```

[House Report 109-600]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

109th Congress                                            Rept. 109-600
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 2

======================================================================

 
                      WRIGHT AMENDMENT REFORM ACT

                                _______
                                

               September 15, 2006.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 5830]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 5830) to amend section 29 of the International Air 
Transportation Competition Act of 1979 relating to air 
transportation to and from Love Field, Texas, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Wright Amendment Reform Act''.

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, and 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repealed on the date that is 8 years after the date of enactment of 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.--Except for any flights operated by any 
agency of the Federal Government or by any air carrier under contract 
with any agency of the Federal Government and except in irregular 
operations described in the agreement referred to in section 5(a), 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.
  (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.

SEC. 5. AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.

  (a) In General.--Any action taken by the city of Dallas, the city of 
Fort Worth, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and the Dallas-Fort 
Worth International Airport Board (referred to in this section as the 
``parties'') that is reasonably necessary to implement the provisions 
of the agreement dated July 11, 2006, and entitled ``CONTRACT AMONG THE 
CITY OF DALLAS, THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., 
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., AND DFW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD 
INCORPORATING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THE JUNE 15, 2006 JOINT 
STATEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO RESOLVE THE `WRIGHT AMENDMENT' 
ISSUES'', and the agreement, shall be deemed to comply in all respects 
with the parties' obligations under title 49, United States Code.
  (b) Love Field Gates.--
          (1) 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.
          (2) Permissible airport costs.--Costs associated with 
        reduction of gates under paragraph (1) are permissible airport 
        costs and shall not be considered as revenue diversion.
  (c) General Aviation.--Nothing in the agreement referred to in 
subsection (a) and 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.--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 
action, either self-initiated or on behalf of third parties, that is 
inconsistent with the provisions of the agreement referred to in 
subsection (a) or that challenges the legality of any of its 
provisions.
  (e) Limitations 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 
                aviation security programs of the Department of 
                Homeland Security and 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 implementation of subsection 
                (b); 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 (b); or
                          (ii) to modify or eliminate preferential 
                        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. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVIEW.

  The Department of Transportation shall have exclusive authority to 
review actions taken under this Act (including the agreement referred 
to in section 5(a)), and actions taken to implement the agreement, with 
respect to all provisions of title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

  (a) Limitation.--The provisions of this Act shall apply only to 
actions taken by the parties to the agreement referred to in section 
5(a) of this Act at 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, Texas, or both).
  (b) Preservation of Antitrust Laws.--Nothing in this Act, or any 
amendment made by this Act, shall modify, impair, or supersede the 
operation of the antitrust laws.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  Sections 1 through 7 and 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, Texas, 
occurring as a result of the agreement referred to in section 5(a) and 
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.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 5830 was introduced on July 18, 2006. The legislation 
was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and reported by that Committee on July 26, 2006. 
The legislation would implement a compromise agreement reached 
by: the City of Dallas, Texas; the City of Fort Worth, Texas; 
American Airlines; Southwest Airlines; and Dallas-Fort Worth 
International Airport (DFW) on July 11, 2006, regarding air 
service at Dallas Love Field. The Judiciary Committee sought 
and received a sequential referral of the legislation pursuant 
to its rule XI(1)(1)(16) jurisdiction over the ``protection of 
trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and 
monopolies.''
    As introduced, section 5 of the legislation provides that 
the agreement shall be deemed to comply in all respects with 
the parties obligations under title 49 United States Code, and 
any competition laws.'' While not explicitly defined in the 
legislation, ``competition laws'' encompass those related to 
the protections of trade against unlawful restraints, price 
discrimination, price fixing, abuse of market for 
anticompetitive purposes, and monopolies. Principle competition 
laws in the United States include the Sherman Act of 1890, 
Clayton Act of 1914, and Federal Trade Commission Act. 
Competition-related aspects of the agreement to which section 
5(a) of this legislation pertains are presently being litigated 
in Federal district court.\1\ As introduced, section 6 of the 
legislation provides the Department of Transportation exclusive 
authority to review actions taken to implement the agreement 
``with respect to any Federal competition laws * * * that may 
otherwise apply.'' This provision would have stripped authority 
from Federal antitrust enforcement agencies (Department of 
Justice and Federal Trade Commission) to review competitive 
aspects of the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Love Terminal Partnership, L.P. and Virginia Aerospace v. 
