H5604 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

The bill before us simply clarifies 

that if an emergency order issued pursuant to section 202(c) of the Federal 

Power Act may result in such a conflict with an environmental law or regulation, it shall expire not later than 

90 days after issuance. This is to ensure 

that DOE continues to have the necessary authority to ‘‘keep the lights 

on’’ in true emergencies. 

It then gives DOE the opportunity to 

renew or reissue such an order for an 

additional 90-day period after consulting with the appropriate Federal 

agencies and including conditions submitted by such agencies to mitigate 

adverse environmental impacts. DOE 

may exclude a recommended condition 

from the order if it determines the condition would prevent the order from 

adequately addressing the emergency. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of 

many months of work with members 

on both sides of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It is supported by 

both the chairman and the ranking 

member of the committee. And I ask 

my colleagues to support it also. 

I want to thank the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. OLSON). It has been a pleasure to work with him on this piece of 

legislation. It is my hope that all our 

colleagues also support this legislation. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank my colleague 

from Pennsylvania for his kind words. 

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I see no 

colleagues on my side of the aisle looking to speak, so I will reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, it is a 

pleasure for me to now yield such time 

as he may consume to the gentleman 

from Texas (Mr. GENE GREEN), a valuable member of our Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. 

Speaker, I would like to thank both my 

colleague from Pennsylvania and also 

my neighbor in Texas, Congressman 

OLSON, for making sure we get this bill 

to the floor today. 

I rise in strong support of H.R. 4273, 

the Resolving Environmental and Grid 

Reliability Conflicts Act of 2012. This 

bipartisan legislation addresses a longstanding conflict in Federal law where 

a company or individual can be held 

liable for violating environmental laws 

when complying with a Federal order 

to generate power to avoid blackouts. 

Section 202(c) of the Federal Power 

Act gives the Department of Energy 

the authority to order an electric-generating facility to operate to avoid a 

reliability emergency. At the same 

time, environmental laws and regulations may restrict the operation of 

power plants or transmission lines. 

So if a company or publicly owned 

utility is ordered by the DOE to operate under section 202(c) and at the 

same time is prohibited from operating 

in accordance with the DOE order due 

to environmental limitations, the operator must choose which legal mandate 

to follow. These conflicting legal mandates should not complicate an electric 

reliability crisis. 

As a long-time member of the Energy 

and Commerce Committee and someone who has worked on both reliability 

and environmental legislation during 

that time, I can honestly say it was 

never our intention to put electric-generating facilities in the position of having to choose between compliance with 

one law over another. 

And while there have only been a 

couple of instances to date where a 

generator has been in this situation, 

the potential for conflict will only 

grow as several coal-fired plants are 

scheduled to be taken offline in the 

coming years. 

And as my Pennsylvania colleague 

noted, we have potential reliability 

issues in my and Mr. OLSON’s home 

State of Texas. Even though we are 

under a separate grid—ERCOT—it’s important that we have this distinction 

corrected. 

b 1920 

That’s why Congress needs to address 

this issue, right here, right now or else 

we risk threatening our electrical reliability. H.R. 4273 clarifies that if an 

emergency order issued pursuant to 

section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act 

may result in a conflict with an environmental law or regulation, the order 

shall expire no later than 90 days after 

issuance. This is to ensure that DOE 

continues to have the necessary authority to ‘‘keep the lights on’’ in true 

emergencies. 

However, it then gives DOE the opportunity to renew or reissue the order 

for an additional 90-day period only 

after consulting with the appropriate 

Federal agencies and including conditions submitted by these agencies to 

mitigate the adverse environmental 

impacts. 

This is not a messaging bill. This is 

not an anti-EPA bill or an anti air 

toxic standards bill. Instead, it’s a 

commonsense bill that would address a 

very worrisome deficiency in current 

law that is only going to become more 

prominent in the coming years. 

