[Senate Report 119-15]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 49
119th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 119-15
_______________________________________________________________________
HOTEL FEES TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2025
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 314
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
April 28, 2025.--Ordered to be printed
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-010 WASHINGTON : 2025
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred nineteenth congress
first session
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
TED BUDD, North Carolina JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
JOHN CURTIS, Utah JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
TIM SHEEHY, Montana ANDY KIM, New Jersey
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
Brad Grantz, Majority Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Staff Director
Calendar No. 49
119th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 119-15
======================================================================
HOTEL FEES TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2025
_______
April 28, 2025.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Cruz, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 314]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 314) to prohibit unfair and
deceptive advertising of prices for hotel rooms and other
places of short-term lodging, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of S. 314 is to prohibit covered entities from
advertising a price for short-term lodging that does not
clearly, conspicuously, and prominently include the total
price, including all fees.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
Price transparency is a key factor in a free and fair
market. Consumers have experienced hidden fees or drip
pricing--where only part of the price for a product or service
is disclosed up front and additional charges are revealed or
imposed through the purchasing process--in a number of
contexts. Drip pricing is the practice of advertising only part
of a product's price up front and revealing additional charges
later as a consumer goes through the purchasing process. In the
hotel and short-term rental industry, these fees can be
revealed throughout the booking process, or even imposed upon
check-in.\1\ When these practices are used, consumers will
likely experience additional mandatory charges or fees on their
purchase, which are not disclosed to the consumer with the
initial or advertised price. As a result, consumers may pay
significantly more for hotel services than the advertised
price. Consumers also may be unable to effectively comparison
shop for hotels and short-term rentals. A 2019 report by
Consumer Reports found that at least 85 percent of Americans
have encountered an unexpected or hidden fee for a service they
had used in the past 2 years.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Settlement with Choice Hotels is AG Henry's Latest Action to
Quash Hidden `Resort Fees' and `Drip Pricing' for Travelers,''
Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle A. Henry, September 21, 2023
(https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/settlement-with-choice-
hotels-is-ag-henrys-latest-action-to-quash-hidden-resort-fees-and-drip-
pricing-for-travelers/).
\2\Penelope Wang, ``Protect Yourself From Hidden Fees,'' Consumer
Reports, May 29, 2019 (https://www.consumerreports.org/money/fees-
billing/protect-yourself-from-hidden-fees-a1096754265/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has long expressed
concerns with these practices, noting that failing to disclose
the full price of goods or services in advertisements can
deceptively lower consumers' estimates of how much they expect
to (and will) pay for a product or service.\3\ In 2012, the FTC
held a conference to examine drip pricing.\4\ FTC staff made a
recommendation for up-front pricing in a 2017 staff report.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\``FTC Warns Hotel Operators That Price Quotes That Exclude
'Resort Fees' and Other Mandatory Surcharges May Be Deceptive,''
Federal Trade Commission, November 28, 2012 (https://www.ftc.gov/news-
events/news/press-releases/2012/11/ftc-warns-hotel-operators-price-
quotes-
exclude-resort-fees-other-mandatory-surcharges-may-be).
\4\``The Economics of Drip Pricing,'' Federal Trade Commission, May
21, 2012 (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2012/05/economics-
drip-pricing).
