[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21280-21290]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  WRIGHT AMENDMENT REFORM ACT OF 2006

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 3661) to amend section 29 of the International Air 
Transportation Competition Act of 1979 relating to air transportation 
to and from Love Field, Texas.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 3661

       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 ``Wright Amendment Reform Act 
     of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PROVISIONS REGARDING FLIGHTS TO AND 
                   FROM LOVE FIELD, TEXAS.

       (a) Expanded Service.--Section 29(c) of the International 
     Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-
     192; 94 Stat. 35) is amended by striking ``carrier, if (1)'' 
     and all that follows and inserting the following: ``carrier. 
     Air carriers and, with regard to foreign air transportation, 
     foreign air carriers, may offer for sale and provide through 
     service and ticketing to or from Love Field, Texas, and any 
     United States or foreign destination through any point within 
     Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Alabama.''.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 29 of the International Air 
     Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (94 Stat. 35), as 
     amended by subsection (a), is repealed on the date that is 8 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF INTERNATIONAL NONSTOP FLIGHTS TO AND 
                   FROM LOVE FIELD, TEXAS.

       No person shall provide, or offer to provide, air 
     transportation of passengers for compensation or hire between 
     Love Field, Texas, and any point or points outside the 50 
     States or the District of Columbia on a nonstop basis, and no 
     official or employee of the Federal Government may take any 
     action to make or designate Love Field as an initial point of 
     entry into the United States or a last point of departure 
     from the United States.

     SEC. 4. CHARTER FLIGHTS AT LOVE FIELD, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--Charter flights (as defined in section 
     212.2 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations) at Love 
     Field, Texas, shall be limited to--
       (1) destinations within the 50 States and the District of 
     Columbia; and
       (2) no more than 10 per month per air carrier for charter 
     flights beyond the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 
     Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 
     Alabama.
       (b) Carriers Who Lease Gates.--All flights operated to or 
     from Love Field by air carriers that lease terminal gate 
     space at Love Field shall depart from and arrive at one of 
     those leased gates; except for--
       (1) flights operated by an agency of the Federal Government 
     or by an air carrier under contract with an agency of the 
     Federal Government; and
       (2) irregular operations.
       (c) Carriers Who Do Not Lease Gates.--Charter flights from 
     Love Field, Texas, operated by air carriers that do not lease 
     terminal space at Love Field may operate from nonterminal 
     facilities or one of the terminal gates at Love Field.

[[Page 21281]]



     SEC. 5. LOVE FIELD GATES.

       (a) In General.--The city of Dallas, Texas, shall reduce as 
     soon as practicable, the number of gates available for 
     passenger air service at Love Field to no more than 20 gates. 
     Thereafter, the number of gates available for such service 
     shall not exceed a maximum of 20 gates. The city of Dallas, 
     pursuant to its authority to operate and regulate the airport 
     as granted under chapter 22 of the Texas Transportation Code 
     and this Act, shall determine the allocation of leased gates 
     and manage Love Field in accordance with contractual rights 
     and obligations existing as of the effective date of this Act 
     for certificated air carriers providing scheduled passenger 
     service at Love Field on July 11, 2006. To accommodate new 
     entrant air carriers, the city of Dallas shall honor the 
     scarce resource provision of the existing Love Field leases.
       (b) Removal of Gates at Love Field.--No Federal funds or 
     passenger facility charges may be used to remove gates at the 
     Lemmon Avenue facility, Love Field, in reducing the number of 
     gates as required under this Act, but Federal funds or 
     passenger facility charges may be used for other airport 
     facilities under chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code.
       (c) General Aviation.--Nothing in this Act shall affect 
     general aviation service at Love Field, including flights to 
     or from Love Field by general aviation aircraft for air taxi 
     service, private or sport flying, aerial photography, crop 
     dusting, corporate aviation, medical evacuation, flight 
     training, police or fire fighting, and similar general 
     aviation purposes, or by aircraft operated by any agency of 
     the Federal Government or by any air carrier under contract 
     to any agency of the Federal Government.
       (d) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration may not make findings or 
     determinations, issue orders or rules, withhold airport 
     improvement grants or approvals thereof, deny passenger 
     facility charge applications, or take any other actions, 
     either self-initiated or on behalf of third parties--
       (A) that are inconsistent with the contract dated July 11, 
     2006, entered into by the city of Dallas, the city of Fort 
     Worth, the DFW International Airport Board, and others 
     regarding the resolution of the Wright Amendment issues, 
     unless actions by the parties to the contract are not 
     reasonably necessary to implement such contract; or
       (B) that challenge the legality of any provision of such 
     contract.
       (2) Compliance with title 49 requirements.--A contract 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and any 
     actions taken by the parties to such contract that are 
     reasonably necessary to implement its provisions, shall be 
     deemed to comply in all respects with the parties' 
     obligations under title 49, United States Code.
       (e) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (A) to limit the obligations of the parties under the 
     programs of the Department of Transportation and the Federal 
     Aviation Administration relating to aviation safety, labor, 
     environmental, national historic preservation, civil rights, 
     small business concerns (including disadvantaged business 
     enterprise), veteran's preference, disability access, and 
     revenue diversion;
       (B) to limit the authority of the Department of 
     Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration to 
     enforce the obligations of the parties under the programs 
     described in subparagraph (A);
       (C) to limit the obligations of the parties under the 
     security programs of the Department of Homeland Security, 
     including the Transportation Security Administration, at Love 
     Field, Texas;
       (D) to authorize the parties to offer marketing incentives 
     that are in violation of Federal law, rules, orders, 
     agreements, and other requirements; or
       (E) to limit the authority of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration or any other Federal agency to enforce 
     requirements of law and grant assurances (including 
     subsections (a)(1), (a)(4), and (s) of section 47107 of title 
     49, United States Code) that impose obligations on Love Field 
     to make its facilities available on a reasonable and 
     nondiscriminatory basis to air carriers seeking to use such 
     facilities, or to withhold grants or deny applications to 
     applicants violating such obligations with respect to Love 
     Field.
       (2) Facilities.--Paragraph (1)(E)--
       (A) shall only apply with respect to facilities that remain 
     at Love Field after the city of Dallas has reduced the number 
     of gates at Love Field as required by subsection (a); and
       (B) shall not be construed to require the city of Dallas, 
     Texas--
       (i) to construct additional gates beyond the 20 gates 
     referred to in subsection (a); or
       (ii) to modify or eliminate preferential gate leases with 
     air carriers in order to allocate gate capacity to new 
     entrants or to create common use gates, unless such 
     modification or elimination is implemented on a nationwide 
     basis.

     SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.

       The provisions of this Act shall apply to actions taken 
     with respect to Love Field, Texas, or air transportation to 
     or from Love Field, Texas, and shall have no application to 
     any other airport (other than an airport owned or operated by 
     the city of Dallas or the city of Fort Worth, or both).

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Sections 1 through 6, including the amendments made by such 
     sections, shall take effect on the date that the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration notifies 
     Congress that aviation operations in the airspace serving 
     Love Field and the Dallas-Fort Worth area which are likely to 
     be conducted after enactment of this Act can be accommodated 
     in full compliance with Federal Aviation Administration 
     safety standards in accordance with section 40101 of title 
     49, United States Code, and, based on current expectations, 
     without adverse effect on use of airspace in such area.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson) each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentlewoman from Texas opposed 
to the motion? If not, I demand the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Texas favor the 
motion?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. On that basis, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) will control the 20 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on S. 3661.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3661, which is known as the 
Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006. This bill passed the Senate just a 
few hours ago by unanimous consent.
  This legislation is exactly identical to H.R. 6228 which was 
introduced by the House Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, the 
Honorable Don Young, and ranking member, the Honorable James Oberstar, 
and by several Members of the Texas delegation, including 
Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson, Kenny Marchant, Kay Granger, Joe 
Barton, Mike Burgess, Chet Edwards, Ralph Hall, Sam Johnson and also 
Pete Sessions.
  First, I want to commend my colleagues from the Texas delegation for 
working together to help foster this amendment that is the basis for 
this legislation.
  This legislation, Senate bill 3661, would implement a locally 
initiated and locally approved agreement that seeks to change and 
eventually eliminate what has been commonly known as the Wright 
amendment which, in fact, has restricted commercial air passenger 
service out of Dallas Love Field for over three decades.
  This is an anticompetitive law, and it has resulted in higher air 
fares and fewer service options for consumers for some decades now. It 
seems that the only beneficiary of the Wright amendment has been the 
small army of lawyers hired by the affected cities and airlines to 
litigate almost every aspect of this poorly conceived law.
  Earlier this year, members of the congressional delegation, along 
with the mayors, the airlines and others came together and reached a 
consensus agreement on July 11, 2006.
  This bill crafts a number of important provisions that will open 
service again and some of the wrong restrictions imposed by the Wright 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the Wright amendment repealed 
immediately. However, in my opinion, this is our best option.
  The political reality is that without this legislation, the 35-year-
old ``Cold War'' waged by the affected cities, airlines and communities 
will continue indefinitely.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 21282]]

