[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13251-13254]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    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

[[Page 13252]]

     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

[[Page 13253]]

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.
  Mr. WAXMAN. 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.
                                  ____


         July 15--Consumer Groups' Letter to U.S. House Members

       Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We the 
     undersigned consumer groups have learned that highly 
     controversial H.R. 4156, the Transparent Airfares Act of 
     2014, is on the short list in the House for possible 
     inclusion on the Suspension Calendar prior to the August 
     recess. H.R. 4156 is contentious legislation that would harm 
     millions of consumers by reversing a U.S. Department of 
     Transportation (DOT) rule implemented in 2012 as a cure to 
     misleading airline advertising. We urge you to strongly 
     object to the inclusion of H.R. 4156 on the Suspension 
     Calendar.
       Consumer groups were not alerted to the prospect of this 
     legislation, nor were we provided any opportunity for input 
     before Committee markup. H.R. 4156 was rushed by voice vote 
     through the House Transportation Committee on April 9, 2014 
     after just 9 minutes of discussion. There were no hearings, 
     no outreach for public opinion. This rushed process has 
     denied other stakeholders an opportunity to inform Congress 
     of their views and the flaws in this bill.
       Now, after steamrollering the bill through Committee, 
     airlines hope to rush the bill through the House under 
     Suspension of the Rules. But this is not the type of 
     unobjectionable proposal that the Suspension Calendar is 
     designed for; rather, it is harmful and controversial 
     special-interest legislation. There is not one consumer group 
     or business travel organization that supports this 
     legislation; most have publicly criticized both the bill and 
     the rushed process.
       This anti-consumer legislation serves no purpose, in our 
     view, other than to mislead consumers about the real price of 
     airfare--to the benefit of airlines, but at the expense of 
     consumers.
       Indeed, The New York Times Editorial Board on April 22 
     criticized the bill in an editorial saying: ``This push to 
     mislead consumers is particularly galling since recent 
     mergers, like that of American Airlines and US Airways, have 
     made the industry less competitive.'' Likewise, The 
     Washington Post reported on April 24: ``Consumers have 
     reacted to this bill in the same way their advocates have: 
     They're dead-set against it.''
       We urge you to stand up against this anti-consumer move by 
     the airlines and to ask House leadership not to schedule this 
     highly controversial bill for the Suspension Calendar, and 
     instead insist on a fair opportunity for travel industry and 
     consumer groups' input and proper deliberation.
           Sincerely,
       AirlinePassengers.org, Association for Airline Passenger 
     Rights, Business Travel Coalition, Consumers Union, Ed 
     Perkins, Consumer Advocate, FlyersRights.org, National 
     Consumers League, Travelers United, U.S. PIRG.
                                  ____



                                       Travelers United, Inc.,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 30, 2014.
       Dear Representative: I write to outline the harm the 
     Airfare Transparency Act (HR 4156) will cause for passengers, 
     travel agencies and corporate travel managers. And, to 
     highlight the strong opposition to this legislation from 
     consumers, the aviation distribution industry and corporate 
     travel managers.
       HR 4156 is completely unnecessary for its proposed impact.
       Under this bill aviation will become the only industry in 
     American permitted to add federal excise taxes and fees at 
     the end of the ticket buying process, just like local taxes 
     and fees.
       HR 4156 will enshrine drip pricing into law, a form of 
     deceptive and misleading pricing that has long been battled 
     by the FTC and DOT.
       This legislation makes understanding airfares less 
     transparent, more confusing and misleading.
       Airlines and their unions claim that this bill is necessary 
     to ensure passengers know ``exactly how much of their ticket 
     price is attributable to federal taxes and fees while at the 
     same time knowing the full price of air travel before they 
     purchase a ticket.''
       The current DOT rules allow for airlines to do exactly 
     that. Specific language in the regulation codifies how that 
     can be done. Plus, airlines have many other opportunities to 
     clearly outline taxes and fees paid when purchasing tickets. 
     Airlines can explain taxes and fees on ticket itineraries. 
     Airlines can print taxes and fees on boarding passes along 
     with Sudoko games and the weather. However, airlines choose 
     not to do this.
       When airlines claim that they are the unjustly subjected to 
     revealing federal excise taxes prior to purchase, they are 
     wrong. Every other industry in the U.S. that is subjected to 
     federal excise taxes and federal fees includes those costs in 
     the product price.

[[Page 13254]]

     These include gasoline, liquor, beer, tires, trucks and 
     others. The taxes and fees that other transportation and 
     travel entities add to the final prices are state and local 
     taxes and fees--airlines are exempt from those taxes.
       The only part of this bill that would change what can be 
     done under the current DOT full-fare regulations is the 
     misleading and deceptive ability to advertise incomplete low 
     prices for which no consumer can purchase air travel.
       HR 4156 makes airfares more difficult to understand and 
     purchase. It was passed out of committee and under suspension 
     of rules with no consumer input and no consultation with the 
     airline distribution network of travel agents and corporate 
     travel managers that deal with the public on a day-by-day 
     basis.
       This bill has been opposed by far more than a few ``talking 
     heads.''
       Almost every major newspaper has opposed HR 4156 in 
     editorials or articles over the past few months. The papers 
     and magazines include The New York Times, Washington Post, 
     USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, and many others. A 
     change.org petition garnered more than 127,000 signatures 
     specifically opposing this bill.
       Major consumer organization, in addition to Travelers 
     United (formerly Consumer Travel Alliance), have aligned to 
     oppose this legislation. These organization include AAA, 
     Association for Airline Passenger Rights, Business Travel 
     Coalition, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, 
     Ed Perkins (Consumer Advocate), FlyersRights.org, National 
     Consumers League and U.S. PIRG.
       This legislation undoes years of hard work by advocates to 
     ensure that consumers are not duped when purchasing airfare. 
     Transparency cannot be achieved through confusion.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Charlie Leocha,
                                                         Chairman.

  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.

                          ____________________