[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] RISING DIESEL FUEL COSTS IN THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY ======================================================================= (110-124) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MAY 6, 2008 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 42-306 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey (ii) ? SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Carolina GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Virginia MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JERRY McNERNEY, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BOB FILNER, California TED POE, Texas ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington BRIAN BAIRD, Washington CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Louisiana DORIS O. MATSUI, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VERN BUCHANAN, Florida LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN L. MICA, Florida JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi TESTIMONY Card, Mike, President, Combined Transport........................ 38 Felmy, John, Economist, API...................................... 4 Johnson, Wayne, Director of Logistics, American Gypsum Company... 38 Slocum, Tyson, Director, Public Citizen's Energy Program......... 4 Spencer, Todd, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association................................ 38 Te Beau, Suzanne M., Chief Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.............. 38 Todd, Ryan, Integrated Oils Analyst, Deutsche Bank AG............ 4 Voltmann, Robert A., President and CEO, Transportation Intermediaries Association..................................... 38 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 62 Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., of New York............................. 63 Carney, Hon. Christopher P., of Pennsylvania..................... 64 Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................ 67 Latta, Hon. Robert E., of Ohio................................... 75 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 76 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 77 Richardson, Hon. Laura A., of California......................... 80 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Card, Mike....................................................... 84 Felmy, John...................................................... 93 Johnson, Wayne................................................... 97 Slocum, Tyson.................................................... 104 Spencer, Todd.................................................... 124 Te Beau, Suzanne M............................................... 129 Todd, Ryan....................................................... 133 Voltmann, Robert A............................................... 149 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Voltmann, Robert A., President and CEO, Transportation Intermediaries Association, responses to questions from the Subcommittee................................................... 163 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD The Associated General Contractors of America, written statement. 168 Auto Research Center, Mike Camosy, General Manager, written statement...................................................... 173 NATSO, Inc., written statement................................... 179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.007 HEARING ON RISING DIESEL FUEL COSTS IN THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY ---------- Tuesday, May 6, 2008 House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter A. DeFazio [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Mr. DeFazio. The hearing will come to order. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is in session today for a hearing on rising diesel fuel costs, the impact on the trucking industry, and the spillover into other aspects of the economy. We will hear from two panels, the first will delve into the murky question of high gas prices. We will hear some interesting and, I think, very contrasting testimony there. And then the second panel, where we will look at the impacts of the high fuel prices, where and how they may be charged to shippers, and where and how the money that shippers might pay for additional fuel costs are either distributed to those who actually provide the transportation or not. There are some interesting submissions in the testimony and there is a lot of talk about free markets and those sorts of things, but I think we are going to find today that we aren't looking totally at just supply and demand and free markets that are transparent in Adam Smith's traditional view of the world. I did study economics and I will be interested to see people defend having essentially what I see in the brokerage companies as an oligopsony, where there are a few brokers that dominate the industry dealing with a large diversity of small providers who really have very little or no market power, and they have no information. So how can it be a free market when they lack information? And I hope that that is addressed here today. And then in terms of pure supply and demand in terms of high diesels prices, I think that some of the testimony received today will point to some of the issues that have been raised here in Congress, the issue of the speculative market that was created at the behest of Enron, which, according to the former CEO of ExxonMobil--and he should know, he had a nice little $400 million retirement he is buying oil fields with-- but he said, when oil was $60 a barrel, that $20 a barrel was purely speculative, and he thought that was good thing because ExxonMobil was engaged in making money not only with supply but in speculating on supply, and the conventional wisdom is this provides liquidity in the market. But when you have a huge entry by those who have absolutely no intention of ever taking delivery and those who do not utilize the product but merely are engaged in the market, in a totally opaque, unregulated market, and speculating and self- dealing and/or dealing in ways that would violate other laws if they were dealing in other commodities, driving up the price unnecessarily, I would hope that we can address that a bit too. The bottom line is we are seeing a huge number of small and independent trucking companies go out of business. The records, unfortunately, cut off at five or more, but we do know that we are seeing a dramatic number of people lose their trucks, lose their livelihoods, and go out of business. We are also seeing a large run-up in the cost of shipping. And we have got to do what we can to mitigate these things here in Congress and I don't believe we should just throw up our hands and say everything is the way it is, and that is the way it is going to be. I think we are going to find that there are some places where an appropriate action by Congress might help mitigate these problems. We need to change our ways in this Country. We need to become more fuel efficient. We need to become more energy independent. We need to develop new technologies, new fuels. But on the way to that future, which, unfortunately, is some time yet off, we don't need to be price-gouged on the way there. We don't need to see unnecessary loss of people's livelihoods on the way there, and I think we can take some steps to prevent that. With that, I turn to my colleague, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on rising diesel fuel costs in the trucking industry. I would also like to thank the witnesses for attending this important hearing. We have all seen the headlines about escalating fuel