  Mr. Speaker, in 1972, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the following 
in the case of United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.: ``Antitrust 
laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta 
of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of 
economic freedom and our free enterprise system as the Bill of Rights 
is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms. And the 
freedom guaranteed each and every business, no matter how small, is the 
freedom to compete, to assert with vigor, imagination, devotion, and 
ingenuity whatever economic muscle it can muster.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The Wright 
amendment is anticompetitive, there is no doubt about it, and it has 
increased the cost of long-distance travel to people who live in the 
Dallas-Fort Worth area by as much as a third as compared to other 
markets with other airlines.
  What this legislation does is continue vestiges of the Wright 
amendment and its anticompetition policy on until at least the year 
2025. If we think the Wright amendment is bad, we should get rid of it 
once and for all, and remember, Congress imposed the Wright amendment 
back over 15 years ago.
  Now, what this bill does is it codifies an agreement among private 
and local government parties that constitute per se violations of the 
antitrust laws. With limited exceptions, the Wright amendment expressly 
insulates Dallas-Fort Worth from interstate international air passenger 
competition from Dallas Love Field.
  Now, let us stop and think about this because this bill would provide 
a congressional approval, requiring the demolition of existing gates at 
Love Field, some of which are privately owned and utilized by airlines 
to offer additional air passenger service to points across the United 
States.
  The agreement also prohibits Southwest Airlines from offering service 
from the DFW Airport until 2025 and limits the ability of all airlines 
to offer service from Love Field and maintains a ban on most interstate 
flights from Love Field to 42 States. Now, that means if you live in 
the 42 States that this bill seeks to protect, you are going to pay 
more to come to Dallas-Ft. Worth, no two ways about it.
  There was a memo leaked out of the Justice Department that says that 
this agreement, which allows Southwest to stay out of DFW for 19 years, 
would be a hard core per se violation of the Sherman Act.
  Now, proponents of this bill will claim that the antitrust laws are 
unaffected by it and do not be fooled. Why? According to 54 American 
Jurisprudence 2nd, Monopolies and Restraints of Trade, No. 243, the 
Hornbook on antitrust law, says: ``In determining whether subsequent 
Federal legislation has granted immunity from the antitrust laws, a 
court should reconcile the operation of both statutory schemes, where 
this is possible.''
  A court looking to this legislation will be forced to ignore the 
antitrust laws because the legislation contains mandatory obligations 
that the parties engage in contact that violates the per se violations 
of the antitrust laws.
  So this compromise is a compromise in name only, and the result is 
exactly the same, creating implied antitrust immunity by eliminating a 
cause of action for conduct that presents a clear violation of the 
antitrust laws.
  Now, we are going to hear that the Wright amendment is a local issue, 
and they are right. It is a local issue for the Members of Congress who 
represent the 42 States whose residents are held captive by the 
anticompetitive output restriction/cartel that this legislation 
perpetuates.

                              {time}  1900

  We have got to have the courage to stand up for consumers, our 
constituents who vote for us, and adopt the pro-competitive goals of 
the Airline Deregulation Act by defeating this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time the 
gentleman has remaining and also how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 17 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas, and I ask unanimous consent that she be able to 
control those 10 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Senate bill 3661. The 
bill passed by the Senate earlier today mirrors House bill 6228 
previously scheduled for consideration today.
  At the outset, I want to extend my thanks to Chairman Young and 
Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Mica and Ranking Member 
Costello for their cooperation and support throughout this process. 
Each of you, in addition to the committee staff, has been extremely 
helpful in accommodating the requests of myself and north Texas 
colleagues, and I am truly appreciative.
  The road leading to this point has been long and arduous, but I am 
delighted that the bill before us today represents a bipartisan piece 
of sound legislation. The bill's fundamental objective is to open the 
north Texas market to more competition in air transportation, not to 
further restrict it, despite the claims of some.
  This bill phases out the Wright amendment completely in 8 years, 
offers immediate thru-ticketing in and out of Love Field, saving 
consumers an estimated $259 million annually. It will generate over $2 
billion annually in spending and related economic activity for north 
Texas and for many communities outside the current Wright amendment 
parameter.
  It opens Love Field in a responsible way, ensuring resolution of Love 
Field-area residents' concerns over noise, traffic, and safety for the 
area.
  It protects safety by prohibiting the legislation from taking effect 
until the Federal Aviation Administration notifies Congress that the 
additional aviation operations in the Dallas/Fort Worth/Love Field 
airspace expected as a result of this Act can be conducted safely and 
without adverse effect on airspace use.
  It protects competition by preserving the FAA's authority to enforce 
airport rules that obligate Love Field to make its facilities available 
on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis to new entrant carriers, 
and stimulates competition and travel commerce throughout the United 
States.
  This bill is important to north Texas, the aviation community at 
large, and particularly my constituents, as Dallas Love Field Airport 
is located within the heart of my congressional district.
  Two months ago, the city of Dallas, the city of Fort Worth, Southwest 
Airlines, American Airlines, and Dallas/Fort Worth International 
Airport reached a compromise to resolve long-standing issues regarding 
the Wright amendment.
  As many of you know, the three-decade-old legislation imposes long-
haul flight restrictions to and from Dallas Love Field Airport. The 
agreement marks an important milestone, as efforts to repeal the 
restrictions over the past decades have served as a major point of 
contention among north Texas stakeholders and the aviation community at 
large.
  To have all the aforementioned entities in solidarity behind this 
compromise that ultimately lifts long-haul flight restrictions at 
Dallas Love Field is nothing short of amazing.
  I would like to impress the following upon my colleagues: It is 
important to note that the Wright amendment was a direct result of a 
community-crafted compromise between the cities of Dallas and Fort 
Worth, Texas, regarding two north Texas airports.
  Thirty years ago, north Texas, upon the recommendation of the Civil 
Aeronautics Board, decided that DFW Airport would be the region's 
primary air travel investment. This decision is captured in the 1968 
Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance, which I will enter into the 
Record.