City of Dallas, et. al, Federal District Court for the Northern 
District of Texas (306-CV1279-D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To ensure that this agreement is not exempt from antitrust 
scrutiny, the Committee adopted by voice vote an amendment 
offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner (with the support of Ranking 
Member Conyers) to strike the antitrust exemption contained in 
section 5. The amendment also strikes language in section 6 of 
the underlying bill providing the Department of Transportation 
exclusive authority to review or enforce competition-related 
aspects of the agreement. Finally, the amendment adopted by the 
Committee contained a clear savings clause to preserve an 
antitrust remedy for competitive violations stemming from the 
July 11, 2006 agreement and the implementation of this 
legislation. It is the view of the Committee that competitive 
aspects of the July 11, 2006 agreement must be assessed in 
accordance with Federal antitrust law and established antitrust 
principles, and that any perceived or actual conflict between 
the July 11, 2006 and the antitrust laws must be resolved in 
favor of the antitrust laws.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

                  GENESIS OF THE ``WRIGHT AMENDMENT''

    During the 1960s, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth 
engaged in a protracted airport rivalry, which resulted from 
the operation of separate airports just 12 miles from each 
other.\2\ In 1964, Federal regulators ordered the cities to 
build a single regional airport that served both cities, and 
the resulting agreement to construct Dallas-Forth Worth 
International Airport (DFW) included a joint bond ordinance 
providing for the project's financing and for the eventual 
phase-out of commercial passenger flights at competing airports 
in the area, including Dallas' Love Field.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See City of Dallas v. S.W. Airlines Co., 371 F. Supp. 1015, 
1019 (N.D. Tex. 1973).
    \3\ See generally, Jennifer Wang, Time for Congress to Spread Love 
in the Air: Why the Wright Amendment, and Why it Deserves Repeal Today, 
 Journ. of Air Law and Comm., (Spring 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bond ordinance was adopted in 1968, and in 1970, the 
eight airlines then servicing the region signed agreements to 
move their operations to DFW. Southwest Airlines, which then 
served intrastate destinations originating from Love Field, 
refused to move its operations to DFW, and was sued by the 
cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, which alleged that permitting 
Southwest to operate at Love Field threatened the financial 
security of DFW. However, the court held in favor of Southwest 
Airlines, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision in two 
separate opinions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See City of Dallas v. S.W. Airlines Co., 494 F.2d 773, 775 (5th 
Cir. 1974) and S.W. Airlines Co. v. Tex. Int'l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 
84, 103 (5th Cir. 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1978, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act to 
foster airline competition. Shortly thereafter, Southwest 
Airlines applied for the right to start a Love Field-to-New 
Orleans route, which the Civil Aeronautics Board granted. In 
order to prevent Southwest from expanding service from Love 
Field, former House Speaker Jim Wright, attached the ``Wright 
Amendment'' to the International Air Transportation Competition 
Act of 1979. The law, often called a ``compromise'' between the 
parties, contains a general prohibition on interstate 
commercial aviation to or from Love Field in Dallas, Texas, 
with four exceptions. The Wright Amendment:
           Permits ten interstate charter flights each 
        month to and from Love Field;
           Allows flights by ``commuter airlines 
        operating aircraft with a passenger capacity of 56 
        passengers or less;''
           Specifically grandfathers in the existing 
        interstate service that Southwest was providing between 
        Love Field and New Orleans, and;
           Allows ``turnaround service'' from Love 
        Field to one or more points within the States of 
        Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, provided 
        that the carrier does not offer through or connecting 
        service with any other air carrier outside the listed 
        States.
    In 1997, Congress passed the Shelby Amendment, which added 
Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi to the list of states that 
airlines could serve directly from Love Field.\5\ In 2005, the 
Senate passed H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing 
and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, 
and Independent Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations Act. The 
legislation prohibits funds from being used to enforce the 
Wright Amendment with respect to flights between Love Field, 
Texas, and one or more points within the State of Missouri, 
thereby adding Missouri to the list of exempted states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Department of Transportation & Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-66, Sec. 337, 111 Stat. 1425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE WRIGHT AMENDMENT

    In 1989, the Wright Amendment was challenged in Federal 
court on the grounds that it violated the right to interstate 
travel and violated the First Amendment by limiting information 
passengers could receive from airlines at Love Field. The Fifth 
Circuit found that a law violates the right to interstate 
travel only if it actually deters such travel and upheld the 
restriction on commercial speech because it advanced the 
government's substantial interest in providing ``a fair and 
equitable settlement for [the] dispute'' between Dallas and 
Fort Worth.\6\ The State of Kansas also challenged the 
constitutionality of the Wright Amendment asserting similar 
violations. However, these claims were rejected.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Cramer v. Skinner, 931 F.2d 1020, 1022 (5th Cir. 1991).
    \7\ Kansas v. United States, 16 F.3d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       AIRLINE DEREGULATION, COMPETITION AND THE WRIGHT AMENDMENT

    When enacting the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), Congress 
sought ``maximum reliance on competitive market forces, and on 
actual and potential competition,'' to bring ``efficiency, 
innovation, and low prices,'' to the air travel industry.\8\ 
Through the ADA, Congress aimed to provide better 
transportation services to consumers by strengthening 
``competition among air carriers [and] * * * to prevent 
unreasonable concentration in the air carrier industry.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40101(a).
    \9\ See id. at Sec. 40101(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Wright Amendment expressly protects DFW from 
competition from Love Field and establishes a monopoly on long-
haul air travel at DFW, dominated by American Airlines. DFW has 
grown into the third-busiest airport in the world, with 
American Airlines controlling 82 percent of outgoing flights. 
