Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006

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?

Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.

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 eight 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. Speaker, is the gentlewoman from Texas opposed to the motion? If not, I demand the time in opposition.

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

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.

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. Speaker, the big-hearted gentleman from Wisconsin yields an additional 1 minute to my friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

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.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, today, at least tonight, we consider the conference report for the major security legislation for this year. I voted for this bill in May, and I likely will vote for this conference report.

I point out, however, that this bill could have and should have been much better. If the majority really cared about safety and security and if they cared more than they do about naked partisanship and political advantage, this would be a bill that we could all be proud to pass.

For example, Mr. Speaker, when the bill was considered this spring and again now, we were prohibited from considering a Democratic amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar, Markey, and others which requires that every shipping container be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the United States. The scary fact remains that less than 5 percent of all containers coming into the United States through our ports are scanned.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I took considerable umbrage with the majority's not allowing this amendment to be considered. I take issue with your conscious decision to block the House from considering proposals which would have, without a doubt, made my constituents and the American people safer.

Moreover, the rule this past spring prohibited the ranking Democratic member of the Homeland Security Committee, an expert in this field, Bennie Thompson, from making constructive changes to the bill. Ranking Member Thompson's changes address the fact that we cannot continue asking Customs officials to do more with less. His amendment authorized funding for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers at seaports.

Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a region in our country which is home to some of our largest international seaports. Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Port of Palm Beach in Riviera Beach, and the Port of Miami, each within or just minutes from the district I am privileged to represent, have led the way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades in particular, have all enjoyed national and international best practices recognition.

So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying legislation, I have to ask does this legislation get our ports to where they need to be regarding security. The answer is it gets us closer, but we can and must do better.

Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity in May to do something about a real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. We will accomplish some with the passage of this bill, but we must return to this topic when the new Congress convenes next January after a new direction. We can do better and we will do better for the American people. When we come next year, Democrats will give our Customs and Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do everything that they can possibly do to stop attacks from happening here in the United States. Until this time we have this bill, which is a first step, and that is all it is, a first step.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I heard that the conference was a farce. My colleague from Texas said we are headed in a new direction.

People don't need no new direction. What people need is an absolute destination. And the fact of the matter is

there were people who could have made this bill better and we are shut out of the process the same as we have been all the way down the line.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that instructs the enrolling Clerk to modify the conference report and add important provisions from the Senate version of this bill. These provisions are virtually identical to those in the motion to instruct that the House overwhelmingly adopted just 24 hours ago by a vote of 281-140.

Any Member who supported that motion last night should support my amendment today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, when the House passed this bill in May, it passed by a wide bipartisan margin and focused exclusively on port security issues. When the Senate took up this bill, however, it broadened the scope of this legislation to address the gaping security holes in our country's rail, subway, bus and trucking system.

Secretary Chertoff and the House Republicans called these new sections ``goulash.'' I think they are good policy, and I think they should be part of the bill we send to the President today. If we can stick unrelated gambling legislation into this conference report, Mr. Speaker, why cannot we include legislation that will improve our mass transit and rail security?

Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission noted in its final report that our surface transportation systems such as railroads and mass transit remain hard to protect because they are so accessible and extensive. We all know that Congress has not done enough to address this problem. So let's take this final opportunity to make some progress by including the Senate language.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the port security conference report, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to include in the conference report the critical Senate provisions that were contained in yesterday's motion to instruct that passed this House by a bipartisan and overwhelming vote.

Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. President, hopefully, I will not take all that time. I think the American people need to pay attention to what we have just done. The Energy bill, which was actually 41 bills wrapped into one, that we agreed to through unanimous consent, is going to cost the American taxpayer $1.5 billion.

The real question is, in light of where we find ourselves--fighting the war, trying to help the people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and running in excess of a $300 billion real deficit this year--should we be spending money on these priorities? A real problem in Washington is getting Congress to make tough decisions about what is a priority.

I will spend a few minutes outlining what is in the bill because the American people have no idea what was in the bill. The first thing is $500,000 to study lighthouses in Michigan for tourism. Tourism is already a $16 billion industry in Michigan. There is nothing in the Constitution that would say that is a Federal responsibility. We will do it anyway.

Indiana Dunes Visitor Center, $1.2 million to establish a building, construct a theater and a bookstore. Is that a priority right now when we are spending our grandkids' money? We are going to build a bookstore and create a visitor center now when we cannot even pay for the war that we are fighting and we are charging that to our children?

There are new national heritage designations. We have a backlog of over $4 billion in repairs to the National Parks we have today. We cannot even take care of the parks we have today, and we are going to create 10 new national heritage centers, spending over $100 million to do so.

This bothers me on several fronts. Most important, it isn't a priority. It isn't something we ought to be spending money on right now. We are getting ready to do it. We already have 30 national heritage centers. We are going to delete the resources that are going to those by adding 10 more.

Finally, the problem with national heritage areas is they undermine property rights because the money is used to change zoning laws to back the people who have property rights around the national heritages. We are using Federal dollars to create national heritage areas that will undermine individual property rights. That is wrong.