[[Page 21283]]

  In lieu of closing Love Field, the Wright amendment was crafted to 
protect the interests of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport as well as those 
of Southwest Airlines. As the agreement said, that commercial traffic 
would close at the time that D/FW opened. The balance between our two 
airports as a result of the Wright amendment has served this region 
well.
  These airports are eight miles apart. Dallas/Fort Worth International 
Airport and Love Field Airport are vital components to the overall 
health and success of the regional economy. Respectively, they rank 
third and fifty-fifth nationally in terms of total traffic 
enplanements. As such, I have felt quite strongly that any policy 
decision regarding the Wright amendment that could have implications 
for future aviation in north Texas should not be carried out without 
the input of the localities directly involved; and I have asked over 
and over again for the last 20 years to have the local entities to come 
to an agreement.
  My position has not always gone over well within certain segments of 
my constituency, but, for the record, I would like to reiterate that I 
am not anti-competitive, I am not anti-lower fares, I would be stupid 
to do that, nor am I anti-free enterprise. I am, however, pro 
principle. And it has always been my belief that the Wright amendment 
exists as a principled agreement between these two cities.
  Each time the subject of repeal of the Wright amendment has arisen, 
it has placed the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, 27 miles apart, on 
guard against each other because it violates the agreement. Over the 
past decades, this issue has created much grief, litigation, and 
oftentimes flat-out distrust among the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. 
This type of back and forth over the past 30 years has not been healthy 
for north Texas, as we have many pressing challenges that require us to 
work together in good faith if we are to be successful as a region.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the compromise. The compromise outlined within 
Senate Bill 3661 requires give and take of all vested stakeholders. 
But, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the measure represents a unified 
local consensus of which I am most proud.
  Further, many homeowners and constituent groups that live and work 
within the Love Field area also support this compromise.
  As I close, I want to commend the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth for 
coming to the table and acting in good faith to bring forth a 
compromise that I hope will allow us to once and for all bring an end 
to one of aviation's most storied standoffs.
  Is the compromise perfect? No. But I do feel it represents one of the 
best chances we as a region have to finally bring resolution to a long-
standing dispute. I want to urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
``yes'' on this bill.
  Congressional leaders have long urged the cities of Fort Worth and 
Dallas to come together and work toward a local compromise. This not 
only was instructed by two Secretaries of Transportation, the last two 
under the last two Presidents, but others as well to resolve the long-
standing and divisive controversy over the Wright amendment. The 
communities have responded, and they are deserving of this body's 
support.

1968 Regional Airport Concurrent Bond Ordinance
                                  ____


  Authorizing the Issuance of Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport Joint 
Revenue Bonds Initial Issues--$35,000,000
                                  ____


Adopted by The City Councils of The City of Dallas, Texas and The City 
of Fort Worth, Texas
                                  ____


                   Effective as of November 12, 1968

                  City of Dallas Ordinance, No. 12352

                 City of Fort Worth Ordinance, No. 6021

       An Ordinance adopted concurrently by the City Councils, 
     respectively, of the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, 
     authorizing the issuance of Dallas-Fort Worth Regional 
     Airport Joint Revenue Bonds, Series 1968, in the aggregate 
     principal amount of $35,000,000 for the purpose of defraying 
     in part the cost of constructing, equipping and otherwise 
     improving the jointly owned Dallas-Fort Worth Regional 
     Airport of the Cities; providing for the security and payment 
     of said bonds from the revenues derived from the operation of 
     said Airport and in certain instances from other airport 
     revenues of the Cities; providing that the same shall not be 
     payable from taxation; providing the form, terms and 
     conditions of such bonds and the manner of their execution; 
     providing covenants and commitments regarding the payment of 
     said bonds, the construction of said Regional Airport, and 
     the maintenance and operation thereof when constructed 
     including the pledge to such operation and maintenance 
     purposes of the tax authorized by law; containing covenants 
     against competition; and covenants regarding transfers of 
     airport properties; providing other details concerning such 
     bonds and such Airport, including the reserved power to issue 
     additional joint revenue bonds, and the subordination thereof 
     to the lien and pledge securing other outstanding and future 
     issues of airport revenue bonds of the Cities: providing for 
     the deposit of the proceeds of such bonds into the 
     Construction Fund of the Joint Airport Fund under and subject 
     to the control of the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport 
     Board; authorizing said Board to see to the delivery of said 
     bonds as herein directed and directing that due observance of 
     the covenants herein contained be made by the Board to the 
     extent such covenants are performable by it; providing and 
     describing events of default and the consequences thereof; 
     providing a method of amending this ordinance; ordaining 
     other matters incident and relating to the subject and 
     purpose hereof; and declaring an emergency.
       Whereas, the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth have 
     heretofore determined that the present commercial aviation 
     and airport facilities of the Cities, specifically Love Field 
     Airport (hereinafter called and defined as ``Love Field'') of 
     the City of Dallas and Greater Southwest International 
     Airport (hereinafter called and defined as ``GSLA'') of the 
     City of Fort Worth, are wholly inadequate to meet the 
     foreseeable commercial aviation needs of the citizens of the 
     Cities and the residents and citizens of the entire North 
     Central Texas Region; and
       Whereas, the Cities have further found and determined that 
     the most effective, economic and efficient means of providing 
     needed airport facilities is the construction and equipment 
     of a centrally located airport for the Cities and to that end 
     by an agreement entitled and hereinafter defined as the 
     ``Contract and Agreement,'' the Cities continued, expanded 
     and further defined the powers and duties of the Dallas-Fort 
     Worth Regional Airport Board (hereinafter defined as the 
     ``Board'' or ``Regional Airport Board'') theretofore created; 
     created the Joint Airport Fund of the Cities; and provided 
     for the construction and operation of an airport to be known 
     as the ``Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport''; and
       Whereas, in accordance with the requirements of the 
     Contract and Agreement, the Board has submitted to the City 
     Councils of the Cities a report containing its over-all 
     preliminary plan for the construction of said Regional 
     Airport which plan preliminarily defines and sets forth the 
     estimated, partial cost thereof, together with statements of 
     its projected size, scope and location; and
       Whereas, the City Councils have each, by duly adopted 
     resolution, approved said plan within the context of the 
     Contract and Agreement, and accordingly the Cities, having 
     been requested so to do by the Board in the manner 
     contemplated by the Contract and Agreement, propose to 
     proceed with the financing of the Regional Airport through 
     the issuance of the joint revenue bonds contemplated by the 
     Contract and Agreement, all in accordance with Article 1269j-
     5, Article 1269j-5.1, Article 1269j-5.2, Article 46d, and 
     other applicable provisions of Texas Revised Civil Statutes, 
     as amended; and
       Whereas, the City Councils have each found and determined 
     as to each that the matters to which this Ordinance relates 
     are matters of imperative public need and necessity in the 
     protection of the health, safety and morals of the citizens 
     of each of the Cities and, as such, that this Ordinance is an 
     emergency measure and shall be effective as to each City 
     respectively upon its adoption by its City Council;
       Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by the City Council of The 
     City of Dallas, Texas:
       Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained by the City Council of The 
     City of Fort Worth, Texas.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who is also Chairman 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am told that the gentlewoman from 
Dallas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) will also yield me 1 minute. If that 
is true, could she yield it at this time so I can do my speech at one 
time?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the big-hearted gentleman from 
Wisconsin yields an additional 1 minute to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.