Consequently, the Wright Amendment may be viewed as 
inconsistent with the pro-competitive goals of the Airline 
Deregulation Act, which was enacted to prevent ``unreasonable 
industry concentration, excessive market domination, monopoly 
powers, and other conditions that would tend to allow at least 
one air carrier or foreign air carrier unreasonably to increase 
prices, reduce services, or exclude competition in air 
transportation.'' \10\ In addition, the entry of low cost 
carriers, such as Southwest, has been found to reduce average 
prices in a market by as much as 54 percent, and can stimulate 
traffic by as much as 174 percent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 40101(a)(10).
    \11\ See Entry and Competition in the U.S. Airline Industry: Issues 
and Opportunities, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 255, 
(1999), p. 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   CURRENT MARKET FEATURES OF DALLAS-FORTH WORTH AIR TRANSPORTATION 
                              MARKETPLACE

    The Dallas-Fort Worth region is served by one large hub 
airport, DFW, and one medium hub airport, Love Field.\12\ The 
airports rank 3rd and 56th nationally in total passengers. 
Between April 2005 and March 2006, the most recent period for 
which data is available from the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (BTS), DFW enplaned 51.5 million passengers while 
enplanements at Love Field were about 5.99 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See H.R. Rep. No. 109-600 Part 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the BTS, American is the nation's largest 
airline having an almost 15 percent share of the U.S. market in 
the year running from April 2005 to March 2006. Southwest, 
which controls about 10.9 percent of the U.S. market, is the 
nation's most profitable airline and is one of a very small 
number of airlines that has remained profitable throughout the 
post-September 11th period. American is clearly the dominant 
air carrier at DFW. According to the BTS, between April 2005 
and March 2006, approximately 85 percent of all passengers at 
DFW boarded American and American regional air carrier flights. 
Delta Airlines accounts for about 2.78 percent and the next 
largest air carrier share is United Airlines at about 2 
percent. Southwest is clearly the dominant air carrier at Love 
Field. According to the BTS, between April 2005 and March 2006, 
Southwest had a 95 percent market share at Love Field. 
Continental Express accounted for roughly 4.5 percent of the 
passengers. American, which leases three gates at the main 
terminal, accounted for 0.5 percent of the passengers.\13\ This 
data demonstrates considerable market power by American 
Airlines at DFW and Southwest Airlines at Love Field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See supra, note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ``AGREEMENT AMONG CITIES OF DALLAS, FORT WORTH, SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, 
  AMERICAN AIRLINES, AND THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
                                BOARD''

    On June 15, 2006, the mayors of Dallas and Fort Worth and 
other officials held a press conference to announce that the 
cities, the DFW Airport Board, Southwest Airlines, and American 
Airlines had reached an agreement on a future configuration of 
Love Field (DAL) that contains the following provisions.

Love Field capacity

     Repeals the Wright Amendment in 2015 by lifting 
all existing domestic flight restrictions at Love Field; until 
2015, existing domestic flight restrictions will remain at Love 
Field (direct flights will be limited to: Missouri, Alabama, 
Mississippi, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, and 
Oklahoma).
     Immediately reduces the number of gates at Love 
Field from 32 to 20, with Southwest receiving 16 of the 
remaining gates (it has 21 now), American Airlines two (it has 
three now), and Continental Airlines two (same as today). Six 
unused gates in a secondary terminal would be demolished.
     Immediately allows through-ticketing from Love 
Field. Southwest, American and Continental may also market 
connecting service from Love Field to cities outside the Wright 
Amendment's geographic area. Previously, in what is known as 
the ``Wright two-step'', a passenger who wanted to fly from 
Love Field to an airport outside the Amendment's geographic 
area would have to purchase a second ticket from that city to a 
city within the Amendment's geographic area.
     Limits all future commercial passenger service out 
of Love Field to domestic operations.
     Commits the City of Dallas to invest up to $200 
million in airport improvements at Love Field, including 
development of new main terminal; and immediately raises 
landing fees to help pay for new terminal and other 
infrastructure improvements.

Penalties

     If Congress expands the Wright Amendment's 
geographic area between now and 2015 and Southwest Airlines 
begins service to points outside the geographic area in 
response to such action, Southwest would lose eight gates at 
Love Field.
     If Southwest or American choose to operate from 
another airport within an 80-mile radius of Love Field 
(excluding DFW for American), each airline would surrender an 
equivalent number of gates at Love Field (which would be made 
available to other airlines).

Effective date

     The agreement must be codified by Congress.
     The agreement is null and void if Congress fails 
to codify the agreement by December 31, 2006, unless the 
parties agree otherwise.

