[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5604-H5606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUTER TOLL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2011
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 897) to provide authority and
[[Page H5605]]
sanction for the granting and issuance of programs for residential and
commuter toll, user fee, and fare discounts by States, municipalities,
other localities, and all related agencies and departments, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 897
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 2011''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Residents of various localities and political
subdivisions throughout the United States are subject to
tolls, user fees, and fares to access certain roads,
highways, bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, and other
transportation systems.
(2) Revenue generated from transportation tolls, user fees,
and fares is used to support various infrastructure
maintenance and capital improvement projects that directly
benefit commuters and indirectly benefit the regional and
national economy.
(3) Residents of certain municipalities, counties, and
other localities endure significant or disproportionate toll,
user fee, or fare burdens compared to others who have a
greater number of transportation options because such
residents--
(A) live in geographic areas that are not conveniently
located to the access points for roads, highways, bridges,
rail, busses, ferries, and other transportation systems;
(B) live on islands, peninsulas, or in other places that
are only accessible through a means that requires them to pay
a toll, user fee, or fare; or
(C) are required to pay much more for transportation access
than residents of surrounding jurisdictions, or in other
jurisdictions across the country, for similar transportation
options.
(4) To address this inequality, and to reduce the financial
hardship often imposed on such residents, several State and
municipal governments and multi-State transportation
authorities have established programs that authorize
discounted transportation tolls, user fees, and fares for
such residents.
(5) Transportation toll, user fee, and fare discount
programs based on residential status--
(A) address actual unequal and undue financial burdens
placed on residents who live in areas that are only
accessible through a means that requires them to pay a toll,
user fee, or fare;
(B) do not disadvantage or discriminate against those
individuals ineligible for residential toll, user fee, or
fare discount programs;
(C) are not designed to favor the interests or promote the
domestic industry or economic development of the State
implementing such programs;
(D) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on commerce
with foreign nations or interfere or impose any undue burdens
on commerce among the several States, or commerce within
particular States;
(E) do not interfere or impose undue burdens on the ability
of individuals to travel among, or within, the several
States;
(F) do not constitute inequitable treatment or deny any
person within the jurisdiction of the United States the equal
protection of the laws; and
(G) do not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to clarify the existing authority of States, counties,
municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation
authorities to establish programs that offer discounted
transportation tolls, user fees, and fares for residents in
specific geographic areas; and
(2) to authorize the establishment of such programs, as
necessary.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL OR COMMUTER TOLL,
USER FEE OR FARE DISCOUNT PROGRAMS.
(a) Authority To Provide Residential or Commuter Toll, User
Fee, or Fare Discount Programs.--States, counties,
municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation
authorities that operate or manage roads, highways, bridges,
railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems
are authorized to establish programs that offer discounted
transportation tolls, user fees, or other fares for residents
of specific geographic areas in order to reduce or alleviate
toll burdens imposed upon such residents.
(b) Rulemaking With Respect to the State, Local, or Agency
Provision of Toll, User Fee or Fare Discount Programs to
Local Residents or Commuters.--States, counties,
municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional transportation
authorities that operate or manage roads, highways, bridges,
railroads, busses, ferries, or other transportation systems
are authorized to enact such rules or regulations that may be
necessary to establish the programs authorized under
subsection (a).
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to limit or otherwise interfere with the authority,
as of the date of the enactment of this Act, of States,
counties, municipalities, and multi-jurisdictional
transportation authorities that operate or manage roads,
highways, bridges, railroads, busses, ferries, or other
transportation systems.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
General Leave
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 897.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Because of the geographic area in which they live, many Americans
don't have as many transportation options as others. As a result, these
people are more directly impacted by highway and bridge tolls than
others who live in areas with several transportation options.
This bill simply emphasizes that State and local governments have the
authority to establish toll programs that offer discounted rates for
residents in specific geographic areas. By exercising such authority,
State and local governments can mitigate the impact of tolls on
residents who have fewer transportation options.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the objective of the legislation before the
House today--to clarify the existing authority of public authorities to
offer discounts in transportation tolls to residents of communities
faced with limited transportation access and heavy toll burdens.
Last Congress, the House passed similar legislation. That
legislation, at the time introduced by Mr. McMahon of New York,
reaffirmed the authority of States and local governments to provide
discounted fare or toll rates to residents faced with undue financial
hardships imposed by highway and bridge tolls.
We recognize that the residents of Staten Island are forced to endure
some of the highest toll burdens in the country. The legislation passed
by the last Congress would have provided a targeted approach to address
the unique challenges facing communities like Staten Island.
Unfortunately, unlike Mr. McMahon's bill from last Congress, H.R. 897
as currently drafted is overly broad and raises some potentially
serious legal issues.
A number of highway user organizations, including the American
Highway Users Alliance, have raised concerns that H.R. 897 could lead
to discrimination against interstate commerce, and be used in an
attempt to preclude constitutional challenges to an individual toll or
fare discount program.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
not held any hearings to examine the potential implications of this
legislation. The Republican leadership has decided to bring this bill
to the floor with no notice, at least not to this side of the aisle,
under suspension of the rules prior to the important issues raised by
this bill being examined and, if necessary, addressed.
