Opinion of the Court

ample, that the "breadth of [that provision's] pre-emptive reach is apparent from [its] language," Shaw, supra, at 96; that it has a "broad scope," Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 739 (1985), and an “expansive sweep," Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 47 (1987); and that it is "broadly worded," Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S. 133, 138 (1990), "deliberately expansive," Pilot Life, supra, at 46, and "conspicuous for its breadth," Holliday, supra, at 58. True to our word, we have held that a state law "relates to" an employee benefit plan, and is pre-empted by ERISA, "if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan." Shaw, supra, at 97. Since the relevant language of the ADA is identical, we think it appropriate to adopt the same standard here: State enforcement actions having a connection with, or reference to, airline "rates, routes, or services" are pre-empted under 49 U. S. C. App. § 1305(a)(1).

Petitioner raises a number of objections to this reading, none of which we think is well taken. First, he claims that we may not use our interpretation of identical language in ERISA as a guide, because the sweeping nature of ERISA pre-emption derives not from the "relates to" language, but from "the wide and inclusive sweep of the comprehensive ERISA scheme," which he asserts the ADA does not have. Brief for Petitioner 33-34. This argument is flatly contradicted by our ERISA cases, which clearly and unmistakably rely on express pre-emption principles and a construction of the phrase "relates to." See, e. g., Shaw, supra, at 96-97, and n. 16 (citing dictionary definitions); Ingersoll-Rand, supra, at 138-139. Petitioner also stresses that the FAA "saving" clause, which preserves "the remedies now existing at common law or by statute," 49 U. S. C. App. §1506, is broader than its ERISA counterpart. But it is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general, see, e. g., Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc.,

Opinion of the Court

482 U. S. 437, 445 (1987), a canon particularly pertinent here, where the "saving" clause is a relic of the pre-ADA/no preemption regime. A general "remedies" saving clause cannot be allowed to supersede the specific substantive pre-emption provision-unless it be thought that a State having a statute requiring "reasonable rates," and providing remedies against "unreasonable" ones, could actually set airfares. As in International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U. S. 481, 494 (1987), "we do not believe Congress intended to undermine this carefully drawn statute through a general saving clause." Petitioner contends that §1305(a)(1) only pre-empts the States from actually prescribing rates, routes, or services. This simply reads the words "relating to" out of the statute. Had the statute been designed to pre-empt state law in such a limited fashion, it would have forbidden the States to "regulate rates, routes, and services." See Pilot Life, supra, at 50 ("A common-sense view of the word 'regulates' would lead to the conclusion that in order to regulate [a matter], a law must be specifically directed toward [it]").2 Moreover,

2 The dissent believes petitioner's position on this point to be supported by the history and structure of the ADA (sources it deems "more illuminating" than a "narrow focus" on the ADA's language, post, at 421), because the old regime did not pre-empt the state laws involved here and the ADA's legislative history contains no statements specifically addressed to state regulation of advertising. Post, at 421-426. Suffice it to say that legislative history need not confirm the details of changes in the law effected by statutory language before we will interpret that language according to its natural meaning. See, e. g., Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 591-592 (1980).

It also bears mention that the rejected Senate bill did contain language that would have produced precisely the result the dissent desires: "No State shall enact any law. . . determining routes, schedules, or rates, fares, or charges in tariffs of . . . .' S. 2493, §423(a)(1), reprinted in S. Rep. No. 95-631, p. 39 (1978) (emphasis added). The dissent is unperturbed by the full Congress' preference for "relating to" over "determining," because the Conference Report gave "no indication that the conferees thought the House's 'relating to' language would have a broader

Opinion of the Court

if the pre-emption effected by § 1305(a)(1) were such a limited one, no purpose would be served by the very next subsection, which preserves to the States certain proprietary rights over airports. 49 U. S. C. App. § 1305(b).

Next, petitioner advances the notion that only state laws specifically addressed to the airline industry are pre-empted, whereas the ADA imposes no constraints on laws of general applicability. Besides creating an utterly irrational loophole (there is little reason why state impairment of the federal scheme should be deemed acceptable so long as it is effected by the particularized application of a general statute), this notion similarly ignores the sweep of the "relating to❞ language. We have consistently rejected this precise argument in our ERISA cases: "[A] state law may 'relate to' a benefit plan, and thereby be pre-empted, even if the law is not specifically designed to affect such plans, or the effect is only indirect." Ingersoll-Rand, supra, at 139; see Pilot Life, supra, at 47-48 (common-law tort and contract suits pre-empted); Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 739 (state law requiring health insurance plans to cover certain mental health expenses pre-empted); Alessi v. RaybestosManhattan, Inc., 451 U. S. 504, 525 (1981) (workers' compensation laws pre-empted).

