Drug testing bill obstacles:
Short on votes and time

Frustrated by a roadblock in the Senate, leaders threaten to extend the
session until the proposal is passed.

By THOMAS A. FOGARTY
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

With Iowa lawmakers getting restless for adjournment, the move to
expand the rights of employers to test workers for drug and alcohol use
appears to be stalled in the Senate.
Right now, it looks like a statemate," said Janice Laue, legislative
lobbyist for the Iowa Federation of Labor and an opponent of the pending
legislation.
Matt Eide, lobbyist for the Iowa Association of Business and Industry,
acknowledged the drug testing bill favored by his organization seems to be
taking on water in the Senate. But it hasn't sunk yet, he says.
"It's no secret that several Republican senators have indicated severe
reservations about drug testing," Eide said. "We're certainly not giving up
on moving the bill through the Senate this year.... At this point in the
session, there's a lot of horsetrading going on."
At the moment, the drug testing bill looms as one of the major
impediments to closing down the session, which enters its 15th week today.
Republican leaders say they'd like to adjourn in April, possibly as
early as Friday. But until the drug testing bill passes, says House Speaker
Ronald Corbett, RCedar Rapids, everybody should get comfortable because
nobody's going home.
Business lobbyists in Iowa have tried unsuccessfully for the past
decade to expand businesses' rights to test workers for drugs and alcohol.
With both houses of the Iowa legislature under the control of
businessfriendly Republicans for the first time since 1982, this was
expected to be the year they would achieve their goal.
The drug testing bill was designated at the start of the session as a
top priority for the business association, for Republican Gov. Terry
Branstad and for leaders of the GOP majority in each legislative House.
"There are certain things Republicans stand for," Corbett said. "The
House is not going to adjourn (this week) unless we get drug testing."
Senate Majority Leader Stewart Iverson, RDows, said he's not
despairing yet about getting the bill passed in the Senate.
"I feel confident we'll get something worked out," he said.
"Everything that goes through the legislature gets compromised on, and I
don't think this issue is any different."
But Sen. Steve King, RKiron, who's been designated as the manager of
the bill if and when it comes up for debate, said there are limits to how
watered dowm the bill can get. "I don't see us revisiting this next year.
I want to get it right this year."
On Feb. 27, the House voted 5444 to approve a broad expansion of
private employers' rights to compel workers to produce urine samples for
drug tests.
Among other provisions, the bill would allow testing of an applicant
before an applicant is offered a job. Now, a preemployment drug test may
be required as part of a full physical exam after a conditional joboffer is
made. It also authorizes random testing and defines procedures for carrying
it out. The bill also would absolve employers of the responsibility to pay
for assessment and treatment of workers who test positive for drugs if those
expenses aren't covered by insurance.
Since arriving from the House, the bill has languished in the Senate.
Its troubles come down to simple mathematics.
All 22 Democrats in the Senate either oppose any change in Iowa's
10yearold drug testing law or are unwilling to accept changes of the
magnitude proposeded in the Houseapproved bill. That leaves the 28 Senate
Republicans to produce all 26 votes needed for Senate passage. They appear
to be significantly short of votes.
At least three Senate Republicans Jack Rife of Durant, Derryl McLaren
of Farragut and Mary Lundby of Marion have parted ways with their party on
the proposed drugtesting law. Each says the House version goes too far in
increasing authority of employers and eroding the privacy rights of workers.
While supporters of the bill attempt to keep the debate focused on
safety, McLaren says the powers conferred by the Houseapproved bill go well
beyond prudent concerns about reducing injuries.
"It's Big Brother," McLaren said. "They could be testing for all sorts
of things. They want to know the health weaknesses of their workers.
For Rife's part, he said the law needs to be changed to make it more
useful to employers. But the Housepassed version, he said, is deficient on
several counts.
Among other complaints, Rife said, the bill goes too far in lowering
the standard of proof needed for testing a worker who appears to be under
the influence of drugs or alcohol. It's also deficient in not providing
sufficient punishment for an employer or laboratory that breaches the
confidentiality of the test results, he said.
As chairman of the Senate Business and Labor Committee, Rife had
expected to influence the shape of the legislation. But earlier this year,
Rife began talking publicly about additional safeguards for workers. Senate
Republican leaders maneuvered to keep the bill out of his committee.
"Leadership thought they were going to do a slam dunk, and it doesn't
work that way," Rife said.
King, the floor manager of the bill, said he's about "60 percent
confident" that some version of the house bill will win Senate approval.
Within limits, King said, he's willing to accept amendments to the bill that
would increase safeguards for workers faced with the prospect of drug tests.
One point on which King said he won't yield is the provision in the
House bill that would relieve employers of the financial responsibility for
assessment and treatment of workers who test positive for drug or alcohol
use.
King, a contractor, said that sticking the employer with the costs
would effectively bar small companies like his from undertaking a random
drugtesting program. Besides, he said, forcing the employer to pay would
be "to compel employers to pay for the irresponsible and illegal actions of
their employees."
Laue, the lobbyist, deesn't see the treatment issue that way. On the
first instance of a positive drug test, she said, an employer should cover
uninsured costs of assessment and treatment.
Said Laue: "With rights go responsibilities. They should deal with the
responsibilities of drug testing."