[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 4, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S571-S575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF
2003
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
continue consideration of S. 1072.
The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 2265 Withdrawn
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment 2265.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 2267
(Purpose: To exempt certain agricultural producers from certain
hazardous materials transportation requirements)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, prior to the vote I indicated I had an
amendment. I want to begin the discussion very briefly of the
amendment. The amendment is one I have worked on for some while. It
deals with a relatively small issue with respect to the context of this
bill, but a rather large issue for family farmers. Let me describe what
it is.
There was a justifiable effort to address issues dealing with
homeland security by the Department of Transportation. They issued
regulations that would regulate the shipment and transport of hazardous
material in commerce in amounts that require the shipment to be
placarded and also to implement security plans for that shipment.
The difficulty and the problem is this. The way the Department of
Transportation developed this rule, the rule will apply to family
farmers, for example, who have a 120-gallon fuel service tank in the
back of their pickup truck. Those farmers are not going to have a
security plan for that pickup truck and for that service tank.
It is perfectly logical to want to regulate for safety purposes the
shipment of hazardous materials.
Let me give you an example of where this goes when the definitions
are not carefully crafted. I was a senior in high school when myself
and two of my best friends decided to go to the Black Hills of South
Dakota for a weekend. It was a pretty big deal for us. We took a pickup
truck and we had a 120-gallon service tank full of gasoline. We had a
few dollars, and we bought 120 gallons of gasoline and a relatively new
pickup, for three seniors in high school. We were prepared to have a
pretty good time. If that happened today, we would under the current
rules be required to have a security plan in place prior to taking our
pickup truck and 120 gallons of regular gasoline on our trip to the
Black Hills of South Dakota. Three high school seniors are not going to
have a security plan to get enough gasoline to go to the Black Hills
and have a good time. Why would we need a security plan? Because
anything over 110 gallons of fuel, propane, chemicals, or hazardous
materials will be required to have a security plan. Forget about three
seniors who went to the Black Hills.
How about a farmer who has that 120-gallon service tank in the back
of his pickup truck who stops at a local cafe and goes in to buy a
cheeseburger? He is in violation of this rule by the Department of
Transportation unless he can physically see his pickup truck through
the window because he will be required to have a ``security plan'' and
have a placard.
Again, when I was a young boy, my dad sent me to Dickinson, ND to get
5
[[Page S572]]
or 6 30-gallon drums of spray pesticides and herbicides. It is done all
the time. That would, of course, violate the rule these days unless I
had a security plan for my trip to Dickinson to pick up 4 or 5 30-
gallon drums of chemicals to spray on the crops in the field near
Regent, ND.
That is what this rule now would provide. It is a bad rule. It does
not mean, in my judgment, to include family farmers. It doesn't mean to
put them in handcuffs with respect to the way they handle chemicals and
propane and gasoline. But in fact it does. I don't want farmers to be
in violation of the rule or in violation of the law. I don't think the
Department of Transportation or the Congress, in implementing this
rule, anticipated this kind of burden with respect to family farms.
In fact, the University of Illinois Extension Service put out an
extension agriculture update. Let me describe what it says. It states
the rule by DOT says persons, including farmers, who ship or transport
hazardous materials in commerce in amounts that require the shipment to
be placarded, must develop and implement security plans by September
25, 2003. Examples of materials to which the security plan apply
include explosives such as dynamite, detonators, pesticides,
fertilizer, hydrous ammonia, ammonia nitrate, and fuels such as
gasoline and propane. If you ship or transport fertilizers, pesticides,
gasoline, propane and packages or containers that are larger than 119
gallons, or the total quantity you ship or transport at any one time is
more than 1,000 pounds, then you must have a security plan. If you are
a supplier who delivers the pesticides, fertilizers, and fuels you use
to your farm, then you don't need that security plan. And if you only
transport fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels between the fields of
your farm, then you don't need to have a security plan. But if you
drive to town to get the chemicals, fertilizers, or fuel, then you have
to have a security plan.
Incidentally, the text I have just read from is part of a U.S.
Department of Transportation fact sheet, and it was entitled
``Hazardous Materials Transportation Security Requirements,
Applicability to Farmers and Farming Operations.'' That was available
from the Department of Transportation's Web site earlier this fall. But
it now has been removed. It is gone. You now can't find it. If you ask
where did this come from, what happened to it, why is it gone, I don't
have the foggiest idea. All I know is what it said, and it doesn't say
it anymore. Now we are told the Department of Transportation is putting
this security plan on hold despite the fact it is the rule, and they
are now beginning to discuss the issue with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. They are discussing it with State departments of
transportation, and the American Farm Bureau.
