Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin).

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to read into the Record additional commendations that are certainly appropriate. I recognize that Coach Saban was named the Associated Press Coach of the Year. I would like to also recognize the Southern University Coach, Pete Richardson, who was named Coach of the Year by the Southwestern Athletic Conference, as well as having young men named to the SBN Black College All American Team, including quarterback Quincy Richard, offensive linemen Arnold Sims and Miniya Smith, and defensive back Lenny Williams. So the achievements and recognition coming to both universities, their football leadership, and the members of the team have been extraordinary. It is with great pleasure that I participate in this discussion this afternoon and note, as I did a few moments ago to the gentleman from Louisiana, that this is also the first resolution to be considered in the House on this matter. Although there appeared to be controversy, I do not consider it so. There was merely discussion about the efficacy of Louisiana State University being named number one as a result of some expressed concerns about the BCS. Those concerns only became apparent when the calculations turned out the way they did at the end of the day. Many people were quite happy to abide by the BCS scientific analysis as long as LSU remained in third position. So I just wanted to enter into the Record that once again, with the consideration of this resolution, LSU is moving forward in first place through the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that when we start a political campaign as hopeful candidates to be elected to Congress, we set up a standard of rules, we conduct the campaign, and we finalize the campaign based on those pre-determined sets of rules. Rarely do we get engaged in a discussion about changing the rules during the course of the campaign. I think, although I had some differences myself with the way the BCS calculations were to ultimately be determined, once the BCS was put in place, win or lose, we had to abide by those rules until that season was over. Now next season may bring us new opportunities to talk about perhaps playoff opportunities. Some were interested in seeing a playoff game between LSU and USC. I would personally have enjoyed that to a great extent.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to offer this resolution for consideration by the House. I look forward to its final adoption and, more importantly, next season.

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

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, the recent bankruptcy of a large chemical company in Louisiana has alerted me to the difficulties that small businesses can face in bankruptcy proceedings. In the wake of this chemical company's bankruptcy, a number of small businesses in Louisiana found themselves defendants in preferential payment lawsuits brought by the bankruptcy trustee. Many of these companies were shocked that they would be accused of receiving preferential payments when they had had a long history of consistent business dealings with the chemical company. Not only were these businesses surprised by the lawsuits, but they were dismayed that they were forced to defend these lawsuits in Delaware. The burden of hiring an attorney in Louisiana and Delaware was significant and a number of these small businesses were forced to settle these meritless lawsuits to avoid the costs associated with a legal defense. I believe that we are placing these small businesses in an unacceptable position. Asking small businesses to pay several thousand dollars in legal fees or settlement fees is a significant burden for many of these businesses. It appears that in a number of cases, bankruptcy trustees realize the leverage they have on these small businesses and exploit this leverage. It costs little for the trustees to file suit against these small businesses and then the trustees have the luxury of adjudicating the lawsuits in the State they are working in. Authorizing penalties for frivolous lawsuits and changing the venue for preferential payments cases that fall below a meager $5,000 threshold has done little to improve the situation for small businesses. I believe that we must force bankruptcy trustees to take a harder look at the merits of these preferential payments cases and we need to allow small businesses the courtesy of defending these lawsuits in the State in which they reside. For this reason, I have introduced the ``Small Business Bankruptcy Venue Relief Act.'' This legislation will allow small businesses of under 25 full-time employees to defend preferential payments claims in the State where they reside. In addition to lowering legal costs for these small businesses, this legislation will force bankruptcy trustees to give greater consideration to the merits of preferential payment claims against small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I hope that members will consider the plight of small businesses and cosponsor the ``Small Business Bankruptcy Venue Relief Act.''