Mr. Speaker, the House should be considering legislation to simply
reinforce the existing right of communities to reduce the extreme toll
burdens borne by captive toll payers. We should not be considering
legislation that could be used to implement programs that impede
interstate commerce by encouraging States and public authorities to
find ways to shift the burden of tolls to out-of-State residents, or
truckers, for that matter, or those making longer through trips.
Not all residential-based toll discounts are fair or necessarily
appropriate, but some are. The context and how they are implemented are
important to determining if they are appropriate.
Unfortunately, as currently drafted, H.R. 897 could be used to remove
any case that could be made against a toll discount program. In that
sense, it is overly broad and unreasonable.
[[Page H5606]]
I would hope that as we move forward, we can address the concerns of
the highway user community and ensure that this legislation is not used
to preclude challenges to toll discount programs.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), the sponsor of this
bill.
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.
Just to clarify the record, this bill, which I stand in strong
support of--but actually before that, let me just say that I want to
thank my colleague and friend, Greg Meeks, for all of his work on this.
It was a true bipartisan effort. But this bill, all it does is clarify
what is already allowed by law. So to say that it is overly broad, it's
almost ridiculous because again, all this does is clarify what is
already allowed by law. States and cities already have. There were
challenges in court that have failed, and the purpose of this
legislation is to make sure that those frivolous challenges do not
continue to go forward.
The Residential and Commuter Toll Fairness Act, I feel it is vital to
toll discount programs, specifically for my constituents, but for all
of New York and throughout this country.
I would like to also thank Chairman Mica, who traveled to my
district, to Staten Island, for moving this bill forward and for seeing
firsthand in Staten Island the devastating effects and the impacts that
tolls can have.
Again, this bill, all it does is continue to clarify and allow the
States and municipal governments to offer the discounted toll rates to
residents for trips taken on roads, bridges, rail, bus, ferry, and
other transportation systems.
I introduced the legislation for one purpose: it was in response to a
2009 case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
questioned the constitutionality of discounts for residents of towns
bordering the New York Thruway. In New York, we simply can't afford to
lose our discounts.
The majority of my district in New York City is an island; it's
Staten Island. And the only way to drive on or off the island is to
cross a bridge and pay a toll, something many of my constituents do
often as part of their daily commute. Without a discount, it costs $13
to cross the Verrazano Bridge. Yes, I said $13 without the Staten
Island residential EZ-Pass discount. On the other side of Staten
Island, going to New Jersey, the cash tolls on three bridges have just
gone up to $12, and that amount is slated to go up in 2015 to $15.
That's without the residential discount.
{time} 1930
On Staten Island, we have fought long and hard to reach an agreement
on residential toll discounts, which is why this legislation is crucial
to making sure we protect those new rates.
The Residential Commuter Toll Fairness Act provides clarification
only of the existing authority of local governments to issue or grant
transportation toll, user fee or fare discount programs based on
residential status. It also provides congressional authorization for
discount programs. Passage of H.R. 897 is nothing more than
clarification of what can already be done, and I ask for the strong
support of my colleagues.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First, I would just like to enter in the Record a letter from the
American Highway Users Alliance dated August 1 expressing concerns
about the legislation.
American Highway Users Alliance,
August 1, 2012.
Dear Member of Congress: This afternoon, under suspension
of the rules, the House will consider HR 897, the Residential
and Commuter Toll Fairness Act of 2011, sponsored by New York
City Representatives Grimm and Meeks. We write to express
serious concerns about this bill.
We are on record in support of greater tolling
accountability and fairness for commuters. For example, we
have endorsed HR 3684, the Commuter Protection Act, also
authored by Congressman Grimm. We share particular concerns
about the high costs of tolling for New York City residents.
However the provisions of HR 897 are not narrowly constructed
for New York's specific problems and have unintended
consequences for other toll-payers throughout the country.
HR 897 broadly authorizes local tolling discount programs.
If this bill were narrowly constructed to apply to places
like Staten Island, New York; where residents are only able
to access their homes and businesses via tolled bridges, our
concerns would be minimal. But HR 897 allows my State or
local jurisdiction to charge discriminatory toll rates for
non-residents, even on the National Highway System, and
regardless of circumstance or impact on interstate commerce.
In effect, this bill could actually encourage more tolls
for all and higher tolls for selected users, authorizing
locally popular tolling schemes that, in effect, overcharge
interstate and long distance travelers who have no vote at
the local ballot box.
If States and local governments widely adopt the practice
of tolling non-residents to pay higher rates than locals, it
could sharply increase the costs of interstate tourism and
freight. These are national concerns requiring caution from
Congress. The federal government has an obligation to
regulate interstate commerce. As such, HR 897 should be
revised to ensure that interstate and non-local traffic is
not treated unfairly, by State and local tolling authorities.
Sincerely,
Gregory M. Cohen,
President & CEO.
Second, I think the gentleman from New York makes a compelling case
for why the bill should be more narrowly focused.
And third, Mr. Speaker, I may say things on the floor that people
disagree with, but I do save my almost ridiculous statements for off
the floor and not the floor of the House.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 897.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________