Transparent Airfares Act of 2014

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for working with me, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit the following letters into the record with regard to the debate on H.R. 4156.

Consumer Federation

of America

July 18, 2014

Dear Representative: Consumer Federation of America, a

nonprofit association of consumer organizations around the

country that represent the interests of millions of your

constituents, urges you to reject HR. 4156, the Transparent

Airline Act of 2014. This bill may be taken up on the

suspension calendar, but at whatever point it is presented,

we ask you to oppose it.

There is nothing transparent, or pro-consumer, about this

bill. It would allow airlines to advertise fares that do not

include the mandatory taxes, hiding the true cost until

consumers reach the end of the purchase process. This would

make the cost of airline tickets appear artificially low and

prevent budget-conscious consumers from determining upfront

whether they can afford to fly and how the cost of doing so

compares to other options, such as traveling to their

destinations by train or car.

The argument that consumers are entitled to know how much

of the ticket price is comprised of taxes is totally

disingenuous--that breakdown does show before consumers

complete their purchases. Unlike charges for things such as

checked baggage and extra legroom, however, taxes are not

optional. Therefore, consumers do not base their air travel

decisions on the amount of the taxes, which are standardized.

Just as with buying gasoline, they shop for airline tickets

based on the total cost including taxes. They are entitled to

know that cost at the onset.

Please stand with the traveling public in supporting real

truth in airfares by rejecting H.R. 4156.

Sincerely yours,

Susan Grant,

Director of Consumer Protection.