                   ANTITRUST ASPECTS OF THE AGREEMENT

    On July 17, 2006, an antitrust suit was filed by Love 
Terminal Partners against the parties to the agreement (see 
Love Terminal Partnership, L.P. and Virginia Aerospace v. City 
of Dallas, et. al, Federal District Court for the Northern 
District of Texas (306-CV1279-D). The suit asserts that the 
agreement represents an illegal restraint of trade expressly 
intended to allocate geographic markets between American 
Airlines and Southwest Airlines, to limit competition by other 
competitors, and to destroy a privately-owned terminal that 
competes directly with facilities owned by the ``conspiring 
parties.'' The suit further alleges that this illegal 
combination in restraint of trade will significantly reduce 
competition and produce immediate harm to consumers. It also 
alleges that the agreement would significantly reduce 
competition by prohibiting Southwest from competing with 
American Airlines in the provision of non-stop long haul 
flights for another eight years. Finally, the complaint states 
that Southwest Airlines agreed to this limitation in return for 
the City of Dallas' commitment to limit gate capacity at Love 
Field, a restriction that would protect Southwest Airlines' 
dominant position at Love Field for the next 22 years and award 
it a monopoly over long-haul flights in and out of Love Field 
beginning in eight years.
    Proponents of H.R. 5830 assert that the legislation 
provides congressional approval to an agreement that pertains 
to a ``local issue,'' but the agreement has national 
consequences. Specifically, the agreement directly impacts all 
airlines that would otherwise compete from Love Field, and has 
a direct impact on all airline passengers who might utilize 
Dallas-Forth Worth Airport or Love Field for flights throughout 
the United States. Moreover, any effort to undermine the 
Federal antitrust law is an inherently national exercise. The 
agreement contained in H.R. 5830 provides that the number of 
gates at Love Field would be immediately and permanently 
reduced from 32 to 20. In order to accomplish this end, 
existing gate facilities would be physically demolished. 
Southwest would control 16 of these remaining gates, while 
American and Continental would get two each. No international 
flights to or from Love Field would be permitted. The agreement 
also prohibits Southwest Airlines from providing air passenger 
service from DFW for nearly two decades. These restrictions 
raise clear competitive considerations.
    To ensure that this agreement is not exempt from antitrust 
scrutiny, the Committee adopted by voice vote an amendment 
offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner (with the support of Ranking 
Member Conyers) to strike the antitrust exemption contained in 
section 5 of the legislation and to strike language in section 
6 of the underlying bill that would have provided the 
Department of Transportation exclusive authority to review or 
enforce competition-related aspects of the agreement. In 
addition, the amendment offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner 
adopted by the Committee by voice vote contained a clear 
savings clause to preserve an antitrust remedy for competitive 
violations stemming from the July 11, 2006 agreement contained 
in H.R. 5830.
    The antitrust saving clause states: ``Nothing in this Act, 
or any amendment made by this Act, shall modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of the antitrust laws.'' It is the view 
of the Committee that competitive aspects of the July 11, 2006 
agreement must be assessed in accordance with Federal antitrust 
law and established antitrust principles, and that any 
perceived or actual conflict between the July 11, 2006 
agreement, this legislation, and the antitrust laws be resolved 
in favor of the operation and application of the antitrust 
laws.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 
5830.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 13, 2006, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 5830, as amended, 
by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there 
were no recorded votes during the committee consideration of 
H.R. 5830.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 2679, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                                September 14, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5830, the Wright 
Amendment Reform Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan 
Carroll.
            Sincerely,
                                          Donald B. Marron,
                                                   Acting Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 5830--Wright Amendment Reform Act

    H.R. 5830 would amend provisions of federal law that set 
certain restrictions on commercial air transportation to and 
from Love Field, an airport located near the cities of Dallas 
and Forth Worth, Texas. Based on information from the 
Department of Transportation, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 
5830 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. 
The bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 5830 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The 
bill would make the necessary changes in federal law to 
implement an agreement among the cities of Dallas and Forth 
Worth and American and Southwest Airlines. Any costs to those 
cities of the state of Texas would be incurred voluntarily.
    On July 21, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 
3661, a bill to amend section 29 of the International Air 
Transportation Competition Act of 1979 relating to air 
transportation to and from Love Field, Texas, as ordered 
reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation on July 19, 2006. On July 24, 2006, CBO 
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 5830 as ordered reported 
by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on 
July 19, 2006. S. 3661 and the two versions of H.R. 5830 are 
similar, and our cost estimates are the same.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll.
    This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
5830 will provide congressional approval of an agreement among 
the City of Dallas, Texas; the City of Fort Worth, Texas; 
American Airlines; Southwest Airlines; and Dallas-Fort Worth 
International Airport (DFW) on July 11, 2006, regarding air 
service at Dallas Love Field.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I section 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

Sec. 1. Short title

    This title provides that the short title of the legislation 
is the ``Wright Amendment Reform Act.''

Sec. 2. Modification of provisions regarding flights to and from Love 
        Field, Texas

    Subsection (a) amends section 29 of the International Air 
Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (the `Wright Amendment') 
to allow air carriers serving Love Field to offer for sale and 
provide through service and ticketing to or from Love Field and 
any United States or foreign destination, through any point 
within Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Alabama.
