[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.

                          ____________________