Should we not restrict arbitration to matters submitted by the shippers, not by the rail companies? There's a complete imbalance of power. If everything can be solved through the commercial front by commercial agreement, then absolutely, you're right: the less restrictive the better and everything can be worked out in the commercial agreement.
The problem is that the shippers really don't have a lot of power since it's a monopoly. You either take it or leave it. It's hard to actually get a good agreement commercially, which is why we have this legislation. It's really a protection for the shippers.
Putting that as the cornerstone for why we need this bill in the first place, would it then not make sense to restrict the arbitration matters to ones that are submitted by the shippers, not by the rail companies? If not, then the rail companies can say “let's put volume on the table”, and sometimes you get more grain and other times you get less. Putting volume on the table is very difficult for the shippers. One of my amendments actually restricts the arbitration just to matters raised by shippers.