    Subsection (b) repeals section 29 of the International Air 
Transportation Competition Act of 1979 on the date that is 
eight years after the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 3. Treatment of international nonstop flights to and from Love 
        Field, Texas

    This section prohibits nonstop commercial air service 
between Love Field and any foreign destination.

Sec. 4. Charter flights at Love Field, Texas

    Subsection (a) limits charter flights at Love Field to 
destinations within the United States. Subsection (b) limits 
charter flights at Love Field beyond the States of Texas, New 
Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Missouri and Alabama to no more than 10 per month per air 
carrier. Subsection (c) requires that charter flights operated 
by air carriers leasing gates at Love Field depart from and 
arrive at a leased gate.

Sec. 5. Agreement of the parties

    As introduced, this section provides that any action taken 
by the parties that is reasonably necessary to implement the 
provisions of the July 11, 2006 agreement, and the agreement 
itself, is deemed to comply in all respects with the parties 
obligations under title 49, United States Code, and any 
``competition laws.'' The Committee adopted by voice an 
amendment offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner to strike the 
reference to competition laws. The amendment struck this 
provision to ensure that the July 11, 2006 agreement be 
assessed in accordance with all applicable antitrust laws.
    This section also requires the City of Dallas to reduce, as 
soon as practicable, the number of gates available for 
passenger air service at Love Field to no more than 20 gates. 
Provides that costs associated with reduction of gates are 
permissible airport costs and not to be considered revenue 
diversion. Subsection (c) of this section assures that nothing 
in the July 11, 2006 agreement or the legislation affects 
general aviation service at Love Field. Subsection (d) provides 
that no action is to be taken by DOT or FAA that is 
inconsistent with the local agreement or that challenges its 
legality. Subsection (e) clarifies the scope of legal 
protection afforded under Section 5(a).

Sec. 6. Department of Transportation review

    As introduced, this section would have provided the 
Department of Transportation with exclusive authority to review 
actions taken under the legislation and the July 11, 2007 
agreement, and action to implement the agreement with respect 
to any Federal competition laws not included in title 49, 
United States Code. The Committee adopted by voice vote an 
amendment offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner to strike 
``competition laws'' from this section of the legislation. The 
Committee took this action to preserve the enforcement 
authority of Federal antitrust agencies--including the 
Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission--over 
competitive aspects of the July 11, 2006 agreement.

Sec. 7. Applicability

    This section limits applicability of the legislation to 
actions taken by the parties to the July 11 agreement at Love 
Field and any airport owned or operated by the City of Dallas 
or the City of Fort Worth. The amendment offered by Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and adopted by the Committee by voice vote added 
an antitrust saving clause to this section. The amendment 
provides: ``Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this 
Act, shall modify, impair, or supersede the operation of the 
antitrust laws.'' It is the view of the Committee that Any 
perceived or actual conflict between this legislation or the 
July 11, 2006 agreement and the antitrust laws shall be 
resolved in favor of the operation and application of the 
antitrust laws.

Sec. 8. Effective date

    This section provides that the legislation takes effect on 
the date FAA notifies Congress that aviation operations in the 
airspace serving Love Field and the Dallas-Fort Worth area can 
be accommodated in full compliance with FAA safety standards 
and without adverse effect on use of airspace in the area. The 
Committee expects that FAA will complete the evaluations 
required for this one-time notification as soon as practicable.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION COMPETITION ACT OF 1979

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 29. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect to, 
and it is found consistent with the public convenience and 
necessity to authorize, transportation of individuals, by air, 
on a flight between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points 
within the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, 
Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas by an air 
[carrier, if (1) such air carrier does not offer or provide any 
through service or ticketing with another air carrier or 
foreign air carrier, and (2) such air carrier does not offer 
for sale transportation to or from, and the flight or aircraft 
does not serve, any point which is outside any such State. 
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to give authority 
not otherwise provided by law to the Secretary of 
Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, any other officer 
or employee of the United States, or any other person.] 
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, and Alabama.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 [Effective on the last day of the 8 year period beginning on the date 
of the enactment of this Act (Wright Amendment Reform Act), section 29 
  of the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979, as 
    amended by section 2(a) of such Act, is repealed, shown below.]

  [Sec. 29. (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the 
Secretary of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics Board, nor 
any other officer or employee of the United States shall issue, 
reissue, amend, revise, or otherwise modify (either by action 
or inaction) any certificate or other authority to permit or 
otherwise authorize any person to provide the transportation of 
individuals, by air, as a common carrier for compensation or 
hire between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points outside 
the State of Texas, except (1) charter air transportation not 
to exceed ten flights per month, and (2) air transportation 
provided by commuter airlines operating aircraft with a 
passenger capacity of 56 passengers or less.
