[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1004-1008]
[From the U.S. 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                      Amendment No. 2265 Withdrawn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 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

[[Page 1005]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 1006]]

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 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.

[[Page 1007]]

       (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, 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

[[Page 1008]]

     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.

                          ____________________