\5\Mary W. Sullivan, Economic Issues: Economic Analysis of Hotel
Resort Fees, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, January
2017 (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/
documents/reports/economic-analysis-hotel-resort-fees/
p115503_hotel_resort_fees_economic_
issues_paper.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Transportation already requires airlines
to advertise the full fare for air transportation.\6\ This
legislation will provide consumers with a consistent experience
when booking lodging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, Rules and
Regulations, ``Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections,'' Federal
Register, vol. 76, no. 79, 23166, April 25, 2011 (https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-04-25/pdf/2011-9736.pdf). Since
2011, the Department of Transportation has required airlines to
advertise the entire price to be paid by the customer for air
transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In enforcing their consumer protection statutes, State
attorneys general have addressed fee disclosure in the hotel
and lodging sector. In 2023, the State attorneys general from
Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nebraska, and Oregon entered into a
binding settlement with a hotel chain to require the upfront
disclosure of all mandatory fees to consumers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\``Settlement with Choice Hotels is AG Henry's Latest Action to
Quash Hidden `Resort Fees' and `Drip Pricing' for Travelers,''
Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle A. Henry, September 21, 2023
(https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/settlement-with-choice-
hotels-is-ag-henrys-latest-action-to-quash-hidden-resort-fees-and-drip-
pricing-for-travelers/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2023, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection,
Product Safety, and Data Security of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing,
``Protecting Consumers from Junk Fees,'' which highlighted the
need for legislative action to address hidden fees, including
in the hotel industry.\8\ Sally Greenberg, chief executive
officer of the National Consumers League, wrote extensively in
her testimony about hotel fees as an example of an industry's
use of hidden fees.\9\ As a result of such hidden fees and the
confusion injected into the purchasing process, consumers often
end up purchasing more expensive hotel rooms, as they appear
less expensive to start.\10\ Additionally, competitors who
choose to display their fees up front may face a competitive
disadvantage if their prices appear to be more expensive at
first glance. Legislation would ensure that all competitors are
held to the same standard and consumers are protected from
hidden fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\``Protecting Consumers From Junk Fees,'' hearing before the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee
on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security, 118th
Congress, June 8, 2023 (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/6/
protecting-consumers-from-junk-fees).
\9\Prepared statement of Sally Greenberg, submitted to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on
Consumer Protection, Data Security, and Product Safety, for hearing on
``Protecting Consumers From Junk Fees,'' 118th Congress, June 8, 2023
(https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/586508D9-4C9D-45B7-
AB6B-3B8A44151BEF).
\10\Tom Blake et al., ``Price Salience and Product Choice,''
Marketing Science, vol. 40, no. 4 (May 19, 2021), pp. 619-636,
available online by subscription (https://doi.org/10.1287/
mksc.2020.1261); Shelle Santana et al., ``Consumers' Reactions to Drip
Pricing,'' Marketing Science, vol. 39, no. 1 (January 15, 2020), pp.
188-210, available online by subscription (https://doi.org/10.1287/
mksc.2019.1207); supra, note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
S. 314 would do the following:
Prohibit covered entities from displaying or
advertising a price for temporary lodging without
clearly, conspicuously, and prominently displaying the
total service price.
Require covered entities to disclose the total
service price at the time a price for temporary lodging
is first displayed to an individual and throughout the
purchasing process. Prior to final purchase, any
government tax or fee must also be disclosed.
Grant enforcement authority to the Federal Trade
Commission, State attorneys general, and other
authorized officers of a State to enforce the Act.
Protect intermediaries or third-party online sellers
by allowing them to assert an affirmative defense in
enforcement actions if the intermediaries established
procedures to receive up-to-date price information from
hotels or short-term rentals, the third parties relied
in good faith on the information provided to them, and
took prompt action to remove or correct any false or
inaccurate information after receiving notice.
Preempt any State or a local law, rule, regulation,
requirement, standard, or other provision that
prohibits a covered entity from displaying or
advertising a covered service, or otherwise affects the
manner in which a covered entity may display or
advertise a price of a covered service, and that
requires fee disclosure, unless the law requires the
total services price to include each service fee (as
defined in the Act) in accordance with the requirements
in this Act.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 314 was introduced on January 29, 2025, by Senator
Klobuchar (for herself and Senators Moran, Cortez Masto, and
Capito) and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate. On February 5, 2025, the
Committee met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote,
ordered S. 314 reported favorably without amendment.
ESTIMATED COSTS
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Summary of legislation: On February 5, 2025, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered
reported a total of 17 bills. This document provides estimates
for 5 of those bills.
S. 99, S. 195, and S. 245 would require the Department of
Commerce to study supply chains, promote music tourism, and
establish a working group on cyber insurance; S. 281 and S. 314
would direct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce new
prohibitions related to ticket prices for live events and hotel
prices.