  [(b) Except as provided in subsections (a) and (c), 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, or any certificate 
or other authority heretofore or hereafter issued thereunder, 
no person shall provide or offer to provide the transportation 
of individuals, by air, for compensation or hire as a common 
carrier between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points 
outside the State of Texas, except that a person providing 
service to a point outside of Texas from Love Field on November 
1, 1979, may continue to provide service to such a point.
  [(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect to, 
and it is found consistent with the public convenience and 
necessity to authorize, transportation of individuals, by air, 
on a flight between Love Field, Texas, and one or more points 
within the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, 
Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas by an air 
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, and Alabama.
  [(d) This section shall not take effect if enacted after the 
enactment of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 
1979.]

                           Markup Transcript

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2006

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. 
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Pursuant to notice, I now call up 
the bill, H.R. 5830, the ``Wright Amendment Reform Act,'' for 
purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the 
House.
    Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and 
open for amendment at any point.
    [The bill, H.R. 5830, follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The text as reported by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which the 
Members have before them, will be considered as read, 
considered as the original text for purposes of amendment, and 
open for amendment at any point.
    The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes to explain the 
bill.
    H.R. 5830, the ``Wright Amendment Reform Act,'' was 
introduced on July 8, 2006 and reported from the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure 8 days later. House Rule 
11(1)(1)(16), provides the Committee on the Judiciary with 
jurisdiction over the protection of trade and commerce against 
unlawful restraints and monopoly.
    As Chairman of this Committee, I have sought to forcefully 
assert the Committee's mandate to ensure that antitrust laws 
continue to serve the pro-competitive purposes for which they 
were established. That is why the Judiciary Committee sought 
and received a sequential referral of this legislation, which 
expires on Friday of this week.
    The Wright Amendment has a long and colored history. It was 
enacted into law in the late 1970's and is named after its 
primary House backer, former Speaker Jim Wright. The amendment 
generally prohibits interstate and international commercial 
flights to and from Love Field, Texas, with certain exceptions.
    Specifically, the amendment permits commuter airlines 
operating with a passenger capacity of 56 passengers or less to 
operate out of Love Field, and presently allows passenger 
interstate air service between Love Field and Louisiana, 
Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. In 1997, Alabama, Kansas and 
Mississippi were added to this list, and Missouri was 
effectively added last year.
    According to the Bureau of Transportation statistics, 
between April, 2005 and March, 2006, approximately 85 percent 
of all passengers at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport boarded American 
Airlines flights, while Southwest had a 95 percent market share 
at Love Field. On June 15, 2006, the cities of Dallas and Fort 
Worth, the Airport Board, Southwest Airlines and American 
Airlines reached an agreement that would preserve current 
limitations on flights from Love Field under 2015, while 
requiring the immediate elimination of 12 gates at Love Field, 
thus reducing the number of gates from 32 to 20.
    Under the agreement, Southwest would control 16 of the 
remaining gates, while American and Continental would get two 
each. No international flights to or from Love Field would be 
permitted. The agreement would be nullified if Congress fails 
to codify it by December 31, 2006. The legislation we consider 
today would codify the agreement.
    Section 5 of the bill creates an antitrust exemption that 
provides that the agreement ``shall be deemed to comply in all 
respects with any competition laws.'' In addition to depriving 
all private and public litigants from seeking judicial relief 
for anti-competitive claims stemming from the agreement, 
section 6 of the legislation provides the Department of 
Transportation with ``exclusive authority to review actions 
taken under this act with respect to any Federal competition 
laws not included in such title that might otherwise apply.''
    These matters clearly affect the jurisdiction of this 
Committee, and at the appropriate time I will be offering an 
amendment with Ranking Member Conyers to address the antitrust 
immunity created by the legislation.
    I yield back the balance of my time and recognize the 
gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This bill, the codification of a private agreement between 
private parties, contains language explicitly designed to 
shield it from any challenge under antitrust laws. This 
agreement preserves the Wright Amendment for 8 more years, 
restricts the number of gates at Love Field from 32 to 20, and 
creates a shield from any antitrust scrutiny.
    Both sides of those interested in the bill have made 
arguments about the relative pro-competitive and anti-
competitive aspects of the agreement. Those in favor argue that 
through ticketing provisions will greatly benefit consumers by 
eliminating the existing requirement that passengers must 
purchase two separate tickets to get to Dallas Love Field.
    But at the same time, some consumer groups, as well as a 
coalition that consists of business groups, minority interest 
groups, elected officials and taxpayers, argue that there are 
countervailing anti-competitive aspects of the agreement that 
outweigh any pro-competitive benefits.
    For example, many believe that by eliminating 12 gates at 
Love Field, the agreement severely restricts the ability of 
competitors to provide service, either now or 8 years from now, 
when the Wright Amendment is abolished completely. I am not 
here to day whether or not this agreement is pro-competitive or 
anti-competitive. It is my jobs to make sure that the Congress 
doesn't pass legislation that harms the integrity of antitrust 
laws.