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. This is very difficult work. I want to start out by stating appreciation to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for over a decade-long effort. It seems as though a lot of meaningful reforms around here take a decade or better. But he has been persistent, yet very cooperative in reaching agreements that make sense. It has been difficult work because we have a unique State that is a beneficiary of this program to a great extent over others; but as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) pointed out, we also make larger contributions than just about anybody else because our people participate. We pay a premium. The premium goes into a bank account. The bank account pays the claim. If we do not have enough money in the bank, we have a line of credit. In the history of the program, anytime a line of credit has been extended, we not only pay it back, we pay it back with interest. There is no other pre-need program of this sort in the country. It does work and provides a valuable resource to hard- working people who live in regions of the country who suffer from persistent flooding. But we do not defend, and we are not here today to say, that people who abuse the program, who repetitively make claims on the program, who intentionally buy property for the sake of gaming the system, should be protected. And the bill we have before us today, to the gentleman from Ohio's (Chairman Oxley) credit, to the gentleman from Nebraska's (Mr. Bereuter) credit, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), will preclude that practice from being encouraged in the future. And for those folks who happen to be listening to the debate from back home in Louisiana, there are some assets to this proposal which are very meaningful. When they finally get that designation, if it does occur, there is now a provision for mitigation, a new and unique system, where the government can actually help them. There are many people back home today who are trapped in these properties. They cannot sell them. They are below market value. Worse yet, they may be below in value what they owe on the property because of repetitive claims. Now we have the ability for the government to either buy the property at a reasonable price or to provide a mechanism to reduce the likelihood of flooding by simply elevating the home, and we do that with a new 90/10 program where 90 percent of the money will be provided by the government with the homeowner putting up only 10 percent. It is new landmark assistance that has never existed before. When we get these repetitive-loss problems off the books, I think the program cash flows very well; and I will continue, as I have pledged to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who has expressed his deep concerns about where this program might be going, that in the months and years ahead we will continue to work to protect the interests of hard-working people in Louisiana to make sure that equity is the rule of the day. If we are going to write checks and not expect repayment for a California earthquake or a mudslide in the Northeast or a tornado in Oklahoma or a fire somewhere else and say that that is okay to use taxpayer money for that purpose, we have a justifiable reason in this case to say in Louisiana we are paying our way. We think equity cries out that we preserve this program. Ask us to pay the premium, run it properly, and hold others to account the way hard-working Louisianans are held to account, and all will be well with us.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I certainly want to start by commending the chairman for his leadership on this important issue. He has been committed to the principle of getting it right, not getting it done fast, and I think his long-suffering patience on this issue is to be highly commended, for we have learned much, unfortunately, over the last weeks and months. When the committee first began its work almost 2 years ago with an examination of mutual fund industry performance, it was with an eye toward whether or not investors truly understood the costs associated with investing in a particular fund, whether disclosures were adequate, and whether the markets were functioning in a fair manner. Well, only a few months later, the door to scandal not only opened a bit, it blew wide open. There were not just minor aberrations of some arcane accounting misrepresentation, but intentional acts clearly in violation of the statutory provisions. In one instance, there was a union where certain selected union members were engaging in a practice known as late trading. This resulted in their fellow union brotherhood being disenfranchised. It became so prevalent that the house where these trades were executed began to call that time of day the ``boilermaker hour.'' Our systems of checks and balances had broken. It was a system of checks: you write me one, I will write you one. Clearly, the principle on which a fair, functioning capital market must operate would require professionals never to set aside their fiduciary duties for the sake of personal gain. Unfortunately, it was happening. So how do we ensure that that is the principle that guides market performance? It is not easy, but I think H.R. 2420 is a very important beginning. Full disclosure of all fees, full disclosure of what are known as ``soft dollar'' transactions, full disclosure of where the portfolio managers themselves invest their own funds and what they are paid at the expense of shareholders. The bill goes a long way, and I would join with some in saying perhaps we have not gone far enough. Let me digress with regard to the description of a mutual fund and a mutual fund management company. Mutual funds are organizations into which working families write their checks and send their money. They have a board which then hires a mutual fund management company, an operating company, a for-profit company, a company driven by the goal to make as much money as they can through the mutual fund. Nothing wrong with that. But the board is constructed of members who may well be the executives of the management company. So the people who are making the judgments about whether to hire management company A or management B are themselves employees of that company. Imagine how hard it must be to fire one's self in that instance. That is why I think it very important for us to engage in not only the bill's proposed two- thirds required membership be independent, but that the chairman himself be independent of that significant conflict. And I would like to read from testimony of Chairman Donaldson, chairman of the SEC, just yesterday in response to a question in the Senate: ``I think the board chairman should be totally independent. And I think the further you go toward a totally independent board, the better. The matter seems to be closed.'' And as we proceed with consideration of this legislation through conference, I certainly will renew my effort to see that that particular provision is included. The bill does a great deal more, but I think it is not the end of the process. We in the Congress have an obligation with 95 million Americans and over half of all households now directly invested in the marketplace to ensure there is a fair and balanced functioning market. We must have the investing facts clearly disclosed. We must have rules that are clearly understood, trades engaged in by professionals who hold themselves to the highest standards of fiduciary duty. We must have, above all, the standard adopted where fiduciary principles never are set aside for personal gain and all the rules will be applied equitably to all investors. We do, in fact, have the broadest, deepest, most successful capital markets of any time in world history, but we cannot deviate from these principles. The passage of H.R. 2420 will ensure we begin to return to that path, never again to deviate from that responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), if the gentleman would like to express his opinion with regard to the appropriateness of further consideration of the independent chair and a provision being adopted, if possible, in conference at a later time in the consideration of this legislation.

