[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7142-H7143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUTER TOLL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2010

  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3960) to provide authority and sanction for the granting and 
issuance of programs for residential and commuter toll, user fee and 
fare discounts by States, municipalities, other localities, as well as 
all related agencies and departments thereof, and for other purposes, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3960

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Residential and Commuter 
     Toll Fairness Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Residents of, and regular commuters to, certain 
     localities in the United States are subject to a 
     transportation toll when using a transportation facility to 
     access or depart the locality.
       (2) Revenue generated from these tolls is sometimes used to 
     support infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement 
     projects that benefit not only the users of these 
     transportation facilities, but the regional and national 
     economy as well.
       (3) Certain localities in the United States are situated on 
     islands, peninsulas, or other areas in which transportation 
     access is substantially constrained by geography, sometimes 
     leaving residents of, or regular commuters to, these 
     localities with no reasonable means of accessing or departing 
     their neighborhood or place of employment without paying a 
     transportation toll.
       (4) Residents of, or regular commuters to, these localities 
     often pay far more for transportation access than residents 
     of, and commuters to, other areas for similar transportation 
     options, and these increased transportation costs can impose 
     a significant and unfair burden on these residents and 
     commuters.
       (5) To address this inequality, and to reduce the financial 
     hardship often imposed on captive tollpayers, several public 
     authorities have developed and implemented programs to 
     provide discounts in transportation tolls.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to clarify the existing 
     authority of, and as necessary provide express authorization 
     for, public authorities to offer discounts in transportation 
     tolls to captive tollpayers.

     SEC. 4. TRANSPORTATION TOLLS.

       (a) Authority To Provide Discounts.--A public authority is 
     authorized to carry out a program that offers discounts in 
     transportation tolls to captive tollpayers.
       (b) Limitations on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     Act may be construed to--
       (1) limit any other authority of a public authority, 
     including the authority to offer discounts in transportation 
     tolls to other tollpayers; or
       (2) affect, alter, or limit the applicability of a State or 
     local law with respect to the authority of a public authority 
     to impose toll discounts.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Captive tollpayer.--The term ``captive tollpayer'' 
     means an individual who--
       (A) is a resident of, or regular commuter to, a locality in 
     the United States that is situated on an island, peninsula, 
     or other area where transportation access is substantially 
     constrained by geography; and
       (B) is subject to a transportation toll when using a 
     transportation facility to access or depart the locality.
       (2) Public authority.--The term ``public authority'' has 
     the meaning given that term by section 101 of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (3) Transportation facility.--The term ``transportation 
     facility'' includes a road, highway, bridge, rail, bus, or 
     ferry facility.
       (4) Transportation toll.--The term ``transportation toll'' 
     means a toll or fare required for use of a transportation 
     facility.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McMahon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) 
will each control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3960.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 3960, the Residential and Commuter 
Toll Fairness Act of 2010. This bill aims to protect locally provided 
residential commuter toll and fare discounts throughout the Nation.
  Many of us represent people in communities burdened by high tolls and 
fares. Due to specific isolating geographic factors, like residents on 
an island or peninsula, as well as the location of tolled roads and 
bridges, residents in and commuters to certain localities endure a 
disproportionate toll burden. These people are captive toll payers, 
toll payers who have little or no choice but to pay much more in tolls 
than their fellow citizens even within the same region.

                              {time}  2000

  In order to address these inequities for captive tollpayers, many 
States, local governments and local transportation agencies have 
enacted toll and fare discount programs. My district of Staten Island 
and Brooklyn, New York, suffers from some of the highest toll burdens 
in the Nation. In fact, per capita, Staten Island is the highest tolled 
county in the United States, and the cost of these tolls is truly 
outrageous. Just to put this issue in context for my colleagues, let me 
give you some examples:
  The toll on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, which connects the Staten 
Island and Brooklyn sides of my district, now costs $11, and is 
scheduled to increase to $12 in the next few months. It may be hard for 
many Americans to believe, but discussions are already underway to 
further increase the toll on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to $13 in the 
coming years--$13 just to cross a bridge in order to visit a relative, 
to go to school, to go to work or just to get off the island. It is not 
much better on all the other bridges surrounding Staten Island. The 
Bayonne, the Goethals Bridges and the Outerbridge Crossing--all to New 
Jersey--each cost $8. Staten Islanders are truly captive tollpayers. No 
matter which way they travel, they have no choice but to pay these 
tolls if they want to get back on the island.
  To help alleviate the situation, the Metropolitan Transit Authority 
and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which are the 
transportation agencies that run these bridges, have instituted a 
series of residential discount programs for Staten Islanders which 
reduce the amount that islanders pay for these bridges, sometimes 
reducing the cost by almost 50 percent. Many of these discounts have 
been in place for a decade or more; but even with these discounts, 
Staten Islanders pay almost $500 million in tolls every year, making it 
more than 7 percent of all tolls paid nationwide even though Staten 
Island represents less than .16 percent, or 1/600th, of the U.S. 
population. These statistics take into account the tolls paid with the 
residential discount programs in effect. Just imagine how much worse 
the situation would be without these residential discount programs.
  But my district is not unique. Many other States and localities grant 
similar residential discounts to captive tollpayers on roads across the 
country, including the Massachusetts Turnpike, the Sumner and Ted 
Williams Tunnels in Boston, the Marine Parkway and Cross Bay Vets 
Parkway in Rockaway, Queens, New York, the Tappan Zee Bridge in the 
Hudson Valley of New York, the New York Thruway, the Delaware Bay 
Bridge, the Rhode Island Turnpike, and the Newport Pell Bridge in Rhode 
Island, just to name a few.
  In the last few years, many of these discount programs have come 
under attack in the courts. Last October, in a case entitled Selevan 
vs. New York

