The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“TRANSPARENT AIRFARES ACT OF 2014” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H6866-H6868 on July 28, 2014.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
TRANSPARENT AIRFARES ACT OF 2014
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4156) to amend title 49, United States Code, to allow advertisements and solicitations for passenger air transportation to state the base airfare of the transportation, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4156
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 ``Transparent Airfares Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. ADVERTISEMENTS AND SOLICITATIONS FOR PASSENGER AIR
TRANSPORTATION.
(a) Full Fare Advertising.--Section 41712 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Full Fare Advertising.--
``(1) In general.--It shall not be an unfair or deceptive practice under subsection (a) for a covered entity to state in an advertisement or solicitation for passenger air transportation the base airfare for the air transportation if the covered entity clearly and separately discloses--
``(A) the government-imposed taxes and fees associated with the air transportation; and
``(B) the total cost of the air transportation.
``(2) Form of disclosure.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the information described in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) shall be disclosed in the advertisement or solicitation in a manner that clearly presents the information to the consumer.
``(B) Internet advertisements and solicitations.--For purposes of paragraph (1), with respect to an advertisement or solicitation for passenger air transportation that appears on an Internet Web site, the information described in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) may be disclosed through a link or pop-up, as such terms may be defined by the Secretary, that displays the information in a manner that is easily accessible and viewable by the consumer.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following definitions apply:
``(A) Base airfare.--The term `base airfare' means the cost of passenger air transportation, excluding government-imposed taxes and fees.
``(B) Covered entity.--The term `covered entity' means an air carrier, including an indirect air carrier, foreign carrier, ticket agent, or other person offering to sell tickets for passenger air transportation or a tour or tour component that must be purchased with air transportation.''.
(b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by subsection (a) may be construed to affect any obligation of a person that sells air transportation to disclose the total cost of the air transportation, including government-imposed taxes and fees, prior to purchase of the air transportation.
(c) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue final regulations to carry out the amendment made by subsection
(a).
(d) Effective Date.--This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on the earlier of--
(1) the effective date of regulations issued under subsection (c); and
(2) the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
General Leave
Mr. SHUSTER. 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 for the Record on H.R. 4156.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 4156. Let me begin by thanking my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle for their helpful support on this bill: Congressmen DeFazio, Rahall, and Rick Larsen of Washington. And on the Republican side, I would like to thank Congressmen Frank LoBiondo and Tom Graves of Georgia for their help and bipartisanship in crafting this bill.
A special thanks to Congressman Tom Graves who, in the 112th Congress, introduced similar legislation. He reached out to us early in the process and has been a true leader, helping us craft and move this legislation forward to provide absolute transparency to the flying public through H.R. 4156.
Before I explain the bill, I will enter into the Record letters of support for H.R. 4156, which represent a broad spectrum of support from business and labor.
A4A, AFA, IAMAW, APA,
CAPA, SWAPA,
April 1, 2014.
Dear Representative: We write to urge your support for the Transparent Airfares Act of 2014 (H.R. 4156). This bipartisan legislation will enhance airfare transparency for airline customers by ensuring that they know exactly how much of their ticket price is attributable to federal taxes and fees while still knowing the full price of air travel before they purchase a ticket.
In January 2012, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) fundamentally changed U.S. airline industry advertising practices by implementing a Full Fare Advertising (FFA) rule, which reduced airfare transparency by requiring airlines to include government-imposed taxes and fees in the base price of an advertised fare. DOT's previous advertising rules had been in effect for 25 years--through Democratic and Republican administrations. Under the previous rules, airlines and travel agents were allowed listed government-imposed taxes and fees separately from the base price of a ticket in advertisements--as all other U.S. consumer products, with the exception of gasoline, are sold.
Our industry is critical to the U.S. economy. The U.S. commercial aviation sector drives more than $1 trillion in annual economic activity--approximately 5 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product--and 10 million U.S. jobs. The industry's long-term viability and global competitiveness is threatened by a rising federal aviation tax burden that has increased 30-fold over the last three decades. On a typical
$300 one-stop domestic round-trip ticket, airline customers pay $62 in federal taxes and fees, or 21 percent of the ticket price. The federal tax bite will increase to $63 in July when the Transportation Security Administration passenger security fee will more than double from $2.50 per flight segment to $5.60 per one-way trip. Consequently, air travel is currently taxed at a higher federal rate than alcohol and tobacco, which are subject to so-called ``sin taxes'' intended to discourage their use.