[[Page 21284]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee for his gracious offer; and I rise today in 
strong support of Senate 3661, the Wright amendment compromise of 2006. 
I want to use the brief time that I have to explain what the compromise 
is all about.
  Back in the 1960s, the two cities of Dallas and Fort Worth could not 
agree on anything, including where to locate their two respective 
airports. The Civil Aeronautics Administration said we will fund one 
Federal Aviation airport in the D/FW area but not two. That brought the 
two cities together to create what is now known as Dallas/Fort Worth 
Airport.
  When a struggling airline called Southwest decided to fly their one 
plane out of Love Field to Houston and to San Antonio, they went to 
court and won the right to fly commercial air service out of Love 
Field, which had been suspended when D/FW came into existence. Hence, 
we got what is called the Wright compromise, which restricted flights 
from Love Field to an area within Texas or States contiguous to Texas.
  Today, D/FW Airport is one of the five largest commercial aviation 
airports in the country. Love Field is a regional airport that 
currently has in use, I believe, 13 gates and several hundred flights 
per day. The compromise before us would repeal the Wright amendment 
over an 8-year period. It would allow thru-ticketing immediately from 
Love Field, and it would create what I call a super-regional airport, 
where the majority of the gates, over 100 gates, would be at D/FW, and 
no more than 20 gates would be at Love Field, which, as Congressman 
Johnson pointed out, is only eight miles from the eastern-most runway 
at D/FW.
  There are currently only in use at Love Field 13 gates. So this 
limitation, so-called, of 20 gates, would actually allow an expansion 
of gates in actual use at Love Field. There are more empty gates at D/
FW right now today than there are total gates at Love Field.
  This compromise is supported by almost every member of the Texas 
delegation and may yet be supported by every member of the delegation. 
It would put to bed an issue that has been vexatious for a number of 
years, in fact, you could say a number of decades.
  I know my good friend from the Judiciary Committee has some antitrust 
exemptions, but again I will point out there are more empty gates at D/
FW than there are total gates at Love. This would be pro-competitive.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3661, ``The Wright 
Amendment Reform Act.'' This is a very timely bill that will help 
resolve, once and for all, a local dispute stemming from the Wright 
amendment. What we are doing here today is important to my constituents 
and the north Texas region.
  I want to thank the Speaker and the majority leader for their 
willingness to schedule this legislation. I also want to give special 
thanks to Chairman Don Young; Ranking Member Oberstar; and Subcommittee 
Chairman Mica for their leadership and excellent contributions in 
crafting this responsible and beneficial compromise into legislation. 
Their committee staff members also deserve a big, Texas ``Thank You'' 
for all of their hard work and support in this effort. I also want to 
thank my staff director, Theresa Lavery, for her tireless work on this 
issue.
  As you may know, I have long supported the covenant between the 
cities of Dallas and Fort Worth because I believe the best public 
policy for the north Texas market is to have competing airlines, not 
competing airports. Today's legislation embodies a compromise intended 
to firmly cement the role of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport 
and Love Field Airport, and put to rest calls for immediate repeal of 
the Wright amendment.
  This bill, once signed into law, will give our region and the 
traveling public resolution on this issue and leave time for public and 
private stakeholders to plan for final repeal in eight years. In the 
interim, consumers across the Nation will reap the benefits of 
immediate thru-ticketing at Love Field.
  The compromise was hammered out in a deliberative fashion, 
considering valid concerns and unique factors of operation that have 
benefited the growth of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex since enactment 
of the Wright amendment. This bill is a balanced compromise that has 
the support of Dallas and Fort Worth, as co-owners of DFW Airport.
  Finally, this agreement ensures that Love Field will continue to 
offer an important alternative for consumers while not diminishing the 
capacity for competition available at DFW Airport. Growth at Love Field 
is restricted, as it is a land-locked airport and therefore should not 
be reconstituted for greater traffic with repeal of the Wright 
amendment. Love Field will be reduced to 20 gates over time, and this 
will allow the residents of the area peace of mind concerning 
pollution, noise, traffic, and safety concerns.
  I view this agreement as facilitating a ``super'' airport, where the 
terminals at DFW Airport serve national and international destinations, 
and Love Field's gates provide a regional function with select national 
routes offering direct competition via thru-ticketing. Importantly, 
after 8 years the Wright amendment as it exists today will be repealed. 
This is truly the best of both worlds for consumers in Texas and 
throughout the country.
  Mr. Speaker, local leaders have negotiated a thoughtful, viable 
alternative to the status quo that should be supported. I commend 
everyone involved for their efforts. I urge my colleagues to support S. 
3661.
  My fellow north Texas colleague, Congressman Burgess, has traveled to 
Texas today for the funeral of his friend, Byron Nelson, but he would 
like me to express his support for S. 3661. As a representative of DFW 
International Airport, he feels strongly in protecting the economic 
engine of north Texas. While he believes in the integrity of the 
original Wright Amendment, he is pleased that the local entities' 
constructed a compromise that met the needs and wishes of all parties. 
Not only will the airports and airlines benefit from the compromise but 
also the tens of thousands of employees and residents of north Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope we will get a two-thirds vote, and I 
again thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for yielding me 1 minute.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker and members of the various committees that 
are on the floor, before I begin my comments it is my observation that 
this may be the last bill that the House Judiciary Committee may be 
involved in until we adjourn, and so it becomes my responsibility as 
the ranking member to commend Chairman James Sensenbrenner for his 
efforts as chairman over almost the last 6 years.
  He has been on the Committee of Judiciary for many years, and I have 
had the honor to serve and work with him throughout his career on the 
House Judiciary Committee. He has worked hard all the way up to the 
title of chairman.

                              {time}  1915

  It has than been my pleasure and honor to join with him, and I would 
like to just take a moment to tell you why I am making this statement.
  The first thing that comes to my mind is the fact that he has done a 
stellar job in protecting the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. 
In doing so, he has brought us more work than anybody ever has. We 
handled more bills than almost any but one committee. And he has been 
willing to stand up to special interests wherever his convictions lead 
him.
  Secondly, I commend this chairman for his willingness to protect the 
integrity of our antitrust laws and fight for competition. Time and 
time again, whether it was in sports, transportation or 
telecommunication, I have been proud to work with him together to 
ensure that America's consumers were protected from unfair competition.
  Finally, I will never forget the unstinting work that he has put in 
voter rights legislation, starting back in 1982 when we reauthorized 
it, and certainly in 2006 where, without his strong leadership, we 
would not have been able to forge a bipartisan coalition to pass the 
bill, stronger and with greater ease in both bodies, than we have ever 
been able to do before. There is no doubt in my mind that he has been a 
leading, stalwart supporter of voting rights and its enforcement for 
all Americans throughout his career.
  I salute the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee for his many

[[Page 21285]]

years of service, particularly his leadership as chairman.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may return to the measure before us, because I 
am impressed with the argument that has been propounded by all my 
friends here, particularly the gentlewoman from Dallas, that there is 
no intent in this bill's language to provide antitrust immunity.
  I take everyone at their word, of course, and if that is so, I am 
disappointed that the antitrust savings clause drafted by the House 
Judiciary Committee has been eliminated. It has disappeared. We voted 
this measure out with an antitrust provision. It has come back to us 
today, just hot off the press from the other body, and there is no 
antitrust provision. There has not been a sufficient amount of 
discussion about that.
  Now, we are all ``anti'' a lot of things, but I want you to know I am 
not anti-consumer. These things called ``consumers,'' you know, are the 
people in every district that are the ones called upon to vote and 
expend their resources on everything, including air travel.
  Mr. Speaker, I love Dallas, Texas. I don't know much about Fort 
Worth, but I even get invited there from time to time, and I enjoy it 
very much.
  By the way, I want to mention the former Speaker of the House for 
whom this amendment is named is someone who is remembered for his great 
work, not only as a leader in the Congress from Texas but as the 
Speaker of the House himself.
  So, Mr. Speaker, to me, we have got a bit of difficulty here that may 
be resolved by restoring the antitrust exemption. We put it in before. 
Most of the Members that I am looking at have never expressed any 
hostility toward the antitrust exemption itself. This agreement between 
private parties missing the antitrust exemption is a very questionable 
act that we are about to do in the closing hours of this session.
  We, with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's leadership, 
amended the original bill to include the anti-savings clause, but this 
so-called new bill, hot off the press, doesn't contain such 
protections. It has never been considered by either the Transportation 
Committee or the Judiciary Committee. It was drafted, and just 
recently, I don't know what hour of the day or night, something 
happened in the other body, but it has not been considered by any 
committee on either side of the Capitol.
  This new bill and the agreement preserves the Wright amendment for 8 
more years, restricts the number of gates; and, if it weren't for this 
antitrust scrutiny, it seems to me that we would all be able to agree 
on supporting this measure.
  So I rise very reluctantly, but nevertheless I have to do it. As I 
have said, I am not anti-consumer. The Consumers Union has guided some 
of my views in this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the record a letter from the Consumers 
Union, Gene Kimmelman, vice president, as well as an article from the 
Washington Post, ``Low-Fare, and Now No-Fair.''