That is also in the piece of information from the University of
Illinois Extension Service.
First of all, when the Department of Transportation does a rule, you
would expect they would do it right side up. You do the consultation
first. Then you develop the rule having knowledge of how people react
to it and what their notion is of how it should work and how it would
apply. In this case, apparently they wrote a rule dealing with
hazardous material transportation, including basic fuels and chemicals,
and now are beginning to consult with others about how this would
impact family farmers.
I am offering an amendment that clarifies using the definition of
family farmers in the farm bill, and that this does not apply to family
farmers in the routine business of family farming. Somebody with a
pickup truck and a service tank in the back full of gasoline that is
moving around is not going to have to have a security plan to do that.
Someone who is hauling a few 30-gallon drums of chemicals from the shop
in town out to their farm doesn't need a security plan to do that. If
we are going to have every family farm developing security plans, who
is going to enforce that? Who is going to inspect it? Who is going to
determine whether it meets DOT inspections and requirements and
specifications?
I just think this is a circumstance where it is a template that is
put over everything that doesn't fit at all for family farmers. Family
farmers do a pretty good job out on the farm. They work hard and try
hard. They are the Americans who live with hope. They put a seed in the
ground and they hope. They hope it rains, they hope it grows, they hope
it doesn't hail, and they hope the insects don't come. They hope they
don't get drought or too much moisture, and they hope, finally, if they
are able to get it harvested they can haul it to the elevator and get a
decent price. They don't ask for a lot. They certainly ask us to stay
out of their way with respect to rules and regulations that don't make
basic common sense and that do not meet the test of common sense.
This attempt by the Department of Transportation, laudable as it
might be, to try to require the development of security plans for the
movement of large quantities of hazardous material--certainly dynamite,
detonators, and so on, I understand that. But when you talk about
gasoline and farm chemicals, we must understand there is a difference
between substantial movement from commercial operators and the ordinary
transportation of farm chemicals and farm fuel by family farmers around
this country.
For that reason, I have offered an amendment that I hope will meet
the test of changing this regulation in a manner that represents some
basic common sense and relieve the burden from family farmers. As a
matter of fact, family farmers are not complying with this. They really
effectively cannot comply with it. The Department of Transportation has
indicated to some that they would probably not enforce it. You have the
Agriculture Extension Service telling farmers, here is what you have to
do to comply with the rule that is virtually unenforceable and really
doesn't make any sense.
When we see things here that do not meet a test of common sense, what
we ought to do is legislate and change it. That is what I propose to do
with respect to the hazardous materials transportation requirements.
Let me again say I believe there is a requirement for us to be
concerned about the movement of hazardous materials in our country. I
fully support the Department of Transportation. They have a difficult
and vexing job to try to respond to all of these things. But this
particular rule does not meet the requirements, and does not meet the
test of common sense dealing with family farmers.
I have not yet offered the amendment. I would like to send the
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 2267.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 880, after the item following line 6, insert the
following:
SEC. 1621. EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Definition of Eligible Person.--In this section, the
term ``eligible person'' means an individual or entity that
is eligible to receive benefits in accordance with section
1001D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308-3a).
(b) Exemption.--Subject to subsection (c), part 172 of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, shall not apply to an
eligible person that transports or offers for transport a
fertilizer, pesticide, or fuel for agricultural purposes, to
the extent determined by the Secretary.
(c) Applicability.--Subsection (b) applies to--
(1) security plan requirements under subpart I of part 172
of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor
regulation); and
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have described the amendment in some
detail. I say to my colleague from Oklahoma I would be happy if he
would like to have the amendment approved now. But, if not, if there
are some issues with respect to language or some discussions we should
have with you and your staff about the breadth of this, I would be
happy to do that as well. This bill will be on the floor for a number
of days. I am only anxious to make certain we dispose of this and
approve it before we complete this bill. My attempt is, of course, to
cooperate with those who are managing the bill.
[[Page S573]]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate that very much. It is
probably a good idea to set it aside at this time. We will have ample
time later to discuss it.
Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection to it being set aside when others
wish to offer amendments. I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator
from Oklahoma and the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. GREGG. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. DORGAN. What is the objection to? There is no unanimous consent
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no unanimous consent.
Mr. DORGAN. I don't believe there was a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no unanimous consent request
propounded.