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Private First Class James Aaron Boozer of Denham Springs, Louisiana. PFC Boozer serves in the 82nd Airborne, 173 Brigade. While serving in Iraq, PFC Boozer suffered grave injuries, and is under the care of the staff at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, DC. It is because of people such as PFC Boozer that we continue to live safe and secure. America's men and women who answer the call of service and wear our Nation's uniform deserve respect and recognition for the enormous burden that they willingly bear. Because of these folks, our Nation remains free and strong in the face of danger. On behalf of the people of Louisiana, I would like to thank PFC Boozer for his service to our country and I wish him a full and speedy recovery.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I wish to express my appreciation to him and the minority for their courtesies extended in the consideration of this important measure. As has been previously recited, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the French law provided that the State at that time would maintain control of mineral rights. Upon the acquisition of the property by the United States Government, there was an effort to restore mineral rights with surface rights. On March 3, 1819, Congress passed an act adjusting the claims to land, establishing land offices in the district east of the island of New Orleans. Specifically, this was aimed at the property now in question. For some 200 years, the property rights and mineral rights have been legally and arbitrarily separated. In 1992, I offered legislation which conveyed only surface rights of the property to the landowners now awaiting resolution. At that time, there was some debate as to the value of these mineral rights to the United States Government. Pursuant to the intervening decade, there is now a geological survey determination that any such value would be so minimal in effect as to not adversely affect any taxpayer interest by transferring these unquestioned mineral rights to the rightful owner. I respectfully request that the House do now consider and adopt H.R. 542 in order to restore the property rights with mineral rights to those who have been waiting 200 years for resolution.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that enhances our national security by closing a loophole in the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program. Last year, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed provisions to the Homeland Security Act to allow both commercial and cargo pilots to voluntarily possess a firearm in the cockpit. Yet, during conference of that bill, cargo pilots were excluded. Mr. Speaker, we should not have excluded these individuals. Clearly, we must allow these cargo pilots to defend the cockpit, themselves and the public. A cargo jet can just as easily be turned into a weapon of mass destruction as a passenger plane. Some might ask, ``Why arm cargo pilots if they carry no passengers?'' I believe that is a vital question. Consider these points. Some cargo planes do carry a limited number of passengers , yet they do not receive equal security received by passenger airlines. Personnel that load cargo planes are not required to have the same criminal background check that the flight crew receives. The airport perimeter around cargo plane facilities is vulnerable. Finally, non-cargo company employees are rarely screened prior to gaining access to many operations. Mr. Speaker, suppose from any of these scenarios a terrorist made his way onto a cargo aircraft. Then, shortly thereafter takeoff, a terrorist made his way to the cockpit. Without a doubt, the cargo pilot would literally be defenseless to a terrorist. Unlike commercial passenger flights, cargo flights do not have federal air marshals or flight attendants. Unlike our commercial aircraft, cargo planes do not have reinforced cockpit doors. That terrorist would then have the opportunity to turn that aircraft into a weapon of mass destruction. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow that to happen and it is our duty to protect the American people. There are no logical reasons to exclude cargo pilots from being allowed to defend the cockpit, themselves and the public. This loophole needs to be closed as it should never have been opened.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, as the Federal Government seeks to provide better healthcare to more Americans while reducing healthcare expenses, we must look at the benefits of preventive care programs. Education, screening and preventive treatments can save patients and government significant heartache and expense. One area where preventive care shows tremendous promise is the treatment of diabetic foot complications. There are an estimated 17 million Americans who have diabetes. This number represents an increase of 61 percent since 1990. As diabetes rates continue to rise, the cost of treating diabetes, already estimated at $132 billion, will certainly rise. One of the most serious complications diabetes patients face is poor circulation and infections in their lower extremities. In fact, diabetic foot infections are the most common reason for hospital admissions among persons with diabetes, accounting for one-quarter of all diabetic admissions in the United States. Loss of circulation and feeling present real challenges to people with diabetes and 15 percent of people with diabetes will experience a foot ulcer, and between 14 and 24 percent of those with a foot ulcer will require amputation. There are tremendous costs associated with treating foot ulcers and with lower extremity amputations. In fact, lower extremity amputations cost Americans $2 billion a year and the average cost of a lower extremity amputation is $60,000. Although private insurance bears some of the cost of diabetic foot complications, Medicare is saddled with many of these costs since these complications disproportionately affect the elderly. For example, analysis of the 1995 Medicare claims revealed that lower-extremity ulcer care