[[Page H7143]]

Thruway Authority, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 
held that toll discounts for residents of towns bordering the New York 
State Thruway may be unconstitutional. The plaintiffs in Selevan 
claimed, among other things, that these residential toll discount 
programs may be a dormant commerce clause violation, but the U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed their 
case. The Second Circuit's decision remanded and reinstated the action, 
which will now move forward in the district court.
  H.R. 3960 provides express congressional authorization for these 
discounts, and it makes clear that residential toll and fare discounts 
are constitutional, fair, and necessary to help alleviate the heavy 
toll burdens paid by so many captive tollpayers across the Nation. This 
is a national issue, affecting every person in communities burdened by 
high tolls and fares, many of whom would otherwise be unable to travel 
without these critical discounts. Let me be clear about a few things:
  First, the bill does not in any way limit the existing ability of 
States, local governments or local transportation agencies to provide 
discounts to captive tollpayers or to other tollpayers, nor does this 
bill provide any additional Federal authority over State or local 
decision-making. In fact, the bill actually safeguards current State 
and local power.
  All this bill actually does is provide an extra layer of protection 
against court challenges for those States, local governments and local 
transportation agencies that choose to offer discounts to captive 
tollpayers, like the people I represent, who suffer disproportionate 
toll burdens. Since article I, section 8 of the United States 
Constitution gives Congress ``the power to regulate commerce among the 
several States,'' H.R. 3960 provides an express congressional statement 
under that provision, supporting the current ability of States, local 
governments and local transportation agencies to issue discounts to 
captive tollpayers.
  However, toll discounts or government actions designed to give 
preferential treatment to residents of their States at the expense of 
other States or of the national economy will receive no benefits from 
this bill, and they will likely be struck down by the courts as 
violating the commerce clause. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this critical legislation.
  I thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairman DeFazio and their terrific staffs 
for working with me to revise this bill to be sure we protect captive 
tollpayers and for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. I 
also thank my legislative director, Jeff Siegel, a Staten Islander who 
grew up paying these unfair tolls and who knows quite well the inequity 
that exists.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York did an 
excellent job of explaining how important this legislation is. It is a 
commonsense approach to solving a problem, and I support the bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3960, as amended, the ``Residential and Commuter Toll Fairness Act of 
2010''.
  The bill, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon), 
clarifies the existing authority of, and as necessary provides express 
authorization for, public authorities to offer discounts in 
transportation tolls to residents of communities faced with limited 
transportation access and heavy toll burdens.
  I have long been concerned about the high cost that highway or bridge 
tolls may impose on those who lack transportation alternatives. H.R. 
3960 helps to respond to these concerns.
  A number of communities across the nation have limited transportation 
access because the communities are located on islands, peninsulas, or 
other geographically-constrained areas. Furthermore, residents of, and 
commuters into, some of these localities face bridge tolls every time 
they enter or depart their communities.
  Due to geography and the presence of tolls, residents and commuters 
in these communities often pay far more for transportation access than 
residents and commuters in other areas. Such increased transportation 
costs can impose a significant and unfair burden on these ``captive 
toll payers.''
  To address this inequality, and to reduce the undue financial 
hardship on these individuals, a number of localities have implemented 
programs that offer residentially-based toll discounts. The Federal 
Highway Administration recognizes the authority of States and 
localities to operate these toll discount programs.
  H.R. 3960 does not mandate the use of residentially-based toll 
discount programs. It simply makes clear that Federal law allows public 
authorities to offer these programs to captive toll payers.
  In short, this bill reinforces the right of communities to reduce the 
extreme toll burdens borne by captive toll payers, and it does so 
without infringing on any State or local laws or existing programs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3960.
  Mr. LoBiondo. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3960, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to clarify the existing 
authority of, and as necessary provide express authorization for, 
public authorities to offer discounts in transportation tolls to 
captive tollpayers, and for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________