    Legislation codifying a private agreement between parties 
that provides a blanket immunity from any antitrust challenges 
is exactly the kind of legislation I am talking about. Vigorous 
enforcement of our antitrust laws is a cornerstone of 
preserving our free market economy. For over a century, the 
antitrust laws have provided the ground rules for fair 
competition, our economic bill of rights, if you will.
    Antitrust principles are necessary to preserve competition 
and to prevent monopolies from stifling innovation. Competition 
produces better products and lower prices, all to the benefit 
of consumers.
    I urge we give careful consideration to H.R. 5830, and I 
return any unused time, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members may 
include opening statements in the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
    Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, 
                       Committee on the Judiciary
    Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I support H.R. 5830, 
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. An identical bill, 
S.3661, is pending in the Senate.
    I note Mr. Chairman 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 eight 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 also ask unanimous consent that a letter dated 
September 11, 2006 from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas to 
me in support of the Wright Amendment be made part of the record.
    I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I 
ask you to vote for H.R. 5830.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

    [Additional material submitted by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
    The Chair has an amendment, and the clerk will report that 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 5830, offered by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers. Page 4, line 17, strike `and any 
competition laws' ''----
    [The amendment offererd by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. 
Conyers follows:]

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
    This amendment, which I offer with the support of Ranking 
Member Conyers, strikes the antitrust exemption contained in 
section 5 of the legislation. It also amends the legislation to 
preserve the authority of the antitrust enforcement agencies to 
monitor competitive aspects of the agreement.
    When enacting the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 
Congress sought ``maximum reliance on competitive market forces 
to bring efficiency, innovation and low prices'' and to prevent 
``unreasonable industry concentration, excessive market 
domination, monopoly powers, and other conditions that would 
tend to allow at least one air carrier or foreign air carrier 
to unreasonably increase prices, reduce services, or exclude 
competition in air services.''
    With limited exceptions, the Wright Amendment expressly 
insulates Dallas-Fort Worth from interstate and international 
air passenger competition from Dallas Love Field. The 
legislation we consider today codifies an agreement among 
private and local government parties that raises serious 
competitive concerns. Specifically, the agreement would require 
the demolition of existing gates at Love Field that might be 
utilized by airlines to offer additional air passenger services 
to points across the United States.
    The agreement would also prohibit Southwest Airlines, a 
low-cost carrier that has brought robust competition to cities 
throughout the country, from offering service from DFW until 
the year 2025. As a result, the agreement directly limits the 
ability of all airlines to offer service from Love Field and 
directly impacts consumers throughout the country who fly to, 
from or through the Dallas airports.
    These restrictions clearly implicate the antitrust laws, 
and legislative efforts to defeat the antitrust laws are of 
national significance. I urge Members to support this amendment 
and to assure that this agreement is not immunized from the 
antitrust scrutiny it deserves.
    The Chair yields back the balance of his time and 
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise in support of this amendment, after a good deal of 
reflection and discussion with my colleagues. I believe that by 
striking the language creating a shield from any challenges 
under antitrust law, or other competition laws, this amendment 
preserves the agreement made by the parties, while at the same 
time protecting the integrity of the antitrust laws themselves.
    This agreement is touted as being good for consumers and 
pro-competitive. I believe that. If this is indeed the case, 
then shielding it from any challenges under the antitrust laws 
is unnecessary. This Committee seldom blesses requests for 
antitrust exemptions. I see no reason for that to happen now.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Ms. Lofgren. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
    I just want to raise a concern. I know this is probably 
surprising to some because I have been historically such an 
advocate for antitrust, but I do note that this Committee has 
supported much broader exemptions in other arenas, for example 
baseball and football. While I am a cosponsor of the bill that 
would repeal the Wright Amendment completely, my concern is 
this, that if we do not support the agreement that has been 
made, we will fail in opening up this market at all.
    That is detrimental to consumers. Southwest has I think 
unfairly been precluded from this market. Although ordinarily I 
would be sympathetic to the amendment, from a practical matter 
I fear that if this amendment passes we may in fact see the 
situation that currently exists continue, which is a much worse 
constraint on consumer rights and on trade.
    It is on that basis that I do not support the amendment, 
but I do appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding to me. 
I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Michigan 
yield to me?
    Mr. Conyers. Yes. I hope you don't shock me like the 
gentlelady from California did.
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair knows that Mr. Conyers 
knows that in 5\1/2\ years I have minimized the number of 
surprises to him. This will not be a surprise.
    What this amendment does is simply state that the antitrust 
aspects will be litigated. Rather than taking to the Committee 
the issue of whether there is an antitrust violation, it ought 
to be taken to the judge. So I guess what we are saying is that 
the antitrust laws are there for a purpose. They are working 
and there should not be a legislative determination of what is 
or is not anticompetitive. The standard antitrust standards 
that have been applied to commercial arrangements for over 100 
years should be applied to this one as well.
    I thank the gentleman from Michigan for giving me the time.
    Mr. Conyers. May I close by pointing out that the baseball 
exemption was given by the courts. I have not supported any of 
these antitrust exemptions. I think the Consumer Federation of 
America letter to us describes the circumstance. I think the 
Chairman is correct that this will be litigated and determined 
in the courts of this coming to pass.