Estimated Federal cost: The estimated costs do not include
any effects of interactions among the bills. If all five bills
were combined and enacted as a single piece of legislation, the
estimated costs could be different from the sum of the separate
estimates, although CBO expects that any differences would be
small. The costs of the legislation fall within budget function
370 (commerce and housing credit).
Basis of estimate: For these estimates, CBO assumes that
the bills will be enacted near the middle of fiscal year 2025
and that the estimated amounts will be appropriated each year.
CBO estimates that all five bills would affect spending subject
to appropriation and that S. 281 and S. 314 would affect
revenues.
S. 99, Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing
Act, would require the Department of Commerce to contract with
the National Academy of Public Administration to study programs
operated by the department that aim to improve the resilience
of critical supply chains and provide technical assistance to
U.S. manufacturers. The report would identify interagency gaps
and duplicative responsibilities among offices and recommend
improvements.
Using information from the Department of Commerce, CBO
estimates that completing the study would cost $2 million over
the 2025-2030 period, including employee and contracting costs.
Any related spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
S. 195, American Music Tourism Act of 2025, would require
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Travel and Tourism to
promote music tourism in the United States and periodically
report to the Congress. In 2024, the Assistant Secretary
received $3.5 million to carry out the requirements of the
Visit America Act, a 2022 law to promote travel and tourism in
the United States.
Using information about the Assistant Secretary's
responsibilities under current law, CBO estimates that
implementing the requirements in the bill would cost less than
$500,000 over the 2025-2030 period. Any related spending would
be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
S. 245, Insure Cybersecurity Act of 2025, would require the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration to
establish an interagency working group on cyber insurance,
composed of members from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, Department of Justice, Department of the
Treasury, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
the FTC. The working group would be required to report to the
Congress no later than one year after it forms.
Using information about the cost of similar working groups,
CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost less than
$500,000 over the 2025-2026 period. Any related spending would
be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
S. 281, TICKET Act, would require companies that issue
tickets or that sell tickets on the secondary market to clearly
display the total price of any ticket, including itemizing any
fees not included in the base ticket price. The bill also would
prohibit entities from offering or advertising tickets that
they do not possess, require entities to clearly disclose if a
ticket is for re-sale, and direct ticket sellers to refund
buyers if an event is cancelled. Those requirements would apply
to live events at venues with an attendance capacity of 200
people or more. The FTC would enforce those requirements.
Based on the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates
implementing the bill would cost the FTC $4 million over the
2025-2030 period to issue guidance and to monitor and enforce
violations. Any related spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds. In addition, CBO estimates
that enacting the bill could increase civil penalty
collections, which are recorded in the budget as revenues, by
an insignificant amount.
S. 314, Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025, would require
providers of short-term lodging and websites that advertise or
offer such lodging to display upfront the full lodging price
and each mandatory fee required to complete a booking. The FTC
would enforce those requirements.
Based on the cost of similar provisions, CBO estimates
implementing the bill would cost the FTC $4 million over the
2025-2030 period to issue guidance and to monitor and enforce
violations. Any related spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds. In addition, CBO estimates
that enacting the bill could increase civil penalty
collections, which are recorded in the budget as revenues, by
an insignificant amount.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: CBO estimates that enacting
S. 281 and S. 314 would each increase revenues by less than
$500,000 over the 2025-2035 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures apply to those bills.
Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that none of the bills would increase net direct
spending or deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year
periods beginning in 2036.
Mandates: Two of the bills ordered reported by the
committee contain mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA).
S. 281, TICKET Act, would impose private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA on ticket sellers and resellers by requiring
certain changes, including new refund policies to the ticketing
process. CBO estimates the aggregate cost to comply with the
mandates would be above the threshold established in UMRA for
private-sector mandates ($206 million in 2025, adjusted
annually for inflation).
Under the bill, if an event is cancelled, ticket sellers
and resellers would be required to provide a refund of the full
ticket price, including taxes and fees, to ticket purchasers.