Requiring airlines to include rising taxes and fees in advertisements and offers from airline and travel agent websites can dampen demand for travel and ultimately cost even more jobs in an industry that has lost nearly one-third of its work force since 2001, typically resulting in reduced service to small and rural communities. Since air travel is often an optional choice for individual consumers and businesses, even the smallest increase--or perceived increase--in airline tickets costs has a negative impact on travel decisions. In fact, in 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that a one percent increase in the cost of an airline ticket, including taxes and fees, would result in a one percent reduction in the quantity of tickets sold.
Your support of H.R. 4156 will help enhance airfare transparency for consumers, protect U.S. airline jobs and preserve air service to small and rural communities. We appreciate your consideration of this important legislation and hope that Congress will pass the bill on a strong, bipartisan basis as soon as possible.
Sincerely,Airlines for America,Association of Flight Attendants--CWA,International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,Allied Pilots Association,Coalition of Airline Pilots Association, Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association.
____
Air Line Pilots Association
International
Washington, DC, March 13, 2014.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the nearly 50,000 professional airline pilots represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I write in support of H.R. 4156, the Transparent Airfares Act of 2014.
The Transparent Airfares Act of 2014 seeks to restore the transparency of airline ticket advertisement. In January 2012, the Department of Transportation (DOT) introduced a regulation that prohibits airfare advertisements from highlighting the base cost of an airline ticket. The regulation instead mandated that the total cost of airfare, including government-imposed taxes and fees, be presented as a single price shown to the consumer. This misguided policy effectively hides the magnitude of government imposed taxes and fees from consumers, which typically constitute 21 percent of the total ticket cost.
The Transparent Airfares Act will restore transparency to air travel advertising by allowing airlines to separately declare the base airfare and additional government-imposed taxes and fees. In addition to providing consumers with greater information, the bill will remove the often misplaced blame airlines receive with regard to airfare increases. The legislation has been introduced by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), Ranking Member Nick J. Rahall, (D-WV), Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Aviation Subcommittee Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-WA), and Senior Committee Members Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Tom Graves (R-GA).
The Air Line Pilots Association, International strongly supports this move towards greater transparency in airline ticket advertisement. We urge you to add your name as a cosponsor of H.R. 4156.
Sincerely,
Lee Moak,President.
____
International Brotherhood
of Teamsters,
Washington, DC, March 20, 2014.Hon. Bill Shuster,House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: On behalf of the 1.4 million members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am writing to state our support for H.R. 4156, the Transparent Airfares Act of 2014.
H.R. 4156 reverses the Department of Transportation's Full Fare Advertising Rule, which requires airlines to include taxes and fees in the price quotes they give to customers when they shop online for flights. This requirement negatively impacts consumers in two ways. First, it effectively shields consumers from knowing what portion of their ticket price is the base fare and which portion is imposed taxes, which makes it nearly impossible to compare base fares. Second, the consumer is misled into thinking that airline ticket prices are higher than they actually are. This has a chilling effect on the demand for air travel by making the advertised price of an airline ticket artificially higher.
Consumers have a right to see the full breakdown of their ticket price, especially when taxes and fees imposed on air travel are on the rise. While the Department of Transportation had good intentions, in practice this regulation has actually reduced transparency. H.R. 4156 is practical legislation that will bring air travel in line with virtually all other consumer products which are sold at base price, with taxes added on at the point of purchase.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is pleased to offer our support for H.R. 4156. We thank you for taking the lead on this important issue and look forward to working with you to ensure the bill's swift enactment.
Sincerely,
James P. Hoffa,
General President.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4156, the Transparent Airfares Act of 2014, is a commonsense, fair, bipartisan bill that provides airfare transparency to the flying public.
In January of 2012, a Department of Transportation rule went into effect that requires the airlines and travel agents to bury government-
imposed taxes and fees in the advertised price of a ticket. This rule effectively masks and, I would argue, hides the current government-
imposed taxes and fees on consumers.
H.R. 4156 clarifies that it is not an unfair or deceptive practice to display, in an advertisement or solicitation, the base fare for the air transportation as long as the taxes, fees, and total costs are clearly and separately disclosed--again, let me repeat that: clearly and separately disclosed--in the advertisement or solicitation.
This bill will allow the airlines and travel agents to display the actual cost of air travel in a clear and transparent way, enabling travelers to see the base airfare and government-imposed taxes and fees. For instance, right now, the DOT requires airlines and travel agents to advertise a $237 plane ticket as costing $300, hiding the $63 of government taxes and fees from consumers. It is only fair that consumers know what they are paying for. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, with 50 cosponsors.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The so-called Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which I opposed for many reasons, but buried deep within it--you know, they were sitting down, crunching numbers. They had the Ryan-Murray budget deal, and they had to meet certain targets. They were short. You can't raise taxes around here. Well, yes, maybe you kind of can, things that are taxes that don't look like taxes.