                               Consumer Federation of America,

                                               September 29, 2006.
       Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to urge you to 
     stand with American consumers by voting ``No'' today on H.R. 
     6228, the ``Wright Amendment'' legislation. This bill 
     codifies a private agreement between American Airlines and 
     Southwest Airlines, along with the cities of Dallas, Ft. 
     Worth and Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, to divide up the airline 
     market for Dallas at the expense of the flying public. The 
     Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has 
     called the bill a ``per se'' violation of the antitrust laws.
       The proponents of H.R. 6228 are employing extraordinary 
     tactics to bring this anti-consumer and anticompetitive 
     legislation to a vote in the final hours prior to 
     adjournment. In fact, the language of H.R. 6228 has never 
     been considered by the Transportation and Infrastructure 
     Committee, nor the Judiciary Committee. Even more 
     objectionable, however, is the fact that H.R. 6228 completely 
     ignores the vital work of the Judiciary Committee to strike 
     the ``deal's'' antitrust immunity provisions.
       The Judiciary Committee approved an amendment by Chairman 
     Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers that would at least 
     ensure that the bill comply with the nation's antitrust 
     laws--laws enacted to protect consumers from this very type 
     of special interest legislation. Instead of honoring these 
     important amendments, the bill's proponents now bring this 
     unacceptable version to the House floor under suspension of 
     the rules. Erasing the important work of the committee 
     charged with protecting consumers from anticompetitive 
     behavior would constitute a breakdown of rational governance 
     in the House of Representatives.
       Passage of H.R. 6228 would not only harm consumers and 
     competition in the Southeast and Southwest, it would be an 
     affront to citizens across the nation. We agree with the 
     attached column from The Washington Post which states, ``The 
     loser (in this deal), of course, was the only party with no 
     seat at the negotiating table--namely, consumers. Any 
     consumer representative would have immediately recognized the 
     deal for what it is--collusion between two dominant 
     competitors to limit supply, carve up a market and keep out 
     other competitors. In other words, a flagrant violation of 
     the antitrust laws.''
       As you and your colleagues work to conclude your business 
     before the November elections, please don't forget about 
     American consumers. With this assault on the anti-trust laws, 
     a bad bill that affects an important part of the country has 
     become one of national significance. We urge you to vote 
     ``No'' today on H.R. 6228.
       Thank you for considering our views.
           Sincerely,
     Gene Kimmelman,
       Vice President, Federal and International Relations, 
     Consumers Union.
     Mark Cooper,
       Research Director, Consumer Federation of America.
                                  ____


               [From The Washington Post, July 28, 2006]

                       Low-Fare, and Now No-Fair

                         (By Steven Pearlstein)

       It's been one of the longest-running David and Goliath 
     stories in American business.
       Back in 1971, a scrappy, low-fare airline named Southwest 
     started service from Dallas's Love Field, challenging 
     American Airlines on its home turf and turning its back on 
     the big new Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, the pet 
     project of the region's political and business establishment. 
     Years of litigation ensued as American and DFW tried in vain 
     to use the courts to deny Southwest access to Love Field. 
     Then Jim Wright, a Texas congressman and the House majority 
     leader at the time, attached a tiny little rider to an 
     unrelated piece of legislation that limited flights from Love 
     Field to destinations in Texas and four surrounding states.
       Southwest soldiered on anyway, growing from its Dallas 
     roots to revolutionize American commercial aviation with 
     cheap airfares from other ``secondary'' airports.
       But the Wright amendment always stuck in the craw of 
     Southwest's Herb Kelleher. So two years ago, the airline's 
     chairman launched an advertising and lobbying blitz to get it 
     repealed--``Wright is wrong'' was the catchy slogan. The 
     public began to get behind it, and some members of Congress 
     took notice--among them Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, who pushed 
     through a little rider of his own adding St. Louis to the 
     list of approved Love Field destinations. Fares between the 
     two cities plunged and traffic soared.
       Sensing the ground was shifting, American and the mayors of 
     Dallas and Fort Worth opened discussions with Southwest. Last 
     month, they announced they had finally struck a deal.
       The agreement is premised on Congress repealing the Wright 
     amendment in 2014. Under the deal, Love Field would be 
     reduced from 32 to 20 gates, with 16 going to Southwest, the 
     others to American and Continental. In the meantime, 
     Southwest could offer one-stop flights and fares from Love to 
     anywhere it wanted. And to top it off, both American and 
     Southwest agreed, in effect, that they wouldn't add to the 
     total number of gates in the Dallas region.
       It was, certainly, a good deal for American, which managed 
     to put off the biggest threat to its fortress hub at DFW 
     since the Justice Department took it to court in 1999, 
     accusing it of using predatory practices to crush competition 
     there. (That case got thrown out, alas.)
       It was also a sweet deal for Southwest, which could add 
     significantly to its Dallas traffic while keeping JetBlue or 
     some new upstart from challenging its domination at Love 
     Field.
       Perhaps the biggest winner of all, however, was DFW, which 
     was already reeling from Delta Air Lines' decision to close 
     its Dallas hub and was desperate not to lose more traffic to 
     Love.
       The loser, of course, was the only party with no seat at 
     the negotiating table--namely, consumers. They would have to 
     wait another eight years for full repeal of the Wright 
     amendment, and even then, there would not be the kind of 
     robust competition that has produced airfares elsewhere that 
     are half of what they are in and out of DFW.
       Any consumer representative would have immediately 
     recognized the deal for what it was--collusion between two 
     dominant competitors to limit supply, carve up a market and 
     keep out other competitors. In other

[[Page 21286]]

