Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
This resolution would have both the House and Senate adopt a program requiring each Member to take one random drug test per term, with confirmed positives reported to the appropriate ethics committee and refusals publicly disclosed. It directs the House and Senate committees that oversee chamber operations to write rules to run the testing program and says Members must reimburse testing costs. As a concurrent resolution, it is an instruction adopted by both chambers about their internal procedures rather than a law sent to the President and enforced like ordinary statutes.
Concurrent resolutions must be passed by both the House and Senate; they are not sent to the President and do not create law outside of Congress. They are used to set or coordinate internal congressional procedures and can require committees to issue implementing rules.
This concurrent resolution would require every Member of the House and the Senate to take a random drug test once per term.
Confirmed positive results are reported to the Member and the appropriate congressional ethics committee; refusal to participate must be publicly disclosed.
Members would reimburse the cost of their test, and House and Senate committees would issue implementing rules.
As a concurrent resolution affecting only Congress, adoption requires both chambers and provokes constitutional/privacy concerns; procedural resistance in the Senate lowers overall chance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution establishes a clear, limited administrative requirement for Members to undergo random drug testing and delegates implementation to chamber committees, but it leaves many necessary operational, funding, timeline, and oversight details to be developed later.
Accountability vs privacy: transparency supporters versus privacy skeptics
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Accountability vs privacy: transparency supporters versus privacy skeptics
Likely supportive of increased accountability and transparency for elected officials, but cautious about privacy and due-process protections.
Views one test per term as limited but potentially useful.
Would press for medical confidentiality and safeguards against politicized disclosures.
Generally favorable to the goal of ensuring elected officials meet legal standards, while wanting clear procedures and legal defensibility.
Sees value in uniform rules and reimbursement, but wants specifics on frequency, appeals, and implementation.
Skeptical of compelled, suspicionless drug testing of elected officials due to privacy and limited-government concerns.
Some conservatives may like transparency about refusals and cost reimbursement, but many will view the measure as federal overreach or political theater.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
As a concurrent resolution affecting only Congress, adoption requires both chambers and provokes constitutional/privacy concerns; procedural resistance in the Senate lowers overall chance.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Accountability vs privacy: transparency supporters versus privacy skeptics
As a concurrent resolution affecting only Congress, adoption requires both chambers and provokes constitutional/privacy concerns; procedura…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution establishes a clear, limited administrative requirement for Members to undergo random drug testing and delegates implementation to chamber committees…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.