So the deal that was cut was a 125 percent increase in the TSA passenger security fee. Now, many Americans probably wouldn't object too much to a passenger security fee increase if they thought it was going to enhance passenger security, especially with better throughput for the long lines at the airports. But no, that is not where the money is going. It is just going somewhere in the Federal Treasury. Maybe it will help reduce the deficit. Maybe it will be spent on something else. No one knows. But airline passengers will pay it.
{time} 1415
A one-stop flight from Eugene to San Francisco used to be $2.50. The tax will now be $5.60. That is a pretty steep increase, and that is what really drove me to support this legislation.
I am happy to talk about increased taxes and have an upfront debate about it, where it is needed and where it needs to be reformed, but these invisible things like this, where some backroom deal between a senior House Republican and a Democrat in the Senate, where they just stick it on to airline passengers, that shouldn't happen.
It can happen, in part, because nobody knows. They weren't watching the debate, it was buried in the bill, and they don't see it in the required full-fare advertising. There is just one big number.
Well, where does all that money go? Well, guess what, a lot of it goes to the government, and as of this week, on a one-way flight to San Francisco, another $3.10 will go to the government. So I think if we had good disclosure of the tax part, then it wouldn't be as easy for some of my colleagues to sneak that stuff through.
Now, secondly, we are kind of looking at the nanny state here. Do you know what the current rule is? Well, the airlines can advertise the taxes after the full fare, the aggregate fare, but it has to be in smaller print. It has to be in smaller print. Talk about the nanny state. Give me a break.
What do you think, Americans are idiots? Besides that, I have trouble with small print, and a lot of other people do too. So they are probably going to be really squinting, trying to read the small print part, where the big numbers stand out.
Third, why airlines? Why did they go after the aviation industry? Whoa--were there a lot of complaints? No, there weren't. In May 2011, there were four complaints about fare advertising out of 1,062 complaints. If they really wanted the FAA to focus on things, they would look at customer service, baggage, 143, 120, boarding problems, 116, refunds, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So the FAA somehow went out in search of a problem that didn't exist; but guess what? Did they fix the problem that didn't exist? Did we go from four complaints to zero? Oops--no. Actually, May 2014, with the new full-fare advertising rule with the tiny print for government and big print for the total cost, they had 12 complaints. Complaints are up 300 percent.
Now, I wonder what that is about, so I would say that this was a nanny state rule in search of a problem that didn't exist that may have created a problem that does exist. There is a whole host of issues that go to price sensitivity, many studies about that, and other things.
So it is detrimental to the industry; it is, I think, confusing; and I think it is deceptive. In March, I was going to hike the Grand Canyon. I was going to rent a car that was going to sit for 7 days. I didn't want to pay a lot for a rental car to sit for 7 days. So I went on Priceline, and I bid. I got a car for $19 a day--pretty good, but I know that the next page is going to tell me what I am really going to pay.
Now, any informed consumer knows that. It is prominent because you have to get finally to click and agree to the end, so you are going to see the whole thing. It is the same thing with airline tickets under this bill. You will see first what the airline is charging you. Next, you will see what the government is charging you, and then, finally, you will see what you will pay.
That is just like I paid for this rental car, just like a hotel room, just like for cruises and everything else.
Now, I don't want to give anybody down at DOT any ideas--or whatever other agencies have jurisdiction in those areas--because I don't want them to start thinking, well, wait a minute, maybe we need a nanny state rule too because we don't have one for rental cars and we don't have one for cruises. No, that is not my point.
My point is consumers are pretty smart. We are not concealing anything here. Give us full and meaningful information, and help me prevent people sticking fees on to airline passengers that have nothing to do with aviation in secret budget deals in the future.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for enlightening us to some of those facts that I was not aware of. Complaints going up 300 percent in the new law is quite shocking, but I do agree with the gentleman completely on his argument that there needs to be transparency.
It is not fair and it is not right that the government can hide those fees when there are other industries and other modes of transportation that have to put them out there in full, plain view of the traveling public.
The gentleman is correct that the traveling public and the consumers understand. They can look, they can read, and they can add and subtract. So, again, I think this is a fair and prudent piece of legislation that is going to make sure it is transparent for the traveling public.
Once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for being a big supporter on this, as well as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, Mr. Larsen; as well as the full committee ranking member, Mr. Rahall; and, of course, Mr. LoBiondo, the chairman of the subcommittee.
Again, a special thanks to Tom Graves, who has been so effective in working this issue and working with us to put forth this bill that is bipartisan today.
Does the gentleman have any other speakers?
Mr. DeFAZIO. No, I have no requests for time. Apparently, we have done something unusual around here, created something that doesn't seem to be controversial, except among a few talking heads out there somewhere.
Mr. Speaker, having no requests for time, I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for working with me, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4156.
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.
____________________