The other thing that is in this bill is a study to assess creating four more national heritages.

The process is broken under which we bring bills such as this to the Senate, at a time when we cannot afford to pay what we are doing today. We spent a ton of our time on appropriations. After what I was told through all this process, after having written a letter raising objections, meeting with the committee, meeting with our leadership, we had a leadership meeting this week which basically said: If you don't let all of these packages of spending of low priority and no priority go through, the Senate will come to a standstill and we will see everything else blocked by the minority.

I believe we ought to be making choices about the right priorities for our country. It is not that heritage areas are wrong. It is that we cannot afford them. We are going to spend money on things we cannot afford and borrow the money from our children and our grandchildren to pay for things that we have to do.

It is cheating our children and our grandchildren. It also is beneath the dignity of this Senate.

This process has to be fixed. We cannot continue to authorize, authorize, and authorize more spending without doing the hard work, looking at what we have authorized that is not working, is inefficient, or is duplicated. But we continue to do it, and I will continue to stand up for the next 4 years and raise this issue every time.

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is an American issue that this Senate does not want to address. We seem to be blinded by the fact that we can just spend and authorize all the money we want and to have no impact. We do not authorize unless we expect it to get spent.

With this bill, through the chairman working with us, he agreed to deauthorize over $150 million. That is a start. But other bills that come to the Senate that have new spending in the future ought to meet a test; that is, have we looked at everything else in that area? Is it working well? Are we spending the money wisely? Are we spending it efficiently? Are there programs that are not working that we ought to deauthorize so we can afford to authorize this as a better priority?

We are not doing that in this country. That is something the American people deserve to have done rather than to hang our children and grandchildren out to dry with debt.

This year, 8 percent of our budget is for interest. In 2035, 29 years from now, 25 percent of our budget is going to be interest. That is $1 trillion. We spent $200 billion this year on interest because we will not be frugal with the American taxpayers' money. There is over $200 billion worth of fraud, waste, and abuse in the Government programs we have today, and we will not go and fix it. Instead, we will spend another $1.5 million because that is easy to do. It sounds good at home, but we will not do what is necessary to secure the financial future of this country.

The notice I am placing today is there is a precedent established with this bill. If you want to authorize new programs and you want this Senator not to object or to debate them on the floor, there better be deauthorizations of programs of that committee's jurisdiction before they can expect my vote on a unanimous consent agreement to spend into the future and to undermine the future of the next generation of Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m., in open session to continue to receive testimony on military commissions in light of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a vote on the nomination of Mr. Frederic S. Mishkin, of New York, to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Ms. Linda Mysliwy Conlin, of New Jersey, to be First Vice President of The Export-Import Bank; Mr. Geoffrey S. Bacino, of Illinois, to be a Director of the Federal Housing Finance Board; Mr. Edmund C. Moy, of Wisconsin, to be Director of the Mint; Mr. J. Joseph Grandmaison, of New Hampshire, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Export- Import Bank; and Mr. James Lambright, of Missouri, to be President of the Export-Import Bank. Immediately following the vote, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet to conduct an Oversight Hearing on the semi-annual monetary policy report of The Federal Reserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, to consider S. 3661, S. Con. Res. 71, S. 3679, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006, nominations, and the Committee print of the Maritime Administration Improvements Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 9 a.m., the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a hearing on the science and risk assessment behind the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed revisions to the particulate matter air quality standards.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 10:30 a.m in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``DHS Purchase Cards: Credit Without Accountability.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Credit Card Interchange Fees: Antitrust Concerns?'' on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witnesses

Panel I: Bill Douglas, Chief Executive Officer, Douglas Distributing, Sherman, TX. Kathy Miller, Owner, The Elmore Store, Elmore, VT. Joshua R. Floum, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Visa U.S.A., Washington, DC. Joshua L. Peirez, Group Executive, Global Public Policy and Associate General Counsel, MasterCard Worldwide, Purchase, NY. The Hon. Timothy J. Muris, Former Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Of Counsel, O'Melveny & Meyers, Washington, DC. W. Stephen Cannon, President and Managing Partner, Constantine Cannon, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

I. Bills

S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein, Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 19, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to provide oversight on the implementation of Public Law 108-148 (the Healthy Forests Restoration Act).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness be allowed to meet at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, to discuss High Performance Computing.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1064 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this consent agreement providing for the consideration of a conference report for the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act. This port security bill, which has been agreed to now by the conference committee, came as a result of House action that was made on May 4 that passed this House 421-2.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that there are four major provisions within this SAFE Act: number one, enhancing security at U.S. ports; number two, preventing threats from reaching the United States of America; number three, tracking and protecting containers en route to the United States; and, number four, establishing the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a lot of time in this House of Representatives speaking about and working with our counterparts in the United States Senate as well as the administration on better ways that we can enhance port security. This conference report which we bring tonight, the last night before we go to recess, is an important victory for the American people. It stands to continue the safeguard position that this great Nation expects not only of its government but expects from the House of Representatives. I am proud that we are able to bring this bill forward tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida has pointed up not only the hard work that we have been doing on this bill, bipartisan work for a number of years, but also really about the effort or the direction, the direction that we are aiming at. And, in fact, under this SAFE Port Act of 2006, we are setting a timeline by which 100 percent of all containers will be scanned for radiation, by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to set the timeline for deploying these radiation detectors.