Last, the State suggests that pre-emption is inappropriate when state and federal law are consistent. State and federal law are in fact inconsistent here-the DOT opposes the obligations contained in the guidelines, and Texas law imposes greater liability-but that is beside the point. Nothing in the language of § 1305(a)(1) suggests that its "relating

pre-emptive scope than the Senate's... language," post, at 426-which is to say because the Conference Report failed to specify the completely obvious, that "relating to" is broader than "determining." The dissent evidently believes not only that plain statutory language cannot be credited unless specifically explained in legislative history, but also that the apparent import of legislative history cannot be credited unless specifically explained in legislative history.

Opinion of the Court

to" pre-emption is limited to inconsistent state regulation; and once again our ERISA cases have settled the matter: "The pre-emption provision . . . displace[s] all state laws that fall within its sphere, even including state laws that are consistent with ERISA's substantive requirements.”” Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825, 829 (1988); Metropolitan Life, supra, at 739.

B

It is hardly surprising that petitioner rests most of his case on such strained readings of § 1305(a)(1), rather than contesting whether the NAAG guidelines really "relat[e] to" fares. They quite obviously do. Taking them seriatim: Section 2.1, governing print advertisements of fares, requires "clear and conspicuous disclosure [defined as the lesser of one-third the size of the largest typeface in the ad or ten-point type] of restrictions such as" limited time availability, limitations on refund or exchange rights, time-of-day or day-of-week restrictions, length-of-stay requirements, advance-purchase and round-trip-purchase requirements, variations in fares from or to different airports in the same metropolitan area, limitations on breaks or changes in itinerary, limits on fare availability, and "[a]ny other material restriction on the fare." Section 2.2 imposes similar, though somewhat less onerous, restrictions on broadcast advertisements of fares; and §2.3 requires billboard fare ads to state clearly and conspicuously "Substantial restrictions apply" if there are any material restrictions on the fares' availability. The guidelines further mandate that an advertised fare be available in sufficient quantities to "meet reasonably foreseeable demand" on every flight on every day in every market in which the fare is advertised; if the fare will not be available on this basis, the ad must contain a "clear and conspicuous statement of the extent of unavailability." §2.4. Section 2.5 requires that the advertised fare include all taxes and surcharges; round-trip fares, under §2.6, must be dis

Opinion of the Court

closed at least as prominently as the one-way fare when the fare is only available on round trips; and §2.7 prohibits use of the words "sale,' 'discount,' [or] 'reduced'" unless the advertised fare is available only for a limited time and is "substantially below the usual price for the same fare with the same restrictions."

One cannot avoid the conclusion that these aspects of the guidelines "relate to" airline rates. In its terms, every one of the guidelines enumerated above bears a "reference to" airfares. Shaw, 463 U. S., at 97. And, collectively, the guidelines establish binding requirements as to how tickets may be marketed if they are to be sold at given prices. Under Texas law, many violations of these requirements would give consumers a cause of action (for at least actual damages, see Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50 (1987 and Supp. 1991-1992)) for an airline's failure to provide a particular advertised fare-effectively creating an enforceable right to that fare when the advertisement fails to include the mandated explanations and disclaimers. This case therefore appears to us much like Pilot Life, in which we held that a common-law tort and contract action seeking damages for the failure of an employee benefit plan to pay benefits "relate[d] to" employee benefit plans and was pre-empted by ERISA. 481 U. S., at 43-44, 47-48.

In any event, beyond the guidelines' express reference to fares, it is clear as an economic matter that state restrictions on fare advertising have the forbidden significant effect upon fares. Advertising "serves to inform the public of the ... prices of products and services, and thus performs an indispensable role in the allocation of resources." Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350, 364 (1977). Restrictions on advertising "serv[e] to increase the difficulty of discovering the lowest cost seller. . . and [reduce] the incentive to price competitively." Id., at 377. Accordingly, "where consumers have the benefit of price advertising, retail prices often are dramatically lower than they would be without advertis