     words, a flagrant violation of antitrust laws. That's why, 
     when legislation was introduced this month by Texas Sen. Kay 
     Bailey Hutchison to codify the deal, it contained a blanket 
     antitrust exemption.
       Normally a free-market Republican, Hutchison defends this 
     deal as a local solution to a seemingly endless local 
     dispute, preferable to anything Washington might come up 
     with. And from a competition standpoint, it's certainly 
     better than the status quo.
       How much better, however, is open to debate. An unnamed 
     staff attorney at the Justice Department's antitrust division 
     wrote in a review of the legislation that it ``narrowly 
     benefits the area's two dominant airlines at the expense of 
     everyone who would benefit from real competition.''
       Meanwhile, several airlines voiced opposition. ``We are 
     concerned when any number of carriers get together to decide 
     how big an airport should be and who should operate at that 
     airport,'' said Ed Faberman, executive director of the Air 
     Carrier Association of America.
       All of this flak has set back Hutchison's plans to fast-
     track the legislation through Congress. Rep. James 
     Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, 
     demanded this week that the legislation be referred to his 
     committee rather than brought up on voice vote as 
     uncontroversial. And in the Senate, Vermont Democrat Patrick 
     Leahy promised a parliamentary challenge to Hutchison's plan 
     to tack it onto an appropriations bill.
       Back in Dallas, meanwhile, Southwest is struggling to 
     square its starring role in ``Wright Redux'' with its image 
     as an evangelist for ``unfettered airline competition.'' 
     Company officials adamantly reject the idea that the 
     agreement will make it harder for other low-cost carriers to 
     enter the market.
       ``Any airline that wants to serve the [region] can go to 
     DFW today and fly anywhere they want,'' spokesman Ed Stewart 
     explained to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
       Funny. That's almost word for word what American used to 
     say in defending the Wright amendment against criticism from 
     Southwest.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I had two concerns about the agreement 
that came from the two cities. The first was safety.
  Years ago, I held hearings when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee 
on Safety at Love Field, between Love Field and Dallas. There are only 
2 miles of air space in the approach and departure patterns of those 
two airports. I was concerned that removing the limitations on 
operations at Love Field would create greater safety concerns than they 
did at the time. Since then, the FAA has fixed the safety issue with an 
innovative departure and arrival arrangement that will assure safety, 
provided there is no increase in operations.
  That leads us to the second issue, and that is competition. The 
agreement limits the number of gates to 20. That is something that 
local citizens are concerned about, noise, safety, congestion. Congress 
has a right to act on safety and on noise and to limit operations in 
the interests of safety and of noise, without infringing upon the 
antitrust issue. In fact, the language that we have before us is an 
improvement over the agreement of the two cities that in fact would 
have had antitrust implications.
  So the antitrust exemption has been removed, but the bill directs 
action and closing of gates, which is an authority Congress has, in the 
interest of safety and congestion.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6228, The Wright Amendment 
Reform Act, which would implement the agreement reached by the Cities 
of Dallas and Fort Worth, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 
Board, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines to reform the so-called 
``Wright Amendment.''
  The Wright Amendment was an effort by our former colleague, Jim 
Wright, then Majority Leader, later, Speaker Wright, to codify an 
agreement reached in 1979 among the Dallas and Fort Worth business and 
political communities, and Southwest Airlines, which resisted efforts 
to move its operations to the newly opened Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 
Airport. This agreement ensured that DFW would be the primary airport 
for the DFW metropolitan region, and that Love Field would remain a 
limited, short haul airport.
  Recently, the Dallas and Fort Worth communities, along with American 
Airlines and Southwest Airlines, came forward with a new agreement that 
would, in their view, make repealing the Wright Amendment acceptable.
  The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee has chosen to deal with 
the issues surrounding the Wright Amendment legislatively, rather than 
allow it to erode piecemeal as it has over the years, without a view to 
the larger national aviation context. The ``stakeholders'' in this 
process are not just the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, the airlines, 
nor the airport authorities. The ``stakeholders'' are all Americans.
  If you approve a law for an additional highway on the East Coast, it 
does not do much for traffic on the West Coast. However, if you approve 
a law for additional feet of runway at an airport on the East Coast, it 
does make traffic from the West Coast more accessible to the East Coast 
because of the nature of air travel. Similarly, dealing with DFW and 
Love Field is a national matter.
  H.R. 6228, would implement three core provisions of the parties' 
contract: to repeal the Wright Amendment 8 years after enactment of 
this Act; eliminate the restrictions on through-ticketing from Love 
Field; and to cap the Love Field gates at 20 in perpetuity.
  Importantly, the bill addresses two very significant issues that I 
raised in Committee: safety and new entrant access.
  Love Field is approximately 8 miles from DFW. In 1991, when I served 
as Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I held a hearing during which 
significant safety concerns were raised regarding the potential 
expansion of flights at Love Field. Many witnesses attending that 
hearing expressed concern that the proximity of approach and departure 
procedures to and from both DFW and Love Field, along with conflicting 
flight patterns, could decrease the margin of safety.
  While I have the utmost confidence in our nation's air traffic 
controllers, I want to ensure that by adding more flights at Love 
Field, we are not reducing the cushion of safety. Controllers should 
not need to slow air traffic to accommodate the safety margin, nor 
should they be compelled to operate at the outside of the power curve 
to avoid delays in and around the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
  H.R. 6228 addresses this very significant issue by including a 
provision that prohibits the legislation from taking effect until the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notifies Congress that additional 
aviation operations in the airspace serving Love Field and the Dallas-
Fort Worth area, which are likely to be conducted after the enactment 
of this Act, can be accommodated in full compliance with FAA safety 
standards, in accordance with the FAA's mandate to maintain safety at 
the highest possible level, and without adverse effect on airspace use 
in the area.
  The second issue is competition. The agreement would change the gate 
availability at Love Field to greatly increase the difficulty of any 
carrier other than Southwest or American to serve Love Field. 
Currently, there are 32 gates at Love Field, with 19 in use, and 13 
available for new entrants. The agreement would reduce the gates to 20, 
and allocate all of these gates to American, Southwest, and 
Continental. To ensure that a prospective new carrier would have 
reasonable access to these 20 gates at Love Field, H.R. 6228 preserves 
the FAA's authority to enforce grant assurances that obligate Love 
Field to make its facilities available on a reasonable and non-
discriminatory basis.
  Further, Love Field continues to be subject to all federal 
requirements relating to safety, security, labor, environmental, civil 
rights, small business concerns, veteran's preference, disability 
access and revenue diversion that are applicable to all airports.
  As to antitrust issues, this legislation does not implicitly or 
explicitly provide antitrust immunity to the parties. However, the 
legislation directs the City of Dallas to reduce the number of 
operational gates to no more than 20, which includes the removal of the 
6 so-called Lemmon Avenue gates, and allows the City to allocate the 
use of the remaining gates based on existing leases and obligations. 
These directives could be advanced as a defense in an antitrust case.
  Accordingly, I want to thank the Chairman Young and the Texas 
delegation for working with me on this legislation to ensure that my 
concerns on safety and new entrant access are addressed and I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 6228.


             wright amendment reform act antitrust bullets

  The Judiciary Committee opposed the original bill reported by the 
Transportation Committee because our bill included an exemption from 
the antitrust laws. To meet this concern the bill has been modified to 
remove the exemption. This change met the antitrust concerns of the 
Chairman of Senate Judiciary who now supports the bill.
  The House Judiciary Committee Chair argues that even though the 
antitrust exemption has been removed, the bill still directs actions, 
such as the closing of gates, which would violate the antitrust laws if 
done by agreement of

[[Page 21287]]

private parties. This is not a valid argument. Congress has the 
authority to direct the closing of gates for safety, environmental or 
economic reasons, even if private parties would not be allowed to do 
this under the anti-trust laws. The antitrust laws are only 
Congressional legislation, and Congress can pass subsequent legislation 
creating exceptions.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), one of the prime crafters and 
initiators of this compromise agreement.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the House 
Transportation Committee for their work on this bill and the leadership 
of Chairman Don Young, Ranking Member Oberstar and Aviation 
Subcommittee Chairman Mica.
  Also, I want to thank the Speaker and Majority Leader for working so 
hard to get this bill done and on the floor.
  All of the Texas delegation, including our two Senators, have played 
a part in making this bill possible; and the five stakeholders, the 
cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, American and Southwest Airlines and 
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, have all come together in 
really an unprecedented way to forge an agreement and get this issue 
behind us.
  The Mayors of Fort Worth and Dallas and community leaders met from 
both cities for months putting this agreement together, and they 
deserve much credit. Everyone gave up something for the better good, 
and then they gave their product to us to put into law, as is required 
for this to work.
  Having worked and struggled with this issue for 15 years, first as 
Mayor and then as Congresswoman, I am more than ready to move on to 
something else and proudly support this legislation and urge a yes vote 
for its passage.
  I also extend to Mr. Conyers an invitation to come to Fort Worth. You 
will love it, and they will love you for helping with this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the best arguments presented about why this 
is a good measure: Safety is increased, noise is decreased, congestion 
is mitigated, competition is increased. Is there anybody on any of the 
committees that wants to say something about the consumers? Is that 
something that hasn't been contemplated up until now?
  Come on, guys. Give me a break. Consumers consist of everybody in 
America. They are not just in Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge all of my 
colleagues to support S. 3661. This is a fair and pro-consumer 
compromise that is in the public's best interests and was passed by 
unanimous consent this afternoon by the Senate.
  Local communities should have input to limit airport size in order to 
deal with the issues of noise, congestion and safety. Accordingly, this 
bill respects the desire of the community to make sure that the more 
urban of its two airports does not become overbearing. Failure to do so 
will send a signal that the Federal Government is prepared to override 
every other community that wants to limit the size of its airport 
facilities to protect the environment for safety reasons.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 3661.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, to my brother from New York, Brother Meeks, 
this is a pro-consumer compromise that all the consumer organizations 
that I have consulted and that have consulted me are strenuously 
opposed to. Can anyone can explain to me how this is a pro-consumer 
bill?

