message.
--- GIGO+ sn 132 at genesplicer vsn 0.99 pl3
--- DLG Pro v1.16g1/PDQMail v2.60
(1:209/245)
---------------