If an event is postponed, sellers and resellers would be
required to provide customers either a full refund or a
replacement ticket, if available, subject to the customer's
preference. Sellers also would be required to disclose this
refund policy. The bill allows for exceptions to this policy in
cases where the cancellation or postponement is beyond the
control of the ticker issuer, such as natural disasters. Based
on discussions with industry sources, a substantial share of
sellers and resellers already provide full refunds for
cancelled events but few offer refunds for postponed events.
Considerable uncertainty surrounds the ways that federal
regulations might define what is within the control of the
issuer in the event of a cancellation or postponement or what
might constitute comparable replacement events. Given the large
size of the industry and the amount of revenue generated by
ticketed events, CBO estimates that the cost of this mandate
would exceed the threshold for private-sector mandates.
S. 281 also would require ticket sellers and resellers to
make certain up-front disclosures to consumers. They would need
to disclose the ticket prices, including taxes and fees. Those
disclosures would occur at the time a ticket is first displayed
to a consumer and in any advertisements or marketing. The bill
also would require ticket sellers and resellers to provide an
itemized list of the base price and all fees. Information from
industry sources indicates that most ticket sellers have
already begun to provide the total cost to consumers in
advance; thus, CBO expects the additional requirements in the
bill to have small costs.
The bill also would require ticket resellers to disclose to
consumers that they are resellers before any purchase is
complete. Sellers and resellers would be prohibited from
selling or advertising any ticket that the seller does not have
actually or constructively possess. In certain instances,
sellers also would be prohibited from revealing to consumers
and using the name of venues, teams, artists, and events in
their online domain names. CBO expects that those disclosures
and prohibitions would impose minimal costs on the sellers.
The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
S. 314, Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025, would impose
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA. CBO estimates that the cost to comply with those mandates
would not exceed thresholds established in UMRA ($103 million
and $206 million in 2025, respectively, adjusted annually for
inflation).
The bill would preempt state and local laws governing the
display of prices for short-term lodging. Although the
preemptions would limit the application of state and local
laws, it would impose no duty on state or local governments
that would result in significant spending or loss of revenues.
The bill would require hotels, short-term rentals, online
booking websites, and any other third-party temporary
accommodation sellers to disclose upfront the total price of
lodging, including any government-imposed fees. Information
from industry sources and the FTC indicates that several
lodging providers already comply with provisions in the bill.
In addition, an FTC final rule, set to go into effect in April,
will require short-term lodging sellers to disclose all
associated fees to customers. CBO expects the cost for other
entities to comply would be small because many providers
already comply and those who do not already possess the fee
information required to be displayed.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs and revenues: David
Hughes; Mandates: Grace Watson and Rachel Austin.
Estimate reviewed by: Justin Humphrey, Chief, Finance,
Housing, and Education Cost Estimates Unit; Kathleen
FitzGerald, Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel
Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director,
Congressional Budget Office.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
number of persons covered
S. 314 covers the following entities and any employees
retained by them:
Hotels and short-term rentals.
Third-party online websites that offer hotel rooms
or short-term lodgings.
Intermediaries, including both consumer-facing and
business-facing entities that offer online booking
services or price comparison tools.
The Federal Trade Commission.
State attorneys general.
economic impact
By increasing transparency in the hotel market, S. 314 will
allow consumers to more effectively comparison shop and select
the best-priced hotel rooms or short-term rentals. Therefore,
the bill is expected to save consumers both time and money.
privacy
S. 314 is not anticipated to impact the personal privacy of
individuals.
paperwork
S. 314 is not anticipated to generate any additional
paperwork.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title.
This section provides that this Act may be cited as the
``Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025''.
Section 2. Prohibition on unfair and deceptive advertising of hotel
rooms and other short-term rental prices.
Subsection (a)(1) would prohibit a covered entity from
displaying, advertising, marketing, or offering in interstate
commerce, a price for covered services that does not clearly,
conspicuously, and prominently display the total services
price; disclose the total services price at the time it is
first displayed to the individual and anytime throughout the
purchasing process; and disclose any tax or fee imposed by the
government prior to the final purchase.
