South Carolina Trucking Association Supports Hollings' Toll Relief Bill
5 May 1999
South Carolina Trucking Association Supports Hollings' Toll Relief Bill; Bill Would Close Loopholes, Repeal Pilot Program COLUMBIA, S.C., May 4 -- The South Carolina Trucking
Association (SCTA) today announced its support for The Interstate Tolls Relief
Act of 1999 (S. 947), a bill introduced this week by US Senators Ernest
Hollings (D-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ). Their proposal would limit the
authority of individual states to establish tolls on the Interstate Highway
System, a situation they now consider too open-ended and one that goes beyond
the intent of Congress.
"We welcome and strongly support this legislation," said J. Richards Todd,
SCTA President. "South Carolina's highway users -- and the trucking industry
in particular -- should not have to pay tolls on highways for which we've
already paid and continue to support. To erect toll booths at our borders is
extorting money from our neighbors and a clear violation of the Commerce
Clause of the US Constitution. Senator Hollings is right on target with his
legislation."
The Hollings-McCain bill would prevent tolls on existing interstates
except for the replacement or substantial reconstruction of "major" bridges
and tunnels when other funding may not be available. It also repeals a Pilot
Interstate Toll Program that so far no states have applied for. It does not
prevent states from tolling non-Interstate highways. Also, it does not affect
tolls on highways where they are already in place.
"To continue in the current atmosphere," said Hollings, "could reduce the
efficiency of our Interstate highways, increase shipping costs, and make
interstate travel more expensive and less convenient."
A bill in the state legislature would toll I-95 at the borders of North
Carolina and Georgia and the state Department of Transportation is considering
tolls at the borders on all interstates in the state as a way to generate
additional funding for the highway program. Industry officials are concerned
about the impact tolls would have on the state's business climate and the
state's port. "We certainly don't want to ignite another Civil War, or invite
retaliation by our sister states," Todd said.
The South Carolina Trucking Association and the Highway Users Conference
have been working aggressively to build a coalition of highway user
organizations, tourism, economic development and heavy industry interests to
stop the proposals. They say that this legislation should send a clear
message to all states, including South Carolina, that attempts to toll
Interstate highways will be met with strong opposition.
Hollings is the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. McCain is Committee chairman.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
May 3, 1999 Comments by SC US Senator Fritz Hollings Upon Introduction of
Toll Legislation
By Mr. Hollings (for himself and Mr. McCain) S. 947. A bill to amend
federal law regarding the tolling of the Interstate Highway System; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
INTERSTATE TOLLS RELIEF ACT OF 1999
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to bring to your attention an issue of
great national concern. We all remember the great debate that this chamber
had last year during reauthorization of the federal highway bill, TEA-21. We
all negotiated to get more funds for our states because we know that more
investment in our highways means better, safer, and more efficient
transportation for those who rely on roads for making deliveries, going to
work or school, or just doing the grocery shopping. Transportation is the
lynchpin for economic development, and those states that have good, efficient
transportation systems attract business development, ultimately raising
standards of living. However, I think that we may have gone too far in
authorizing states additional means to raise revenue for highway improvements.
These means to raise revenue are not productive and hurt our system of
transportation.
Specifically, I am concerned that states have too much flexibility to
establish tolls on our Interstate highway system. For many states, the large
increases in TEA-21 funding have satisfied the need to invest in
infrastructure. Other states have found that they need to raise more money,
and so they have raised their state fuel taxes or taken other actions to raise
the needed revenue. These increases may be difficult to implement
politically, because frankly most people don't support any tax increase.
However, I believe that highway tolls are a non-productive and overly
intrusive means of raising revenue causing more harm to commerce than can be
justified.
Congress, mistakenly in my opinion, increased the authority of states to
put tolls on their Interstate highways in TEA-21. I am introducing the
Interstate Tolls Relief Act of 1999 to restrict Interstate toll authority.
The debate over highway tolls goes back to the genesis of our Republic, and
contributed to our movement away from the Articles of Confederation to a more
uniform system of governance under the U.S. Constitution. Toll roads were the
bane of commerce, in the early years of the Republic, as each state would
attempt to toll the interstate traveling public to finance state public
improvements. Ultimately, frustration with delay and uneven costs helped
contribute to the adoption of Commerce Clause powers to help facilitate
interstate and foreign trade. Those same concerns hold true today, and I
think that we in Congress must take a national perspective and promote
interstate commerce.
I think that if one were to ask the citizens of the United States about
tolls, they would ultimately conclude that Interstate tolls would reduce the
efficiency of our Interstate highways, increase shipping costs, and make
interstate travel more expensive and less convenient. Not to mention the
safety problems associated with erecting toll booths and operating them to
collect revenues.
Now, I recognize that tolls under certain circumstances may be a good
idea, and my bill does not prevent states from tolling non-Interstate
highways. My bill also does not affect tolls on highways where they are
already in use, and states will continue to be able to rely on existing tolls
for revenues. Furthermore, my bill recognizes that when funds must be found
for a major Interstate bridge or tunnel project, states may have no other
option but to use tolls to finance the project. They may continue to do so
under my bill. I believe this is consistent with the original intent of
authority granted for Interstate tolls. What my bill does is to prevent the
proliferation of Interstate tolls, and restrict tolling authority for major
bridges and tunnels.
Mr. President, this bill is essential if we are to continue to have an
Interstate Highway System that is safe and facilitates the efficient movement
of Interstate commerce and personal travel. I urge the support of my
colleagues.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
S.947
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 "Interstate Tolls Relief Act of 1999."
SEC. 2. INTERSTATE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION PILOT PROGRAM
REPEALED.
Section 1215(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112
Stat. 212-214) is repealed.
SEC. 3. TOLLS ON BRIDGES AND TUNNELS.
Section 129 (a) (1)(C) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by
striking "toll-free bridge or tunnel," and inserting "toll-free major bridge
or tunnel." For purposes of this section, a "major bridge" is one that has a
deck area which exceeds 125,000 square feet.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON USE OF TOLL REVENUES.
Section 129(a)(3) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by: (1)
striking "first" in the first sentence and inserting "only"; and (2) striking
"If the State certifies annually that the tolled facility is being adequately
maintained, the State may use any toll revenues in excess of amounts required
under the preceding sentence for any purpose for which Federal funds may be
obligated by a State under this title."