Mr. DORGAN. So there can be no objection to a unanimous consent
request never made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I was under the impression there was a unanimous consent
request to set the amendment aside. I take it that did not occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request was not propounded. The Senator
from North Dakota indicated he would not object if such a request were
made.
Mr. GREGG. Then obviously I do not object.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, that is not set aside by unanimous
consent.
There may be others in the Chamber who want to be heard concerning
the highway bill. If that is not the case, I will go ahead and continue
discussing this. It is our hope to go through it section by section. We
are quite a ways along in doing that.
First, I will restate some of the comments I made in the past about
this bill. We have spent in the committee an entire year working on
this legislation. We have had numerous hearings on various
environmental concerns, procedural concerns. We had State
representation at hearings about many of the parts of the bill that
will end up giving the States more responsibility to take care of some
of their needs. We had a chance to talk about some of the problems
voiced in the Senate.
As far as the position of the administration, I do not know what more
we can do. We have gone through the objections they had, or the three
statements they made, in terms of finding it not to be acceptable.
These have been met.
We have serious infrastructure needs now. The State system is 50
years old; 32 percent of our major roads are in poor or remedial
condition; 29 percent of the bridges are structurally deficient. I am
more emotional regarding the 29 percent bridge figure because Oklahoma
ranks No. 1. Missouri is No. 2 in percentage of bridges that are
structurally deficient.
We have 36 percent of the Nation's urban rail vehicles and
maintenance facilities in substandard or poor condition. And 29 percent
of the Nation's bus fleet and maintenance facilities are in substandard
condition. The list goes on.
I am particularly sensitive to this, having served for 8 years in the
other body on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where we
talked about this and watched this as the reauthorizations took place.
I participated in both ISTEA and in TEA-21, in both cases, serving at
that time in the other body.
I know the way things were done were a little distasteful for me, but
we came up with three authorization bills. It is our hope to be
deliberate and spend, as we have, a year in looking at all the
problems, seeing what would be better than the system used before.
In the past, we had section 1104, minimum guarantees. That has been
replaced by the Equity Bonus Program. The minimum guarantees were
arbitrary, politically driven percentages each State had. It was the
thought that when you get to the point where you have enough votes to
pass it, you did not care. We did not want to do that. So we took into
consideration the donor status of States, we took into consideration
the rapid growing States, States such as Texas, California, Nevada, and
Florida, and we actually have ceilings as well as floors to try to
satisfy as many people as possible.
Yesterday, we had a number of people come to the floor saying the
formula was unfair. We took each State, State by State, which I am
happy to do. We have the capability of doing it, again, to show that it
is not unfair. We have a formula now and everyone benefits. There is no
State that gets less than 10 percent more than they had before and it
takes care of the problems.
The donor States have always been a problem. My State has been a
donor State since the program began. So the fact that we will all end
up with a 95-percent status is very significant.
We have never adequately handled the safety problems. We know about
the deaths on the highway: 43,000 people each year dying on the
highway. While the percentage has not gone up, the numbers have. We are
addressing that.
The intermodal connections and freight movement were never adequately
addressed by the previous bills. These are addressed.
Streamlining, so that many of the problems we have--some
environmental, some other types of problems--can be dealt with more
rapidly and in advance so we can keep the construction going.
We have the IPAM program that will take these programs that are ready
to go and get them moving right away. If we are going to do it, do it
now and get the people employed. A lot of people are concerned about
jobs. Certainly there is no bigger job anywhere.
It has been a long process. I know some Members just do not want a
bill, but we will get through the process. We will get a bill and get
people back to work and rebuild the infrastructure.
We left off on section 1612. I will handle a couple of sections. The
Senator from Missouri will arrive in about 5 minutes with some subjects
to address.
Section 1613 is the improved interagency consultation.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator mind, after he finishes his statement,
that I be allowed to speak?
Mr. INHOFE. Anyone who wants to speak so long as it is on the highway
bill.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that after the completion of the
statement of the Senator from Oklahoma, I have 5 minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. I have completed my remarks and there is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 2268 To Amendment No. 2267
Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk which second degrees the
amendment of Senator Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 2268 to amendment No. 2267.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Public Safety Employer-
Employee Cooperation Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY.
The Congress declares that the following is the policy of
the United States:
(1) Labor-management relationships and partnerships are
based on trust, mutual respect, open communication, bilateral
consensual problem solving, and shared accountability. Labor-
management cooperation fully utilizes the strengths of both
parties to best serve the interests of the public, operating
as a team, to carry out the public safety mission in a
quality work environment. In many public safety agencies it
is the union that provides the institutional stability as
elected leaders and appointees come and go.
(2) The Federal Government needs to encourage conciliation,
mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid and encourage
employers and their employees to reach and maintain
agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working
conditions, and to make all reasonable efforts through
negotiations to settle their differences by mutual agreement
reached through collective bargaining or by such methods as
may be provided for in any applicable agreement for the
settlement of disputes.
(3) The absence of adequate cooperation between public
safety employers and employees has implications for the
security of employees and can affect interstate and
intrastate commerce. The lack of such labor-management
cooperation can detrimentally impact the upgrading of police
and fire services
[[Page S574]]
of local communities, the health and well-being of public
safety officers, and the morale of the fire and police
departments. Additionally these factors could have
significant commercial repercussions. Moreover, providing
minimal standards for collective bargaining negotiations in
the public safety sector can prevent industrial strife
between labor and management that interferes with the normal
flow of commerce.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the Federal
Labor Relations Authority.
(2) Emergency medical services personnel.--The term
``emergency medical services personnel means an individual
who provides out-of-hospital emergency medical care,
including an emergency medical technician, paramedic, or
first responder.
(3) Employer; public safety agency.--The terms ``employer''
and ``public safety agency'' means any State, political
subdivision of a State, the District of Columbia, or any
territory or possession of the United States that employs
public safety officers.
(4) Firefighter.--The term ``firefighter'' has the meaning
given the term ``employee engaged in fire protection
activities'' in section 3(y) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(29 U.S.C. 203(y)).
(5) Labor organization.--The term ``labor organization''
means an organization composed in whole or in part of
employees, in which employees participate, and which
represents such employees before public safety agencies
concerning grievances, conditions of employment and related
matters.
(6) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement
officer'' has the meaning given such term in section 1204(5)
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796b(5)).
(7) Management employee.--The term ``management employee''
has the meaning given such term under applicable State law in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act. If no such State
law is in effect, the term means an individual employed by a
public safety employer in a position that requires or
authorizes the individual to formulate, determine, or
influence the policies of the employer.
(8) Public safety officer.--The term ``public safety
officer''--
(A) means an employee of a public safety agency who is a
law enforcement officer, a firefighter, or an emergency
medical services personnel;
(B) includes an individual who is temporarily transferred
to a supervisory or management position; and
(C) does not include a permanent supervisory or management
employee.
(9) Substantially provides.--The term ``substantially
provides'' means compliance with the essential requirements
of this Act, specifically, the right to form and join a labor
organization, the right to bargain over wages, hours, and
conditions of employment, the right to sign an enforceable
contract, and availability of some form of mechanism to break
an impasse, such as arbitration, mediation, or fact finding.
(10) Supervisory employee.--The term ``supervisory
employee'' has the meaning given such term under applicable
State law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act. If
no such State law is in effect, the term means an individual,
employed by a public safety employer, who--
(A) has the authority in the interest of the employer to
hire, direct, assign, promote, reward, transfer, furlough,
lay off, recall, suspend, discipline, or remove public safety
officers to adjust their grievances, or to effectively
recommend such action, if the exercise of the authority is
not merely routine or clerical in nature but requires the
consistent exercise of independent judgment; and
(B) devotes a majority of time at work exercising such
authority.
SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
(a) Determination.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Authority shall make a
determination as to whether a State substantially provides
for the rights and responsibilities described in subsection
(b). In making such determinations, the Authority shall
consider and give weight, to the maximum extent practicable,
to the opinion of affected parties.
(2) Subsequent determinations.--
(A) In general.--A determination made pursuant to paragraph
(1) shall remain in effect unless and until the Authority
issues a subsequent determination, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in subparagraph (B).
(B) Procedures for subsequent determinations.--Upon
establishing that a material change in State law or its
interpretation has occurred, an employer or a labor
organization may submit a written request for a subsequent
determination. If satisfied that a material change in State
law or its interpretation has occurred, the Director shall
issue a subsequent determination not later than 30 days after
receipt of such request.
(3) Judicial review.--Any State, political subdivision of a
State, or person aggrieved by a determination of the
Authority under this section may, during the 60 day period
beginning on the date on which the determination was made,
petition any United States Court of Appeals in the circuit in
which the person resides or transacts business or in the
District of Columbia circuit, for judicial review. In any
judicial review of a determination by the Authority, the
procedures contained in subsections (c) and (d) of section
7123 of title 5, United States Code, shall be followed,
except that any final determination of the Authority with
respect to questions of fact or law shall be found to be
conclusive unless the court determines that the
Authority's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
(b) Rights and Responsibilities.--In making a determination
described in subsection (a), the Authority shall consider
whether State law provides rights and responsibilities
comparable to or greater than the following:
(1) Granting public safety officers the right to from and
join a labor organization, which may exclude management and
supervisory employees, that is, or seeks to be, recognized as
the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees.