Subsection (a)(2) would provide that a covered entity is
not prohibited from displaying individual components of the
total price or additional details of other items not required
by this Act, provided that such displays are less prominent
than the required total service price.
Subsection (a)(3) would provide that nothing in this
section shall be construed to prohibit any covered entity from
entering into a contract with another covered entity that
contains an indemnification provision regarding price or fee
information.
Subsection (b)(1) would provide that a violation of
subsection (a) will be treated as a violation of a rule
defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the
Federal Trade Commission Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsection (b)(2) would provide for State enforcement of
subsection (a) through State attorneys general. Attorneys
general who wish to bring a case must inform the Commission
prior to bringing civil action. If they are unable to notify
the Commission prior to the action, they must notify
immediately upon bringing the civil action. The Commission may
intervene in any civil action brought by the attorney general
of a State and file petitions for appeal. Nothing in this
section may be construed to prevent State attorneys general
from exercising other powers conferred upon them by the laws of
a State to conduct investigations, administer oaths or
affirmations, or compel the attendance of witnesses or the
production of evidence. Where a civil action has been
instituted by or on behalf of the Commission, no attorney
general may institute an action against any defendant in the
complaint. Any action brought under subparagraph (a) may be
brought in a United States district court or another competent
court of jurisdiction. Actions brought under subparagraph (a)
may be served in any district where the defendant is an
inhabitant, is found, or transacts business; or the venue is
proper under section 1391 of title 28, United States Code.
Authorized State officers other than attorney generals may
bring a civil action under subparagraph (a), subject to the
same requirements under this paragraph. Nothing in this
paragraph may be construed to prohibit an authorized State
official from initiating or continuing State court proceedings
for violations of a State's civil or criminal law.
Subsection (b)(3) would provide that in any action
initiated under this Act, an intermediary or third-party online
seller may assert an affirmative defense if they have (A)
established procedures to receive up-to-date price information,
(B) relied on good faith that the information supplied to them
was accurate, and (C) took prompt action to correct any false
or inaccurate information after receiving notice.
Subsection (c) would prohibit States (and their political
subdivisions) from enforcing any provision having the force and
effect of law that prohibits a covered entity from advertising
or displaying or affects the manner in which a covered entity
advertises or displays a price, and that requires fee
disclosure, unless the law requires the total services price to
include each service fee (as defined by this Act), and in
accordance with subsection (a)(1). This section may not be
construed to preempt any State law relating to contracts or
torts, or any State law relating to fraud.
Subsection (d) would define key terms in this Act. The term
``base service price'' means the price to obtain the covered
service of the hotel or short-term rental, not including
service fees or taxes. The term ``Commission'' means the
Federal Trade Commission. The term ``covered entity'' means a
person or partnership that the Commission has jurisdiction
over, including hotels, third-party online sellers, or an
intermediary. The term ``covered services'' means the temporary
provision of a room, building, or other lodging. Such term does
not include the provision of a meeting room, banquet services,
or catering services. The term ``hotel'' means an establishment
that provides a covered service and promotes such service. The
term ``intermediary'' means an entity that operates as either
business-facing, consumer-facing, or both and displays a price
for covered entities or a price comparison service for covered
services. The term ``optional product or service'' means a
product or service that an individual does not need to purchase
for use of covered services. The term ``service fee'' means a
charge from a covered entity necessary for covered services and
does not include any government taxes or fees or any optional
fees. The term ``short-term rental'' means a property that
provides covered services to the general public for a fee, for
a period shorter than 30 consecutive days, and promotes the
service. The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and any territory of the United States.
The term ``third-party online seller'' means any person other
than a hotel or short-term rental that sells covered services
with respect to a hotel in a transaction on the internet. The
term ``total services price'' means the total cost of covered
services, including the base service price and any service
fees, and does not include any government taxes or tees or
optional fees.
Subsection (e) would set the effective date of this Act as
450 days following enactment.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.
[all]