PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 13, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on September 29, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 - Amends the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979, with respect to provisions concerning air transportation to or from Love Field, Texas (the Wright Amendment), to authorize domestic air carriers and foreign air carriers (with respect to foreign air transportation) to offer for sale and provide through service and ticketing air transportation to or from Love Field, Texas, and any U.S. or foreign destination through any point within Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama (effectively expanding domestic and foreign air service to and from Love Field, Texas). Terminates the Wright Amendment eight years after enactment of this Act.
Prohibits: (1) a person from providing nonstop air passenger service between Love Field, Texas, and any point or points outside the 50 states or the District of Columbia; and (2) a federal official or employee from designating Love Field, Texas, as an initial point of entry into the United States or a last point of departure from the United States.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits charter flights at Love Field, Texas, 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. Requires air carriers, with specified exceptions, who lease gate space for flights to and from Love Field, Texas, to depart from and arrive at such gates. Authorizes operators of charter flights from Love Field, Texas, who do not lease gate space to depart from nonterminal facilities or one of the terminal gates at Love Field, Texas.
Requires the city of Dallas, Texas, to reduce the number of gates available for air service at Love Field, Texas, to no more than 20 gates (with a limit thereafter not to exceed a maximum of 20 gates). Prohibits federal funds or passenger facility charges from being used to remove gates at the Lemmon Avenue facility, Love Field, in order to reduce the number of gates, but permits the use of such amounts for other airport facilities.
Prohibits anything in this Act from affecting general aviation service at Love Field, Texas.
People & committees
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-352.
Became Public Law No: 109-352.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 386 - 22 (Roll no. 515). (text: CR H8002-8003)
House roll call 515 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 386 - 22 (Roll no. 515).(text: CR H8002-8003)
House roll call 515 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8026)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 3661.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8002-8011)
Mr. Mica moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S10523-10525; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S10523-10524)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 563.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Stevens with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109-317.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Stevens with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109-317.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3661 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3661 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3661 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3661 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.