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. MICA. I am pleased at this time to yield to one of the most 
distinguished Members, not only of the Texas delegation but of the 
entire Congress, a real hero, Sam Johnson, for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. And I thank 
the gentleman for his opposition. The fact is that you have the whole 
Lone Star State delegation backing a bill to repeal that outdated 
Wright amendment.
  Back in 1979, Congress created that law. Look at there. That is what 
those stewardesses were wearing in those days. That is where we were 
from, and today is a victory for freedom and free enterprise. That was 
1979. People had mood rings, Rubik's cubes, smiley face stickers, and 
pet rocks. Just like this picture, so much has changed since 1979; but 
the Wright amendment never did.
  I want to commend officials in north Texas who worked tirelessly to 
craft a local compromise that works for all parties involved. For 
Texans, the traveling public, we are making history. It is not perfect. 
In my opinion, it doesn't do the job fast enough. But there is one 
thing I have learned in the people's House: you have got to give a 
little to get a little.
  Here, compromise can save the day, and it gives me great pleasure to 
come into the 21 century and cast my vote to end the outdated Wright 
amendment once and for all.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker at this time, 
another great Texan, a wonderful representative from the State, Mr. 
Sessions. I yield to him 1 minute.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the gentlemen and ladies who 
are here on the floor tonight talking about the Wright amendment, that 
we are going to pass this amendment tonight.
  But to answer the gentleman's question from Michigan, the reason why 
this is a pro-consumer bill is that effective immediately, when the 
President signs this, every single person that takes off from Love 
Field will be able to ticket through wherever they want to go. Today, 
they have to ticket through to an adjacent State that is close to them, 
they have to get off the airplane, they have to get their bags, and 
they have to reticket through.
  This is a pro-consumer bill. This is the right thing to do. We have 
come together as a delegation. I am asking for all the Members of the 
United States Congress to please support the bipartisan attempt between 
the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, between the airlines to do 
something favorable for consumers tonight.
  Our majority leader, John Boehner, was aware of this issue. It has 
been a continuing, simmering, boiling issue for the Texas delegation. 
We have asked that it be brought here. I am asking for everybody's 
vote. Vote tonight ``aye.''
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time.
  Mr. Speaker, some nights when I drive out of here and go home, I 
follow some of my Texas friends out of the garage that have a big 
bumper sticker that says: ``Don't Mess With Texas.'' Tonight is one of 
the nights where I think we ought to mess with Texas, because what is 
being proposed here is going to increase the fares of anybody who goes 
to Texas or decides to go out of the Dallas-Fort Worth area by a 
significant amount, because it protects monopoly status until 2025. 
This is the most anticonsumer, antifree enterprise legislation that has 
come before this House in a long time.
  At Dallas-Fort Worth, approximately 85 percent of all passengers 
board an American or American Air regional carrier flight. This keeps 
American's near monopoly at DFW. And at Love Field, Southwest has a 95 
percent market share.
  Now, without the Wright amendment, both of those market shares are 
monopolistic. And despite what you hear about how this does away with 
the Wright amendment, it keeps these monopolies in place until the year 
2025.
  There has been a lawsuit that has been filed against Love Field by 
people who are standing up for consumers. This legislation extinguishes 
that lawsuit. The people who filed their lawsuit won't have a day in 
court to be able to get a fair determination by the judge, because what 
it does is it provides a backdoor antitrust exemption.

[[Page 21288]]

  Now, we have to ask ourselves as elected representatives of the 
people whether we are going to allow a private group of local officials 
and business people in any community to come to Congress to get 
themselves exempted effectively from an antitrust law. What this bill 
does is it effectively delegates that power on this issue to the people 
who came to Congress, and they asked us to ratify this agreement. We 
shouldn't be delegating antitrust immunity to anybody. That should be 
determined by the court.
  So if you believe in the operation of the law and letting people have 
their day in court, this bill ought to be voted down, particularly if 
you represent the 42 States that aren't covered by the Wright 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a 
statement relating to the Wright Amendment Reform Act and the antitrust 
issues that have been raised, and information relating to how S. 3661 
will enhance airline competition and benefit consumers, in response to 
questions that have been raised in regard to those items.

             Wright Amendment Reform Act--Antitrust Issues

       The Judiciary Committee opposed the original Wright 
     amendment bill (H.R. 5830), which was reported by the 
     Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, because our bill 
     included an exemption from antitrust laws.
       To meet the concerns expressed by the Judiciary Committee, 
     S. 3661 has been modified to remove the exemption.
       Chairman Sensenbrenner argues that even though the 
     antitrust exemption has been removed, S. 3661 still directs 
     actions, such as the closing of gates, which would violate 
     the antitrust laws if carried out through an agreement of 
     private parties.
       This is not a valid argument. Congress has the authority to 
     direct the closing of gates for safety, environmental or 
     economic reasons, even if private parties would not be 
     allowed to do this under the antitrust laws.

     S. 3661 Will Enhance Airline Competition and Benefit Consumers


      Congress Must Fix Mess that it Created by Enacting Amendment

       The Wright amendment was intended to protect the then-new 
     Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, DFW.
       Since DFW is now the third-largest airport in the U.S. in 
     terms of annual passenger enplanements, the Wright amendment 
     is no longer needed.
       By restricting commercial air service out of Dallas Love 
     Field to cities in Texas and eight surrounding states, the 
     Wright amendment has resulted in higher fares and fewer 
     service options for consumers in the Dallas-Fort Worth 
     market.

         Immediate Repeal of Wright Amendment No Viable Option

       Due to complex and long-standing political, economic and 
     environmental concerns, the ideal solution--immediate repeal 
     of the Wright Amendment--was not supported by the Cities of 
     Dallas and Fort Worth, local communities and affected 
     airlines.
       Consequently, S. 3661 represents a locally-generated, 
     bipartisan compromise that balances carefully the interests 
     of the local parties.


            Consumers Will Benefit Immediately Under S. 3661

       S. 3661 will intensify competition in the entire Dallas-Ft. 
     Worth market by lifting all existing geographic restrictions 
     on commercial air service at Dallas Love Field in eight 
     years.
       Two independent studies found that S. 3661 will increase 
     traffic to and from North Texas by 2 million passengers 
     annually and produce $259 million per year in fare savings 
     immediately.
       Airlines serving Dallas Love Field could immediately begin 
     marketing connecting commercial air service from Love Field 
     to cities outside the Wright Amendment's geographic area.


      20-Gate Limitation at Love Field Will Not Hinder Competition

       Due to safety and environmental concerns raised by local 
     communities, S. 3661 would limit capacity at Dallas Love 
     Field to 20 gates for commercial service.
       S. 3661 would not reduce existing capacity at Dallas Love 
     Field, where fewer than 20 gates are currently being used by 
     airlines for commercial air service.
       S. 3661 protects existing procedures that ensure any 
     airline seeking to provide new commercial passenger service 
     at Love Field may do so.
       In addition to utilizing Dallas Love Field, airlines that 
     wish to provide new commercial service to the Dallas-Fort 
     Worth area can operate at DFW Airport, which is located just 
     eight miles from Love Field and currently has 20 unused 
     gates.

  I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to a very distinguished member of 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a newer member on the 
team but has also heard this issue, Kenny Marchant, the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, the Wright amendment is the number one 
business issue in my district, District 24. American Airlines 
headquarters and Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport are both based 
in District 24.
  The job statistics speak for themselves: American Airlines has 7,300 
employees in my district, and DFW Airport itself has 16,000 jobs. The 
airport itself is responsible for almost 260,000 jobs in the metroplex. 
Therefore, it is obvious that the people of my district have a lot 
riding on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Wright amendment was a unique law created for a 
unique circumstance; therefore, its repeal calls for a unique solution. 
I think the bill before us today provides just that, and I urge the 
House to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the 
distinguished Chair of the full Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, a gentleman who has helped craft this historic agreement and 
codify it today, Mr. Young.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
I want to thank the Texas delegation for working together to bring 
forth this bill and solving a problem. My job is to solve problems, and 
this bill does solve a problem. It takes two cities and puts them 
together, and allows the State to go forward and we won't have this 
problem before us anymore.
  A lot of times we lose sight of solving problems in this body by 
hanging up on jurisdiction or hanging up on a small clause. But we are 
the people that write the laws, we create the laws, and we try to make 
them work.
  This is a bill that will take and rectify a mistake, I believe, in 
the past, and bring both parties together, both cities together, all 
airlines together, and provide for the service of the people of Texas 
and this Nation. I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support S. 3661, the 
Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006.
  I'd like to thank Chairman Young, Mr. Mica, Mr. Oberstar, and Mr. 
Johnson for their hard work on getting0legislative agreement on 
repealing the Wright amendment. I know there was a lot of ``give and 
take'' on both sides to reach this legislative agreement.
  In particular, Ms. Johnson has been a leader on this matter and she 
should be commended for her hard work. Without her persistence, we 
would not be here today.
  This legislation seeks to fully repeal the Wright amendment, with 
several conditions.
  In 1979, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth came together and 
reached an agreement to have one regional airport--Dallas/Fort Worth 
International Airport, DFW--thus restricting service at other local 
airports. This local agreement was codified by congressional action 
known as the Wright amendment.
  The Wright amendment was a logical step when enacted in 1979. It 
brought stability to the north Texas air market.
  As a result, I have supported the Wright amendment as a way to 
enhance DFW's growth and development. The airport has done its part by 
fueling the region's economy.
  However, today, DFW is far from a small regional airport. As an 
international airport, its influence is far-reaching and has become a 
major player in markets that other airlines could not serve from Love 
Field.
  In response, some have sought to repeal the Wright amendment through 
a piecemeal approach, an approach that is ineffective and very poor 
policy.
  On June 15, 2006, it was announced that American, Southwest, DFW 
Airport, and the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth worked out a local 
agreement.
  The Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing July 12, 2006, on this 
historic agreement where many questions, concerns, and issues were 
addressed.
  While S. 3661 addresses many of those concerns, I must say that I 
have reservations that by accepting this agreement, we are restricting 
the aviation capacity at Love Field.
  Congress, in part, will be making it harder for new airlines to enter 
the market--5 years, 10 years, or even 20 years from now--by allowing 
the infrastructure that a new competitor will need at Love Field to be 
destroyed.

[[Page 21289]]

  I question the idea of restricting and destroying infrastructure that 
could be used in the future in order to address a problem today.
  I hope the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the FAA 
will closely monitor the implementation of this legislation to ensure 
consumer protection, economic growth, and competition.
  Mr. Speaker, that said, I will support S. 3661.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3661, 
the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006. As a representative of D/FW 
International Airport, I have always felt strongly in protecting the 
economic engine of north Texas. To this day, I still believe in the 
integrity of the original Wright amendment; however, I am pleased that 
the local entities' constructed a compromise that met the needs and 
wishes of all parties. It was long in coming, but thorough in its 
mission. Not only will the airports and airlines benefit from the 
compromise but also the tens of thousands of employees and residents of 
north Texas.
  I commend all the parties associated with this historic compromise. 
At the urging of Congress, Mayor Moncrief of Fort Worth and Mayor 
Miller of Dallas spent endless hours working on the best deal possible 
for the region. Together with DFW International Airport, American 
Airlines, and Southwest Airlines, they brought to Congress an agreement 
that will protect and benefit my constituents and allow for better 
service at Love Field. I sincerely thank the mayors for their 
commitment and dedication to this delicate and complicated task.
  Also, the north Texas delegation has worked endlessly on this matter, 
and the passage of this legislation today is a testament to the 
determination and dedication of my colleagues. We have all had to make 
concessions, but at the end of the day, the enactment of this 
legislation is crucial for our districts.
  I ask for my colleagues to support the north Texas delegation and as 
we try to solve a unique problem with this unique and important 
legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3661, 
the Wright Amendment Reform Act. This legislation implements a locally 
achieved compromise resolving the longstanding controversy over the 
1979 Wright amendment, which imposed Federal restrictions on commercial 
airline service to and from Dallas Love Field.
  I note Mr. Speaker that all of the key stakeholders--Southwest 
Airlines, Fort Worth, DFW Airport, American Airlines, and the city of 
Dallas--support the locally achieved Wright amendment compromise and 
urge Congress to approve this legislation. But as Southwest CEO, Herb 
Kelleher, states: ``The only victor, the only sure fire winner from 
this locally achieved agreement, is the public--the public citizens who 
will find it easier and far less expensive to travel to and from North 
Texas for business and personal reasons; the citizens who will reap 
vast economic benefits in their communities from enhanced travel and 
tourism, at a lower cost.''
  A key component of the compromise is the change in Federal law 
embodied in the legislation allowing Southwest Airlines to immediately 
begin selling ``through tickets'' for travel to and from Dallas Love 
Field. This change will enable Love Field customers to travel on a one-
stop basis to and from cities within our nationwide system which are 
outside the limited number of States Southwest currently is allowed to 
serve under the terms of the Wright amendment.
  A recent study indicates that through ticketing at Dallas Love Field 
will increase passengers traveling to and from north Texas by 2 million 
annually and produce $259 million per year in fare savings. 
Additionally, the study found that through ticketing will generate over 
$2 billion annually in spending and related economic activity for north 
Texas and for many communities outside the current Wright amendment 
perimeter.
  Because of through ticketing, the local compromise will have a very 
significant and widespread economic impact from the beginning. Further, 
the local compromise calls for the Wright amendment to be repealed in 
its entirety in 8 years, allowing airlines serving Love Field to fly 
nonstop to any domestic destination--generating substantial additional 
economic benefits for consumers nationwide.
  Approval of this legislation by the Congress will bring to a close a 
dispute that preoccupied the Dallas Metroplex for nearly 30 years all 
the while negatively impacting the rest of the Nation. I applaud 
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and other members of the Texas 
congressional delegation for their yeoman work in bringing this saga to 
a happy conclusion. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation. I ask you to vote for S. 3661.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, as many know, last year, I authored the 
Right to Fly Act which would completely and immediately repeal the 
Wright Amendment. The legislation ignited quite a debate in the 
metroplex.
  Within a year the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth as well as D/FW 
Airport, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines reached an historic 
consensus among them. I saluted Mayors Miller and Moncrief for their 
tenacity and leadership in forging that consensus. Although 
disappointed, I certainly was not surprised to learn that their plan 
did not mirror my own. Still, I stood ready to compromise and support a 
congressional plan that provided immediate ``through-ticketing'' and 
full repeal of Wright 8 years later. Then I read the fine print.
  Although I respect my Congressional colleagues with differing 
opinions, in my view, the Wright Amendment is not really repealed under 
this plan. It is simply repackaged. As a fervent supporter of free 
markets, I simply believe that the U.S. Congress should not interfere 
in the market competition between airports.
  Still, I have always maintained a willingness to support Wright 
Amendment repeal plans aside from my own as long as they met a two-fold 
test: (1) the plan clearly benefits consumers and (2) the plan removes 
Congress from the business of airport protectionism, which costs us 
greatly. According to the Department of Transportation, we pay about 
\1/3\ more for long distance airfares.
  With respect to consumers, I am concerned that the agreement 
essentially constitutes an 8 year extension of the current Wright 
Amendment as opposed to a gradual phase-out. One study indicated that 
consumers annually pay almost $700 million extra in airfares due to the 
Wright Amendment. An 8-year extension would cost consumers an 
additional $5 billion--which, even by Washington standards, is a big 
number and a huge burden to American families.
  On the other hand, I believe immediate ``through-ticketing'' can 
positively impact competition and airfares. American Airlines and 
Southwest Airlines commissioned a study--the findings of which I 
announced at a recent Congressional Hearing on the Wright Amendment--
that concluded that through-ticketing can produce $259 million in fare 
savings annually. I find it encouraging that consumers could recoup 
some of their losses from this part of the local agreement.
  My main concern is that the agreement does not get Congress out of 
the business of interfering with airport competition. That is the 
essence of the Wright Amendment, not the specific interference of 
perimeter restrictions. For example, in the local agreement, the City 
of Dallas agrees to reduce the number of gates at Love Field from 32 to 
20. Though I might not like it, I respect their right to contractually 
bind themselves and decide whether Love Field is limited to 20 gates, 
10 gates or even shut down. It is their airport.
  But I believe it is wrong for the parties to ask Congress to 
establish into Federal law their private contractual obligations. Those 
are enforceable in court. By including these privately made agreements 
in a new federal law, Congress would be replacing one complex set of 
anti-competitive rules with another. Terminating today's version of the 
Wright Amendment, whereby Congress imposes distance limitations on an 
airport, only to replace it with a new version of the Wright Amendment 
whereby Congress imposes gate limitations on an airport, does not 
constitute repeal--today, in 8 years or ever. Additionally, the unusual 
anti-trust exemption language is troubling.
  For far too long the Wright Amendment has been a burden on both 
consumers and the national economy. In the spirit of compromise, I 
again would support a simple federal law that would enact immediate 
through-ticketing, fully repeal of Wright in 8 years while respecting 
the rights of American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, D/FW and the 
cities of Fort Worth and Dallas to otherwise enter into lawful 
contracts to mutually bind themselves as they choose.
  Try as I may, I cannot in good faith support the current bill, which 
I fear simply replaces one version of the Wright Amendment with 
another.
  Should this legislation become law, I hope it proves to be of 
significant benefit to the air traveling public. If it does, I will 
take some satisfaction knowing I helped play a small role as its 
catalyst.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 3661.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.

[[Page 21290]]


  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________