accounted for $1.45 billion in Medicare costs and contributed substantially to the high cost of care for diabetics, compared with Medicare costs for the general population. In fact, the Medicare costs for diabetes patients with foot ulcers is 3 times higher than for diabetes patients in general, and inpatient care accounts for 74 percent of diabetic ulcer-related costs. Fortunately, cost effective ulcer prevention and treatment interventions have proven effective at reducing foot complications and lower extremity amputations at only a fraction of the cost. There are a number of descriptive studies that show that a multidisciplinary approach, including preventive strategies, patient and staff education, and treatment of foot ulcers, can reduce amputation rates by 40 to 85 percent. Nationwide reductions of this size would save Americans between $800 million and $1.7 billion a year. Of note, the LSU Health Sciences Center Diabetes Foot Program in Baton Rouge, Louisiana enrolled over 2,300 diabetes patients with published research demonstrating their prevention and treatment program resulted in an 89 percent reduction in foot related hospitalizations, an 81 percent reduction in emergency room visits, and a 79 percent reduction in foot amputations at a cost of about 50 percent of standard care. With sound research showing the benefits of preventive care for people with diabetes, now is the time to commission a large, authoritative study on the issue. The results of this study will serve as solid evidence to public and private organizations of the need for preventive care to aid in the reduction of diabetes foot complications and will help foster technical and policy changes to healthcare programs. In addition, thousands of Americans who participate in this study will benefit from the education and treatment provided by this grant program. Mr. Speaker, I hope members will consider these facts and cosponsor the ``Diabetic Foot Complication and Lower Extremity Amputation Reduction Act of 2003.''

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Well, it will likely be in conference, I would suggest, because there will be no assurance that the bill we pass here will seek Senate approval or uniformity with the Senate. I would suggest to the gentleman that adopting here at the moment, without having a full listing of those specialty organizations, would be difficult for me to assess the effect. But I am not trying to obstruct the gentleman's interest and believe that the bill as constructed in its current form is appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me suggest this to the gentleman, in light of everyone here present and observing this. I will be most happy not to repeat the same mistake I made at the committee and agree with the gentleman that in fact a description and analysis of the specialties does result in the view that they are large enough and sufficient in scope; I will commit to work with the gentleman going forward.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. During the course of the committee deliberations, I was concerned about the consequences of the mandatory credit report obligation on those entities within communities which are basically small businesses. The three principal national credit reporting entities are responsible for in excess of 95 percent of all credit reporting activities, financial in nature, within the country. I offered an amendment in committee which I represented to the gentleman that would affect what we deemed to be small reporting agencies in nature, to which there was agreement in that principle. The effect of the amendment, subject to further review, though it was not the intent, was clearly to go beyond just the very small credit bureaus in the way in which the amendment was constructed. I then understood, by error, the intent of the amendment was better than I originally thought. Although I was aiming only at the very small credit bureaus, for which it would be an economic disadvantage of some significance for them to provide this level of free report and, furthermore, who are not now required under law to provide a free credit report for this reason, it also went to other entities, for example, MIB or other health- related reporting entities under the broad definition of consumer reporting enterprises that also required them to provide the free credit report. By inadvertence, my amendment was a little broader in scope than I thought, but in principle and effect I agree with the consequences of my amendment. I support the gentleman's view that the three large credit-reporting entities, which conduct over 95 percent of the disclosure of financial matters of consumers, should be subject to this now new one additional reason for a provision of a free credit report. The adoption of this amendment, however, if the House were to accept the gentleman's position, would be to require all consumer-related reporting agencies, even the smallest, to provide this free credit reporting information even to their financial detriment. Although there was some disagreement in the construct of the amendment in the committee, I would still reserve my objection to the gentleman's amendment; and I think it is a policy matter for the House to determine whether we would accept any relief from the requirement for the free credit report or would we accept the gentleman's position to require all entities regardless of economic consequence to provide the mandated credit report. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I simply point out in fairness to the gentleman that the discussion of regional reporting entities was not really a discussion point within the committee discourse. My concern was the economic consequences on the very small. And upon reflection of the impact of the amendment addressing the question of regionals and economic concerns, the arguments are the same. I still feel that the exemption that I am attempting to preserve in the bill is appropriate and understand the gentleman's philosophic view that all of these enterprises at the regional level should be required to provide the free report.

Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the view of the gentleman with regard to the consequences of these determinations. The focus of the bill was to provide those individuals without financial resources or for just cause access to a credit report without having to pay for it. In our negotiations or discussions about resolution of the matter, I am willing and would support an amendment that would preserve that right for those protected classes under the bill to have access to a free credit report, regardless of the nature of that credit-reporting entity. What I did not want to require was a broad-based requirement for either the specialty or the small business credit reporting agency to be under a monetary obligation to provide all requesters a free credit report. I think that is a fair position, given my concerns about the economic impact on these business enterprises, and would be reluctant not to provide that measure of equity to the regional reporting agencies without understanding better the economic consequences.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me return to the basis of the current law and what the effect of the amendment would be if adopted. Today, any person who is the subject of an adverse action, you get turned down, you have an absolute right to a free credit report regardless of your economic status. If you are a consumer who suspects fraudulent conduct regardless of your economic status, you get a free credit report. If you are unemployed, you get a free credit report. If you are subject to public welfare, you get a free credit report. The amendment adopted I proposed in committee does not, in any way, limit or affect those rights that exist under current law. The bill as proposed without the amendment I offered would have established one more level for a free credit report. I was and am willing, as is the current law with regard to these categories, to say that with regard to the one additional credit report, that the protected classes may have access to that information without charge. But it is not a correct view of the effect of the Baker amendment as adopted to suggest that it rolls back current protections and authorities of those desiring to get a free credit report. It would with regard to the new right being adopted by passage of the Act. That is the state of affairs if we defeat the Frank amendment, which I hope the House will engage in; and again, renew the pledge to the gentleman, despite his difficulties with the manner under which this has proceeded, if we are fortunate enough to be on such a conference, to work with the gentleman toward appropriate resolution, and would hope the House would reject the Frank amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by Representatives Chris John, David Vitter, and Earl Pomeroy to introduce the Railroad Competition Act of 2003, a bill designed to restore a measure of competition to our nation's freight rail marketplace. This bill, I believe, captures the true intentions of railroad deregulation. Like all Americans, Mr. Speaker, I want our national railroad industry to remain the most efficient in the world. Indeed, our railroad system is a model for other national systems. My home state of Louisiana in particular relies heavily on efficient railroads to deliver product to market and provide the feedstock for our manufacturing base. Without reliable rail service, Louisiana--and all of America--would be economically hamstrung. Congress deregulated the railroad industry in 1980 when it passed the Staggers Act. This law revitalized the industry, built efficiencies in the system, and bolstered the railroads as a critical component to America's transportation infrastructure. As Chairman of the Louisiana House Committee on Transportation and Highways, I observed closely the implementation and success of the Act. However, one lingering element of the Staggers Act provides for ``differential pricing,'' which in effect allows railroads to ``price gouge'' customers served by a single railroad in order to help make up for revenue that is lost to customers served by more than one railroad. In other words railroads can overcharge a customer where the railroad is a monopoly to help recover the revenue it loses in a competitive, multiple-railroad environment. Prior to the Staggers Act, the federal government administered the finances of railroads by imposing price controls. But by allowing railroads to institutionalize price gouging, are we not continuing the practice of price controls? Indeed, is differential pricing the thriving legacy of regulatory control? I believe it is. I assert that differential pricing is no more ``deregulation'' than the artificially imposed government price controls that existed before 1980. I do not believe Congress intended to institutionalize price gouging when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. Rather, the Staggers Act was an attempt to revive an important industry in America's economy. It was