Rep. Steve Hickey on Drug Tests for Welfare Recipients

Representative Steve Hickey on HB1152 / transcript —

 

Mr. Speaker and honorable members of this House.

 

I rise today as one who has spent 24 years in a people-helping profession, serving the poor and being on the frontlines of compassion.  It has been my fortune to be able to give, perhaps into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to countless people in need – I’m talking weekly – people who come with legitimate needs for assistance: rent money, money for car repairs, gas, groceries, medicine, diapers and daycare.

 

Those who have the fortune of dispensing benevolence dollars have policies and procedures in place to make sure we aren’t giving money that people will turn right around and use to buy cigarettes, booze, or worse. In my case, we know this is money from an offering plate, often it’s the widow’s mite… and so for us it’s really a sacred obligation that we are careful that every penny goes to meet real needs.

 

But should it be any different for those of us here entrusted to steward the people’s money?  It’s remarkable actually, considering our state budget problems and our accountability to the taxpayers, that that same diligence isn’t given when our state gives handouts.

 

The Dept of Social Services is to be commended for the fine job and the tough job they do and I know they are opposing on the grounds that “it’s not their role” but it absolutely is their role to make sure tax dollars they steward aren’t used to perpetuate substance abuse and ensure that those dollars actually go where they are intended to go? If it’s not their role, whose role is it to make sure tax dollars are only given to legitimate needs? It’s ultimately our role as legislators to pass tax-dollar safeguards like this into law. We heard in committee last week there are no perimeters given to TANF recipients about what that money can be used for – we also heard testimony from apartment owners and business leaders right here in Pierre who testify that recipients of state funds areusing those funds to buy drugs.

 

This is outrageous to the average taxpayer. I hear great frustration back in my district, things like… are you kidding me?… if they have money for drugs,  obviously they don’t need state dollars. Those who deal each day with substance abuse know how <span>enabling</span> effectually delays any recovery. We know that substance abusers who hit bottom sooner than later are better off. This bill is a good faith effort demonstrating to the taxpayers of this state that we aren’t enabling and perpetuating, and exaserbating.

 

Initially, I was opposing this bill only for the reason that in it’s earlier version there was no language about the options for treatment and without that, innocent family members and children would have been negatively affected. However, that is no longer an issue as here in the amended version we have the stipulation that “the person shall be referred for appropriate professional or agency assistance.” That means the rest of the family will be taken into consideration and be on the state’s radar.

 

At present, kids with parents on drugs are in greater jeopardy. We heard in committee from a man who owns one hundred apartment units here in Pierre – he reports that on numerous occasions he’ll go to the door of one of his apartment’s mid-morning for maintenance and kids, whoshould be in school, answer the doors because their parent is passed out in bed. At present, DSS says the system in place is that people who suspect abuse should just call law enforcement.  Isn’t that far more harsh than what we are talking about here? Drug testing identifies the problem and gets people to help.

 

Several government and private industry studies demonstrate that each drug user in the workplace costs an employer on average $7,000-$13,000 annually.  How much more are drug users costing our state support systems?

 

A man in my district owns a sheet metal business and he told me he resents all the talk of unemployment right now because he and a number of business owners he knows <span>have jobs</span> but they can’t find drug-free workers. He told me never again, he refuses to hire a meth problem. These are workers he says who have no incentive to clean up because they know when they get fired or denied employment; the state will keep feeding their addiction and enabling them to use.

 

I represent him here and those like him who point out drug tests aren’t unreasonable… submitting to one today is across-the-board-standard in seeking just about any employment.  It’s not demeaning or demoralizing or embarrassing; it’s standard even for pilots.

 

At his inauguration last month Governor Daugaard said…

 

In South Dakota, we help our neighbor who stumbles. The many who earn their way come to the aid of the few who need a helping hand. ((Everyone needs a hand up now and then, but… )) we must never carry the man who lies down.

 

In my estimation, this is a compassionate bill, yet a tough-love type bill. One of the ways we help people is to show tough love. It doesn’t help them or their families to let this go on unchecked. For these reasons I encourage each of you to push the green button here on HB1152.

 

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

 

NOTE: Bill failed 32-36 in the House, February 7, 2011.