Mr. Speaker, we are also making sure that we are adding the number of people to the Customs and Border Patrol who will conduct these validations. We are going to make sure that we continue to add, as necessary, the numbers of people pointed at the right direction.

The gentleman from Florida is correct: we are not exactly where we want to be. But for us to think that 100 percent of everything can just be done overnight is not the reality of where the threat is at this country. I believe this President, I believe this administration, I believe this Congress have been aware of the frailties of our systems. We are trying to match our dollars, the resolve of this great Nation, with the ability on all of our borders to be able to make sure that we are looking at the threats of the 21st century that come to us as a result of terrorist organizations. We want to make sure that by doing this bill tonight that we allow and put into motion the opportunity for the Department of Homeland Security to be better prepared to face those threats that come against the United States.

This passed 421-2. It is an indication, it was in May, that we are headed in the right direction. I am confident tonight that the final answer that comes from the negotiation with the Senate can be on the President's desk as early as tomorrow, ready and waiting to protect this country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I came down to speak about the bill, the SAFE Port Act of 2006, and to move this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend, who has engaged this entire year in attempting to work with us the best as possible, despite some objections, on getting these bills to the floor.

The Rules Committee does have a job to do. That is our job tonight. Our job is to make sure that this rule is brought forward. I am asking all Members to vote ``aye'' on the previous question, to vote ``aye'' and then to get this bill on the floor with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 421-2 the last time we voted on this bill.

It is the right thing. It makes sure that we provide the tools that are necessary to the President of the United States effective immediately. I think we are going to get it done, Mr. Speaker. I am very proud of the work that is happening in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I am proud to know that tonight we will be through, we will be home, we will be with our families, but we should not leave until we get our work done, and that we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006.

This rule is furtherance of a process that can be summed up in two words--a joke.

After weeks of negotiations, Republicans refused to share the final conference report on legislation that was supposed to be bipartisan.

Indeed, this is legislation that builds on what my colleague Loretta Sanchez did last Congress and that Jane Harman took up this Congress.

Last night at 7:30, a conference report meeting was called and it was missing the key ingredient--a conference report.

After opening statements, Chairman Peter King closed the meeting, telling us it was his intention ``that amendments would be offered.''

And, at 11:30 last night, we finally received the report with a very clear P.S. from Mr. King--there would be no amendments offered.

His actions contradicted the will of this House, which voted yesterday 281-140 to instruct conferees to consider specific issues that the amendments to be offered would have covered.

Now, the Committee on Homeland Security has been a bipartisan committee to date. These questionable processes undermine our homeland security efforts--all in the name of politics.

I know the elections are important to my colleagues across the aisle but they should not take precedent over America's homeland security efforts.

Adding even more insult to the process, the Republicans have attached internet gambling to the port security bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask someone to explain to me how prohibiting internet gambling is more important to our homeland security than making our trains, subways, and buses safe?

You will hear excuses about why we can't do mass transit and rail security and that we will ``take it up soon.''

When?

Madrid happened in 2004. London happened in 2005. Mumbai happened only a few months ago.

Are we waiting for New York City's Long Island Railroad to be attacked to pass sensible security for trains?

If so, at least we'll have comfort in knowing that Americans can't bet on the Superbowl online.

Now, I have signed on to the conference report because there are good things, but they aren't enough.

Frankly, this body can and should do better. We need to put America's security first and foremost before politics.

I urge all Members to oppose the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for Rule on Conference Report for H.R. 4954--``SAFE''

Port Act

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill

(H.R. 4954) To improve maritime and cargo security through

enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. All points

of order against the conference report and against its

consideration are waived. The conference report shall be

considered as read.

Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection

(b) is hereby adopted.

(b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a)

is a concurrent resolution

(1) which has no preamble;

(2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for

Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the

bill H.R. 4954''; and

(3) the text of which is as follows:

``That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4954 entitled''

An Act to improve maritime and cargo security through

enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes', the Clerk

of the House of Representatives is hereby authorized and

directed to make the following corrections:

``(1) Insert title V of the Senate amendment to the bill

(relating to the Rail Security Act of 2006).

``(2) Insert title VII of the Senate amendment to the bill

(relating to mass transit security).

``(3) Insert title IX of the Senate amendment to the bill

(relating to improved motor carrier, bus, and hazardous

material security).

``(4) Insert the following sections of title XI of the

Senate amendment to the bill:

``(A) Section 1101 (relating to certain TSA personnel

limitations not to apply).

``(B) Section 1102 (relating to the Rural Policing

Institute).

``(C) Section 1103 (relating to evacuation in emergencies).