not enacted to allow the industry to thrive at its customers' expense. When the 108th Congress reflects back on the success of the Staggers Act, we can indeed take pride in ``getting it right.'' Congress achieved its goal of resuscitating the ailing railroad industry, but Congress did not intend to sustain the life of this industry at the growing, unfair expense of other industries. When Congress passed the Staggers Act in 1980 there were over 40 Class I railroads competing for business. Today, after over 50 mergers and consolidations there are only 7 Class I railroads in North America and four of them control over 95 percent of the railroad business. This unprecedented consolidation has led to whole states, regions and entire industries becoming captive to a single railroad. This level of concentration and the lack of competition it has brought were never envisioned by Congress in the 1980 Act. Over this same period the agency that administers rail law, the Surface Transportation Board, has produced rulings, which have skewed the freight rail market place to the point that it is now a Federally protected monopoly. Railroads are operating within the law, but that law is outdated given the current number of railroads and market conditions of the new century. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, Louisiana industry is in dire straits. Every month companies announce closures, lay offs, and moves--depriving our economically struggling state of hundreds of important jobs. When these jobs are lost, so are the workers' pensions, salaries, and health benefits. When hundreds of jobs are lost, it affects other small businesses that rely on workers to keep them viable. Though Louisiana industry faces many financial challenges, premier among them is the cost to do business--and aside from energy supply, the most expensive cost of business is the artificially inflated rates imposed on Louisiana companies that, through no fault of their own, exist under a railroad monopoly. Mr. Speaker, this situation is not exclusive to Louisiana. It exists in West Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Georgia, Florida, Montana, Minnesota--in fact, Mr. Speaker, there is not a state in the union free from this blemish on the free enterprise system. The bill we are introducing today will truly match the deregulation goals of the Staggers Act with the tried and true American tradition of a competitive free market. Our bill takes deregulation to a higher level by fortifying healthy market competition. The bill would remove artificial protections maintained by an outdated policy which allows freight railroads to operate in an atmosphere which no other business in the country enjoys--including exemption from anti-trust law. Mr. Speaker, I urge all pro-market, pro-consumer, pro-deregulation, pro-fairness, projobs, pro-economy, pro-transportation, and pro- railroad Members to join me in completing the deregulation goals of the Staggers Act of 1980 by cosponsoring the Railroad Competition Act of 2003. The Railroad Competition Act of 2003 Clarification of National Rail Policy: Clarifies that the STB has the following primary objectives: (1) ensuring effective competition among rail carriers at origins and destinations; (2) maintaining reasonable rates in the absence of effective competition; (3) maintaining consistent and efficient rail transportation service for rail shippers, including the timely provision of rail cars; and (4) ensuring that small carload and intermodal shippers are not precluded from accessing the rail system. Requirement that Railroads Must Quote Rates to Their Customers: In order to increase rail customer access to competition, railroads must quote rates between any two points on their systems where freight movements can originate, terminate or be transferred, when requested by the customer. Arbitration of Certain Rail Rate, Service and Other Disputes: Provides final offer arbitration (baseball arbitration), at the choice of the non-rail parry to a dispute, for all rail rate matters and other disputes at the STB involving a railroad charge. Removal of ``Paper Barriers'': Prohibits including paper barriers in future sales or leases of rail line to short line or regional railroads and allows the STB to invalidate such provisions that have been in existence for 10 years. Removal of ``Anti-Competitive Conduct'' Test from Terminal Area and Switching Agreements Policy of ICC/STB: Changes the ``antitrust'' test added in mid-1980s by the former Interstate Commerce Commission to the statutory ``public interest'' test included in the terminal area and switching agreement provisions of the ICC Termination Act. Tri-Annual DOT Study of Extent of Rail-to-Rail Competition. Areas of Inadequate Rail Competition: On petition of a state, the STB may declare all or part of a state to be an area of inadequate rail competition. Special rail customer remedies apply in such areas. Rail Customer Advocacy Office Established at Department of Agriculture.