(2) Requiring public safety employers to recognize the
employees' labor organization (freely chosen by a majority of
the employees), to agree to bargain with the labor
organization, and to commit any agreements to writing in a
contract or memorandum of understanding.
(3) Permitting bargaining over hours, wages, and terms and
conditions of employment.
(4) Requiring an interest impasse resolution mechanism,
such as fact-finding, mediation, arbitration or comparable
procedures.
(5) Requiring reinforcement through State courts of--
(A) all rights, responsibilities, and protections provided
by state law and enumerated in this section; and
(B) any written contract or memorandum of understanding.
(c) Failure to Meet Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If the Authority determines, acting
pursuant to its authority under subsection (a), that a State
does not substantially provide for the rights and
responsibilities described in subsection (b), such State
shall be subject to the regulations and procedures described
in section 5.
(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the
date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. ROLE OF FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Authority shall issue regulations
in accordance with the rights and responsibilities described
in section 4(b) establishing collective bargaining procedures
for public safety employers and officers in States which the
Authority has determined, acting pursuant to its authority
under section 4(a), do not substantially provide for such
rights and responsibilities.
(b) Role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.--The
Authority, to the extent provided in this Act and in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Authority,
shall--
(1) determine the appropriateness of units for labor
organization representation;
(2) supervise or conduct elections to determine whether a
labor organization has been selected as an exclusive
representative by a majority of the employees in a
appropriate unit;
(3) resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good
faith;
(4) conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor
practices;
(5) resolve exceptions to the awards of arbitrators;
(6) protect the right of each employee to form, join, or
assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such
activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and
protect each employee in the exercise of such right; and
(7) take such other actions as are necessary and
appropriate to effectively administer this Act, including
issuing subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of
witnesses and the production of documentary or other evidence
from any place in the United States, and administering oaths,
taking or ordering the taking of depositions, ordering
responses to written interrogatories, and receiving and
examining witnesses.
(c) Enforcement.--
(1) Authority to petition court.--The Authority may
petition any United States Court of Appeals with jurisdiction
over the parties, or the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, to enforce any final orders
under this section, and for appropriate temporary relief or a
restraining order. Any petition under this section shall be
conducted in accordance with subsections (c) and (d) of
section 7123 of title 5, United States Code, except that any
final order of the Authority with respect to questions of
fact or law shall be found to be conclusive unless the court
determines that the Authority's decision was arbitrary and
capricious.
(2) Private right of action.--Unless the Authority has
filed a petition for enforcement as provided in paragraph
(1), any party has the right to file suit in a State court of
competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the
regulations issued by the Authority pursuant to subsection
(b), and to enforce compliance with any order issued by the
Authority pursuant to this section. The right provided by
this subsection to bring a suit to enforce compliance with
any order issued by the Authority pursuant to this section
shall terminate upon the filing of a petition seeking the
same relief by the Authority.
SEC. 6. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS PROHIBITED.
A public safety employer, officer, or labor organization
may not engage in a lockout,
[[Page S575]]
sickout, work slowdown, or strike or engage in any other
action that is designed to compel an employer, officer, or
labor organization to agree to the terms of a proposed
contract and that will measurably disrupt the delivery of
emergency services, except that it shall not be a violation
of this section for an employer, officer, or labor
organization to refuse to provide services not required by
the terms and conditions of an existing contract.
SEC. 7. EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND AGREEMENTS.
A certification, recognition, election-held, collective
bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding which has
been issued, approved, or ratified by any public employee
relations board or commission or by any State or political
subdivision or its agents (management officials) in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act shall not be
invalidated by the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLIANCE.
(a) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and
procedures of any law of any State or political subdivision
of any State or jurisdiction that provides collective
bargaining rights for public safety officers that are equal
to or greater than the rights provided under this Act;
(2) to prevent a State from enforcing a right-to-work law
that prohibits employers and labor organizations from
negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that require
union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of
employment;
(3) to invalidate any State law in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act that substantially provides for the
rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) solely
because such State law permits an employee to appear on his
or her own behalf with respect to his or her employment
relations with the public safety agency involved; or
(4) to permit parties subject to the National Labor
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and the regulations
under such Act to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an
employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer
activities during off-duty hours; or
(5) to prohibit a State from exempting from coverage under
this Act a political subdivision of the State that has a
population of less than 5,000 or that employs less than 25
full time employees.