This is one of a handful of bills that 

actually was supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the Energy 

and Commerce Committee. It also has 

support from the utility industry. 

That’s why I encourage my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to support the 

bill. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 

the balance of my time to close. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, we have no 

further speakers, and at this time I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, 

H.R. 4273 is a bipartisan, commonsense 

piece of legislation that ensures that 

during a power crisis, the lights will 

come on when it’s dark, the heat will 

come on when it’s cold, and the air 

conditioning will come on when it’s 

hot. And lives will be saved. 

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 

4273, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to make a few 

comments on the committee process for H.R. 

4273. 

As introduced, I had substantial concerns 

about H.R. 4273. The introduced bill gave the 

Department of Energy unprecedented and unchecked new authority to waive any federal, 

state or local environmental law if DOE determines there is an emergency with respect to 

electric power, and the only references to environmental safeguards in the bill were hortatory. This approach was unacceptable. I also 

believed that the bill was unnecessary, as federal agencies already have the tools necessary to resolve any conflicts between environmental requirements and emergency orders. 

However, the bill’s sponsors, the committee 

Chairman, and the affected industry were willing to engage in serious, substantive negotiations to improve the bill, which produced significant improvements. The version of the bill 

reported from Committee is narrower in scope 

and effect, and provides some environmental 

safeguards. 

I would like to extend my thanks to all of the 

participants in the negotiations for a good-faith 

and productive process. In particular, I would 

like to thank Mr. DOYLE and Mr. GREEN for 

their leadership and hard work on making improvements and producing a bill that can be 

supported on a broad bipartisan basis. I also 

want to thank Chairman UPTON and Subcommittee Chairman WHITFIELD and Representative OLSON for working with us. The 

language of this bill represents a delicate compromise that was very carefully negotiated, 

and changes to the bill before us could well 

jeopardize that broad support. 

H.R. 4273, as it is before us today, requires 

any emergency order that may result in a conflict with environmental requirements to require 

generation only during the hours necessary to 

meet the emergency and to minimize any adverse environmental impacts to the maximum 

extent practicable. The reported bill also limits 

the length of such an order to 90 days, and 

requires any renewed order to include any 

conditions identified by the relevant federal environmental agency as necessary to minimize 

any environmental impacts. 

In discussions and testimony on the bill, 

DOE officials informed the Committee that in 

any situation where time permits, they always 

consult with and rely on the relevant expert 

environmental agency with respect to minimizing environmental impacts of an emergency order, and they assured the Committee 

that they would continue this practice. This assurance is important to my support for the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. OLSON) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 4273, as amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

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 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
August 1, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 multijurisdictional 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 multijurisdictional 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. 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5606 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE August 1, 2012 

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. 

b 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 nonlocal 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 (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

MILLE LACS LAKE FREEDOM TO 

FISH ACT OF 2012 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 5797) to amend title 46, 

United States Code, with respect to 

Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota, and for 

other purposes, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 5797 

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 ‘‘Mille Lacs Lake 

Freedom To Fish Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. MILLE LACS LAKE, MINNESOTA. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

the owner or operator of a vessel operating on 

Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota, shall not, with respect to such vessel, be subject to any Federal 

requirement under subtitle II of title 46, United 

States Code, relating to licensing or vessel inspection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Minnesota (Mr. CRAVAACK) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. LARSEN) 

each will control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Minnesota. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 

5797. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself as much time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, in March 2010, the U.S. 

Coast Guard ruled that Mille Lacs 

Lake was a federally navigable body of 

water based on historical interstate 

commerce. 

Specifically, the Coast Guard justified their actions by using a U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers determination from 

1981 that said because lumberjacks in 

the 1800s floated logs on Mille Lacs 

Lake and down the Rum River, Mille 

Lacs Lake should now be made a federally navigable water body. Currently, 

the Rum River is dammed in three 

places, and the same Corps of Engineers report said that the dams prohibit through navigation. In addition, 


smartinez on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE