Skip to content
Bills from the 2015–16 session

Assembly Bill 192

Requiring certain unemployment insurance claimants to submit to drug tests, eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits following a drug test, granting rule-making authority, and making an appropriation. (FE)

Passed the Assembly, then stopped

The Assembly passed it on May 13, 2015, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to ⁠. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Apr 24, 2015

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed May 13, 2015

  4. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 13, 2016: “Failed to concur in pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under federal law, a state may require a claimant to submit to a test for the unlawful use of controlled substances (drug test) as a condition of receiving unemployment insurance (UI) benefits if the claimant: 1) was terminated from employment with his or her most recent employer because of the unlawful use of controlled substances; or 2) is an individual for whom suitable work, as defined under a state's UI law, is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing, as determined in regulations issued by the United States Secretary of Labor (federal regulations). As of April 20, 2015, final federal regulations have not been issued.

This bill requires the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to establish a program to require claimants who apply for regular UI benefits to submit to drug tests. The bill requires DWD to determine, when a claimant applies for regular UI benefits, whether the claimant is an individual for whom suitable work is only available in an occupation described in the federal regulations. If DWD determines that the claimant is such an individual, DWD must conduct a screening on the claimant to determine whether there is a reasonable suspicion that the claimant has engaged in the unlawful use of controlled substances. If the screening indicates such a reasonable suspicion, DWD must require the claimant to submit to a drug test.

Read the full summary

The bill provides that, if the claimant declines to submit to such a test, the claimant is ineligible for UI benefits for 52 weeks or until a subsequent claim for benefits, whichever is later. If the claimant submits to the drug test, but does not test positive for any controlled substance without a valid prescription, the claimant may receive UI benefits if otherwise eligible and may not be required to submit to any further drug test until a subsequent claim for benefits. If the claimant submits to the drug test and tests positive for one or more controlled substances without a valid prescription, the bill provides that the claimant is ineligible for UI benefits for 52 weeks or until a subsequent claim for benefits, whichever is later, except that following the positive test, the claimant may maintain his or her eligibility for UI benefits by enrolling in a state-sponsored substance abuse treatment program and undergoing a state-sponsored job skills assessment. The claimant remains eligible for benefits for each week the claimant is in full compliance with any requirements of the substance abuse treatment program and job skills assessment.

The bill also requires DWD to conduct, every ten years, a survey of employers to identify occupations for which employers require pre-employment, random, or reasonable suspicion drug testing as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment. The bill then requires DWD to promulgate rules identifying occupations for which more than 50 percent of employers so surveyed indicated that drug testing is required as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, as well as additional rules identifying occupations in certain specified categories listed in the bill. The bill then requires that DWD likewise apply the above provisions related to screening, drug testing, substance abuse, and eligibility for benefits to claimants for whom suitable work is only available in an occupation identified by DWD in either set of rules.

In addition, the bill allows an employing unit to voluntarily submit to DWD the results of a drug test that was conducted on an individual as preemployment screening or notify DWD that an individual declined to submit to such a test. If the results of the test indicate that the individual has tested positive for one or more controlled substances without a valid prescription, or if the individual declined to submit to such a test, the bill provides that there is a presumption, rebuttable as provided in rules promulgated by DWD, that the claimant has failed to accept suitable work when offered. If the presumption is not rebutted, the claimant is ineligible for UI benefits as if the claimant had tested positive in or declined to submit to a drug test conducted by DWD, beginning with the week in which DWD receives the report.

The bill provides that if a claimant continues to receive benefits after testing positive for the unlawful use a controlled substance, the claimant's benefits are charged to the balancing account of the unemployment reserve fund, which is a pooled account financed by all employers that pay contributions and used to pay benefits that are not chargeable to any employer's account.

Who's behind it

16 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 16 are Republicans.

1 more lawmaker ⁠.

See all 17 names

Authors (16)

Signed on in support (1)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There were 7 votes on this bill. Taking a bill up right away needs two-thirds of the members, a higher bar than passing it, so that vote can draw more yeses than the final one.

Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform vote on an amendment

Passed, 13 to 0 · May 7, 2015

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 13 adoption recommended by Committee on Public Benefit Reform, Ayes 13, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform vote on an amendment

Passed, 9 to 4 · May 7, 2015

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 14 adoption recommended by Committee on Public Benefit Reform, Ayes 9, Noes 4”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform vote to recommend it

Passed, 8 to 6 · May 7, 2015

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Public Benefit Reform, Ayes 8, Noes 6”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 62 to 33 · May 13, 2015

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Assembly Amendment 16 laid on table, Ayes 62, Noes 33”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote

Passed, 62 to 33 · May 13, 2015 · 4 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Yes (62)

Didn't vote (4)

Official motion: “Decision of the Chair upheld, Ayes 62, Noes 33”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 63 to 32 · May 13, 2015 · 4 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Yes (63)

Didn't vote (4)

Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 63, Noes 32”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to take it up right away

Passed, 62 to 33 · May 13, 2015 · 4 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Yes (62)

Didn't vote (4)

Official motion: “Refused to suspend rules to order immediately messaged, Ayes 62, Noes 33”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 13, 2016

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Jun 12, 2015

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Workforce Development, Public Works, and Military Affairs.

  3. Jun 10, 2015

    The Senate received it.

  4. Jun 9, 2015

    “Messaged pursuant to Assembly Rule 50 (1)” (the official wording)

  5. May 13, 2015

    The Assembly passed it, 63 to 32.

  6. May 13, 2015

    “Point of order that Assembly Amendment 15 not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) well taken” (the official wording)

  7. May 13, 2015

    The Assembly adopted it.

  8. May 12, 2015

    “Emergency statement attached by Governor pursuant to s. 16.47(2), Wisconsin Statutes” (the official wording)

  9. May 7, 2015

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  10. May 7, 2015

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 6.

  11. May 6, 2015

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  12. Apr 30, 2015

    The committee held a public hearing.

  13. Apr 24, 2015

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Public Benefit Reform.

  14. Apr 24, 2015

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Apr 24, 2015 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Rohrkaste, Knodl, Jagler, Gannon, A. Ott, Murphy, R. Brooks, Kerkman, Quinn, T. Larson, Edming, Macco, Petersen, Kleefisch, Kapenga and Kremer; cosponsored by Senator Olsen

  2. Apr 24, 2015 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Public Benefit Reform

  3. Apr 30, 2015 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  5. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representatives Goyke, Jorgensen, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  6. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 2 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  7. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 3 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  8. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 4 offered by Representatives Subeck, Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste and Spreitzer

  9. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 5 offered by Representatives Spreitzer, Goyke, Jorgensen, Kolste and Subeck

  10. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 6 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  11. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 7 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  12. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 8 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  13. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 9 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  14. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 10 offered by Representatives Spreitzer, Goyke, Kolste, Jorgensen and Subeck

  15. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 11 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  16. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 12 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  17. May 5, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 13 offered by Representative Rohrkaste

  18. May 6, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 14 offered by Representative Rohrkaste

  19. May 6, 2015 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  20. May 6, 2015 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  21. May 7, 2015 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 13 adoption recommended by Committee on Public Benefit Reform, Ayes 13, Noes 0

  22. May 7, 2015 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 14 adoption recommended by Committee on Public Benefit Reform, Ayes 9, Noes 4

  23. May 7, 2015 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Public Benefit Reform, Ayes 8, Noes 6

  24. May 7, 2015 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  25. May 7, 2015 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 5-13-2015 by Committee on Rules

  26. May 12, 2015 · Assembly

    Emergency statement attached by Governor pursuant to s. 16.47(2), Wisconsin Statutes

  27. May 12, 2015 · Assembly

    LRB correction

  28. May 12, 2015 · Assembly

    LRB correction (Assembly Amendment 14)

  29. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  30. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 13 adopted

  31. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 14 adopted

  32. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 15 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  33. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Point of order that Assembly Amendment 15 not germane under Assembly Rule 54 (3)(f) well taken

  34. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Decision of the Chair appealed

  35. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Decision of the Chair upheld, Ayes 62, Noes 33

  36. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 16 offered by Representatives Jorgensen, Goyke, Kolste, Spreitzer and Subeck

  37. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 16 laid on table, Ayes 62, Noes 33

  38. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  39. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  40. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 63, Noes 32

  41. May 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Refused to suspend rules to order immediately messaged, Ayes 62, Noes 33

  42. Jun 9, 2015 · Assembly

    Messaged pursuant to Assembly Rule 50 (1)

  43. Jun 10, 2015 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  44. Jun 12, 2015 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Workforce Development, Public Works, and Military Affairs

  45. Apr 13, 2016 · Senate

    Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence. More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote