Wright Amendment Reform Act

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 203) to reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for sodium produced, to establish certain National Heritage Areas, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit about S. 3661 because I am the sponsor of the legislation and have worked for 12 years to try to explain the Wright amendment to every interested party in Congress. It is so important to North Texas, to DFW Airport, and Love Field that we have an agreement, a plan to move forward beyond the Wright amendment in a way that is going to increase competition immeasurably.

Most people do not realize the history of the Wright amendment. When DFW Airport was forced on the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth by a Federal mandate, the cities made agreements with airlines that DFW Airport would be the only functioning major airport in the region. It was to be the international airport, and Love Field was to be closed. After litigation, Love Field was allowed to be an intrastate airport. The Wright amendment later opened Love Field to serve the contiguous States, but that became untenable as aviation traffic continued to grow. The Wright amendment was very confining and was not the best competitive situation.

There have been many attempts to expand the Wright amendment. There have also been attempts to repeal the Wright amendment. Many in Congress asked the mayors of the two cities to come up with a local solution, rather than have Congress once again pass legislation that may or may not take into consideration the interests of the people who live and work and pay taxes in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. The mayors did just that.

Mayor Laura Miller and Mayor Mike Moncrief, the mayors of Dallas and Ft. Worth, did an incredible job. They came together and made an agreement. Cities can make agreements. Under State law, cities can make agreements and there is never an antitrust issue when cities make agreements.

The antitrust issue was raised because two airlines became part of the agreement. The cities brought them in because lease agreements that were in place with those air carriers were going to have to be compromised, they were going to have to be changed and broken.

Instead of pursuing condemnation, the parties were brought together to

get a consensus of their willingness to give up some rights in order to settle this once and for all and open competition both at Love Field and at DFW Airport.

The cities did a great job. They made an agreement and they brought it to Congress. I have felt since the beginning, it was Congress's responsibility to take that agreement, ratify it and mandate that the agreement be kept in its entirety because it is so balanced. And if you did away with the Wright amendment, but you did not have the 20 gate limit and the implementation of the 20 gates, it could have gone out of balance.

So this act, regardless of anything else that has been said, authorizes, mandates, and protects all aspects of performance of the legislation's terms, including that the city of Dallas reduce and allocate gates according to this act, its contractual obligations as contemplated by the act, and the local compromise and the balance it has achieved.

This legislation will allow the DFW Metroplex to end decades of bitterness and infighting that have plagued the Wright amendment. It provides a solution that all parties affected have agreed to. And just about every party to this agreement has given something up for the good of the North Texas economy and the traveling public.

We can now move forward to allow immediate benefits to consumers and the traveling public because airline prices are going to go down when this bill is passed. Actually, the bill has already passed. I am very pleased to say it has passed the Senate. It is going to the House now. And you will see, when the bill becomes law, that the prices of tickets from Dallas Love Field are going to go down to every destination. That is going to increase competition and interest in flying, which is going to be good for everyone.

Mr. President, I have a letter that was sent to four of the ranking members and committee chairs on September 28, 2006. It is addressed to Senator Specter, Senator Leahy, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Congressman Conyers. And it is from the mayor of Dallas and the mayor of Fort Worth. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record. It tells the history of the Wright amendment and how competition will be increased.

A lot of people--so many people--helped put this agreement together and hammer out the differences and views on the issues. We heard today that Senator Leahy has one view. Senator Cornyn has a view. I have a view. Just about everybody in Congress who has dealt with this issue has a view.

But I think the law we are passing speaks for itself. The law is very clear in what it instructs the city of Dallas to do, as well as the FAA and the Department of Transportation in implementing this agreement. I think it is a major piece of legislation that is absolutely right.

I agree with Senator Leahy and Senator Cornyn that this is not going to set a precedent. It is a unique situation that was brought on by a Federal mandate and then a Federal law. And the local community has had less input into its own aviation capabilities than maybe any other two major cities in America with major airports. I think today we have clarified the Wright amendment, and I do not think it is ever going to set a precedent because no other airport has a Wright amendment.

So as we phase it out gradually, in an orderly way, to protect the integrity of the DFW Airport, as well as increasing competition in both DFW and Love Field, this is, for the taxpayers and the consumers and the traveling public, a win all the way around.

I want to thank a few people because no one could have passed this bill alone. It took so much cooperation and so many things that were necessary to bring everyone together.

I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, the Commerce Committee. I could not have asked for more help. The bill passed out of the Commerce Committee 21 to 1. Senator Rockefeller was the only one who voted no, but he could not have been more accommodating and honorable in his objection. Once we passed the bill out of committee, we worked with him to make sure he was a part of everything we did. He has been wonderful to work with.

I thank Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, who had concerns on the Judiciary Committee. I thank Senator Burns, Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Senator Ensign, Senator McCain, former Speaker Jim Wright, who also agrees the time has come to have an orderly repeal of the amendment that he put in place, and, of course, Senator Cornyn. I also want to say Senator Sununu was just a gentleman in these last couple of days to help us in the ultimate solution of this bill.

I want to say that staff people, who are pro-progress, who have innovation, and are willing to work so hard--which staff people in this Senate do on such a routine basis--I am so appreciative and so respectful of them. I want to mention a couple because without them we would never have gotten this done.

I thank Lisa Sutherland, Christine Kurth, Ken Nahagian, Sam Whitehorn, Jarrod Thompson, Gael Sullivan, and James Reid on the Commerce Committee. Every one of them had an immense impact on this legislation. I thank Harold Kim, Joe Jacquot, and Ivy Johnson, from Senator Specter's staff; J.P. Dowd, Susan Davies, and Ed Pagano from Senator Leahy's staff;--all who were incredible and so helpful.

I want to take a moment to say that Senator Durbin and Senator Schumer also helped in many of the negotiations on this issue. Senator Lott was there from the very beginning.

But I also want to take a moment of personal privilege about my staff. I have never seen such dedication on such a tough issue as James Christoferson, Matthew Acock, Lindsey Dickinson, Dick Ribbentrop, and Marc Short made in contributing to this victory for my constituents in Texas. These five people worked on this bill, this negotiation, on a daily basis for the last 6 months. There was never a day when we did not have some item that we were trying to move forward to get this bill to the point that we could pass it on the Senate floor. I think the people of Texas owe a great deal of gratitude to these dedicated members of my staff for never giving up, even when it was bleak from time to time, and being as dedicated as I was to making sure the right result for all parties to this agreement became a part of the solution.

When you work on something for so long, and you know how important it is, and how many people are counting on you, you just feel honorbound to do your best to make sure the people who have worked hard are rewarded. When Mayor Miller and Mayor Moncrief

made this agreement, and when they got the support they needed from the DFW Airport, from American Airlines, and from Southwest Airlines-- because their rights were affected--everybody gave a little in order to do good for the populace.

I know in the coming years the traveling public in the North Texas area--in and out--are going to see the benefits of a great competitive atmosphere. The DFW Airport gives the greatest service. They are the mid-country airport that really is the stopping off point for so many travelers going to the rest of the world. That is going to increase, and it is going to increase with lower fares and more convenience. It is going to be more convenient even with the safety antiterrorism measures that are being taken, which we know can inconvenience the traveling public.

DFW Airport is going to be the long-haul service carrier that will be the window to the world for people who live in the middle part of our country. Love Field is going to be a dynamic, limited-use airport because it sits right in the middle of an area that is full of wonderful neighborhoods, schools, churches, and businesses. The right of the city of Dallas to protect the citizens who live in the area is well recognized in the law, and they are invoking it. The city is doing a great job of making sure we have more competition and better fares. Love Field, while a dynamic airport sitting in the middle of a neighborhood, also deserves the safety and the environmental protections of all of our citizens.

So, Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I am very pleased this bill has passed. I look forward to seeing the benefits.

I yield the floor.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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 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. 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.

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.

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. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time the gentleman has remaining and also how much time I have remaining?

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.

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. 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.

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. 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 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.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

(Mr. MEEKS of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)