    But I ask unanimous consent to put the Consumer Federation 
of America letter in the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The letter follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Conyers. I return my time.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Bachus, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman, I agree with a lot of what you 
say philosophically, but as a practical matter, it is the 
Wright Amendment which is anti-consumer and anti-competition. 
What we have here is we have an agreement in this legislation 
that we are considering is an agreement that a lot of us 
encouraged the airlines and the city of Dallas and the local 
folks to come up with a consensus.
    What their agreement does is, and I think it is in 2015, 
does away with the Wright Amendment. That is really what all 
our goals ought to be.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    There are certain parts of this agreement that go on until 
2025.
    Mr. Bachus. Well, I will say this, as a practical matter, I 
think what you said is absolutely true. If we adopt this 
amendment, we will litigate this thing for the next 10 or 15 
years. It will be tied up in court. If we pass this 
legislation, the citizens of Dallas and North Texas and people 
that are flying in and out of that area, will immediately see 
some relief from the Wright Amendment.
    Now, my State already is exempted from this agreement, so 
we already get a lot of benefit. But I think that benefit ought 
to be extended to the others. I think about eight or nine 
States are exempted. It ought to be extended to all 50 States. 
I understand philosophically where you are coming from, but we 
ought to encourage local folks to work things out. The 
agreement that Southwest and American Airlines and the city of 
Dallas have made, the estimates are it is going to save the 
people of that area of Dallas-Fort Worth, it is going to save 
them hundreds of millions of dollars in lower tickets and lower 
fares.
    We all know that when you put in, and what the Chairman 
says is absolutely right. This amendment is going to put it in 
the courts for the next 10 years and tie it up. It is basically 
going to do away with an agreement that I didn't think would 
ever be made, that the airlines and the city have gotten 
together with the local folks, and done what they think is 
best. For us to intervene and sort of pose a legal technicality 
and put that in their way, I think is to handicap a good 
agreement that the cities made, an agreement that is going to 
benefit consumers.
    What this amendment does unwittingly is it allows the 
Wright Amendment to stay on the books as is, while it is 
litigated for the next 10 or 15 years. So I am going to oppose 
the amendment.
    Mr. Berman. Will the gentleman yield for one sentence?
    Mr. Bachus. I think my time is up.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, it isn't, but if you yield 
back, I will recognize the gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Bachus. I will yield to Mr. Gohmert.
    Mr. Gohmert. Just one comment. I would agree with the 
gentleman. I didn't think an agreement between these diverse 
airlines, the people of these cities that have been warring 
over this issue for so long, was possible. But them coming to 
an agreement has given me hope for the Middle East.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I missed the profound comment by 
the gentleman. I just couldn't hear him.
    Mr. Gohmert. All these diverse parties, the two airlines, 
American and Southwest, the people of Dallas, the surrounding 
communities that have been at war over this issue, the fact 
that they could come together with an agreement at all gives me 
great hope for the Middle East.
    Mr. Bachus. I would yield to the gentleman, but I think the 
gentleman, I would like his assessment of if this is put in the 
courts, his assessment of how long it will take the courts to 
litigate this thing and come to an agreement.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield on that issue?
    Mr. Bachus. Yes.
    Mr. Berman. I don't understand. The Wright Amendment 
passes. It does not have a shield.
    Mr. Bachus. The Wright Amendment is law today.
    Mr. Berman. Yes.
    Mr. Bachus. The Wright Amendment is anti-consumer. It costs 
the traveling public.
    Mr. Berman. In some Congresses, only Mr. Lungren and I 
are----
    Mr. Bachus. And this begins to do away with it.
    Mr. Berman. The Wright Amendment passes. It doesn't have a 
shield. It has been litigated for years and it is in effect. If 
we take the shield out of this bill, and this bill passes, the 
bill will go into effect and maybe it will be litigated for 
years, but it won't be the Wright Amendment that will be 
litigated, it will be this law.
    Mr. Bachus. No, we will just change what we are litigating.
    Mr. Berman. Well, but I don't understand.
    Mr. Bachus. The bottom line will be----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan and the Chair.
    Those in favor will say ``aye.''
    Opposed, ``no.''
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 
is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    If there are no further amendments, a reporting quorum is 
present. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill, 
H.R. 5830.
    Excuse me. Without objection, the version of the bill 
reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
and laid down as the base text is adopted as amended.
    A reporting quorum is present. The question occurs on the 
motion to report the bill, H.R. 5830, favorably as amended.
    All in favor will say ``aye.''
    Opposed, ``no.''
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion to 
report the bill favorably as amended is adopted.
    Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to 
the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
    Without objection, the staff is directed to make any 
technical and conforming changes. And all Members will be given 
2 days, as provided by the House rules, in which to submit 
additional, dissenting, supplemental or minority views.
    [Intervening business.]
    The purpose for this markup having been completed, without 
objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                  

```