For purposes of paragraph (5), the term ``employee''
includes each and every individual employed by the political
subdivision except any individual elected by popular vote or
appointed to serve on a board or commission.
(b) Compliance.--No State shall preempt laws or ordinances
of any of its political subdivisions if such laws provide
collective bargaining rights for public safety officers that
are equal to or greater than the rights provided under this
Act.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
Mr. GREGG. This is the same amendment I offered before. Obviously, it
was removed from being in order because the underlying amendment was
withdrawn, so I have reoffered it to keep it in the batting order.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I was happy to do that. I will continue going through
section by section.
When we talk about improved interagency consultation, this is another
area where this bill is different from the reauthorizations we had in
the past. We had intra-agency consultation as well as consultation at
the various levels of Government. The States have a much larger voice
in the recognition that they are more aware of the problems that exist
than we are in Washington. It is very positive. Therefore, the States
and MPOs are encouraged to consult with State and local air quality
agencies in developing criteria from CMAQ projects and when making
decisions as to which projects and programs to fund.
Section 1614 is the evaluation assessment of the CMAQ projects. To
ensure that information on successful CMAQ projects is widely
available, the Department of Transportation is directed to consult with
the EPA to evaluate and assess a representative sample of CMAQ projects
to maintain and disseminate a database of these projects.
Section 1615 is synchronized planning and conformity timelines,
requirements, and horizon. Currently, the schedules for demonstrating
conformity are not the same as the schedules for adopting long-range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. That is
TIPS. This disconnect has caused some areas to be in a continuous
planning and conformity cycle.
In response to this inconsistency, the bill aligns the long-range
plan updates, TIP updates, and conformity determinations for
metropolitan areas on consistent 4-year cycles. Heretofore, there were
various cycles and this conforms them to each other.
The bill also changes how far into the future the conformity
determination must look to more closely match the length of time
covered by the State's air quality plan referred to as a State
implementation plan, or SIP plan.
Currently, conformity determinations take a 20-year outlook on the
transportation planning side, even though most SIPs cover no more than
10 years. Obviously, we are trying to conform them with each other.
Section 1616 is in regard to the transition to new air quality
standards. EPA plans to designate nonattainment areas for the new 8-
hour ozone standard, that we have gone through just a few years ago,
and the new fine particulate standard, at PM2.5, this year. Areas that
have not previously been designated as nonattainment for the same
pollutant will have 3 years to submit SIPs which include the motor
vehicle emissions budget used to determine conformity. However, only a
1-year grace period is allowed before having to demonstrate conformity.
Because of this, an area may have 2 years during which it must use some
other means of demonstrating conformity.
Nonattainment areas are given the option of using the motor vehicle
emissions budget from an approved SIP for the most recent prior
standard for that pollutant. For example, an area that is in
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and is designated as being
in nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone standard may use its 1-hour
budget to determine conformity until it has an approved budget for the
8-hour standard.
Nonattainment areas are also given the option of using other
currently available tests for demonstrating conformity without an
approved air quality SIP.
Section 1617 is in regard to reduced barriers to air quality
improvements. Nonattainment areas can use transportation control
measures, such as HOV lanes, transit projects, park-and-ride lots,
ride-share programs, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve
air quality. These TCMs are often included in the State's air quality
SIP. Currently, if a State determines it would be better served by
substituting one type of TCM for another, the State must already have a
substitution mechanism in its approved State implementation plan or it
must revise its plan.
This bill provides a substitution mechanism for all States, provided
that the TCM to be substituted achieves the same or greater emission
reductions as the TCM being replaced, based on analysis using the
latest planning assumptions and current models.
Now, it has been our intention, as we announced before, that the
chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Bond, would be
recognized at this time for the purpose of----
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gregg
amendment.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I believe I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma does have the floor.
I apologize.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Madam President.
Section 1618 is in regard to the air quality monitoring data
influenced by exceptional events.
This bill directs EPA to promulgate regulations governing the
handling of air quality-monitoring data influenced by exceptional
events, such as forest fires or volcanic eruptions, certainly something
of great interest to the Senator from Arizona. These types of natural
activities should not influence whether a region is meeting its Federal
air quality goals.
The EPA is also required to reevaluate its approach to modeling
carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles to ensure that it is
appropriate for cold-weather States, such as Alaska.
____________________