prices and their impact on our economy. Specifically, diesel fuel has set record highs over the past year, hitting more than $4.00 per gallon. These prices have been rising steadily, as everyone knows, over the past couple of years. Statistics from the Energy Information Administration show the retail price of a gallon of diesel fuel rose 48 percent in the last year and 166 percent in the last five years. Rising fuel costs have had a major impact on the trucking industry. The trucking industry spent more than $112 billion on fuel in 2007 and forecasts a record high of more than $140 billion for 2008. The trucking industry is facing unparalleled operating cost increases due to rising fuel costs. Just a one cent increase in diesel prices costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million per year. Because 84 percent of all the goods we use and consume get to us on goods, they are essential to our economy and daily life. Rising fuel costs have the potential to increase the cost of everything Americans consume that travels by truck. What to do about oil? Robert Samuelson, a Washington Post columnist, a few days said this. He said, What to do about oil? First, it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100, and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production as some senders suggest, but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we are almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do, start drilling. Robert Samuelson is no conservative saying that. Years ago we heard people say, well, we don't need to increase our domestic energy production because it won't help the problem immediately. Some of us said then it might not help it immediately, but it would help a few years down the road. Unfortunately, we didn't do that. We put 85 percent of our offshore oil resources off limits. We refused to drill in ANWR, in a 19.8 million acre reserve, which is 36 or 37 times the size of the Great Smokey Mountains National Park. And we want to drill on about 2,000 or 3,000 acres more up there, but we won't do that. No country in the history of this world has put as much of its natural resources off limits to production. We don't have to produce all of our domestic energy needs, but we must produce a little more, or we are going to become even more vulnerable to OPEC and foreign energy producers. That is the only hope that we have. If we don't do that, then we are going to see these prices escalate even more. There are some groups that are primarily made up of very wealthy people who want gas prices to go even higher, but a lot of poor and lower income and working people in this Country are being hurt even at the prices that prices are at now. So we can do these things in environmentally safe ways that we couldn't do back in the 1920s or even the 1950s or 1960s. I think some people have the idea still in the 1920s, where they have to put oil wells up every 25 or 50 yards. But today you can put one oil well up and go down several miles or out several miles and the footprint above ground is negligible. So we don't need to be afraid to produce more, and if we don't, then we are going to see these prices go even higher, and even more poorer and lower income and working people will be hurt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Chairman Oberstar wanted me to convey his regrets. He is in the process of returning from Europe, where he was addressing the EU on transportation issues. He, in particular, in his statement wanted to be certain to point out that although some--notably Senator McCain and Senator Clinton--had proposed suspending the gas tax, albeit in slightly different ways--one theoretically to be paid for, the other just suspended--and this is something I have said a number of times: in 1993, the gas tax was 18.3 cents yet gas was a buck a gallon; diesel was less. Today, Federal gas tax is 18.3 cents; gas in my home State is about $3.75 a gallon and diesel is well over $4.00, and the Federal tax hasn't gone up. So, he, in particular, wanted to make that point. He had other concerns that he wanted to raise, and we will place his statement in the record. With that, we will proceed. Oh, sorry. Mr. Mica. Mr. Mica. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. Thank you also for holding this very topical hearing on the rising fuel costs in the trucking industry. Truckers across the Nation are absolutely struggling. This is not only a personal disaster for independent truckers, but a disaster right now for the trucking industry and for all Americans. Most of our goods are delivered and our foodstuffs by truck. If you haven't been to the grocery store lately, you need to get there, because you join American families in seeing sticker shock and a lot of the cost that is now incurred by our truckers is being passed on in the cost of higher food. You know, it is nice to talk about windmills and solar panels and alternative energy sources, but, in reality--and you have to face reality--it is going to be a decade and a half before any of that makes a substantial impact. In the meantime, we have got to find a solution to bring costs under control. And if you are facing double-digit increases in fuel costs, percentage increased just over a matter of months, and you are in the trucking industry, you have got a very critical situation on your hands. You need a long-term policy, but we also need a short-term policy. The short-term policy can only evolve around increasing the supply. You don't need to be a Harvard PhD in economics to figure this out, but we need an increase in supply of diesel and gasoline fuel in the short-term, and to do that we are going to have to tap some of our domestic resources wherever they be. I don't know if it is going to take $4.50, $5.00, $5.50, $6.00. I don't know what the magic price per gallon is going to be for those driving a car or a truck, but at some point the people are going to come up the steps of the Capitol and shake Members of Congress, physically shake them, I think, and say that we have got to do something about these staggering increases in costs; and the only solution, period, is going to be to increase some of the domestic supply, rather than make it more difficult to access, more costly to obtain and prohibitive to get on the market. Those are not the solutions. This is a good opportunity to hear from some of those that have been affected in a disastrous fashion by this situation. Appreciate your calling this timely hearing. But we have got to look at increasing the supply period if we are going to see any decrease in cost or any relief to these truckers. Thank you and I yield back. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Chairman--Mr. Ranking Member. Sorry. Mr. Mica. I like Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Well, with the Chairman in absentia, if you can do that speech in four different languages, we will make you Chairman for the day. With that, we would turn to Mr. Tyson Slocum, Director of the Public Citizen's Energy Program. Mr. Slocum. Five minutes. TESTIMONY OF TYSON SLOCUM, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC CITIZEN'S ENERGY PROGRAM; RYAN TODD, INTEGRATED OILS ANALYST, DEUTSCHE BANK AG; AND JOHN FELMY, ECONOMIST, API Mr. Slocum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. On behalf of Public Citizen's 100,000 members nationwide, I thank you for this opportunity to testify here today. Public Citizen is one of America's largest consumer advocacy organizations, and, as Director of the Energy Program, we have been dedicated to solving problems in America's energy markets and make sure that consumers have access to affordable, reliable, and clean sources of energy. Now, there is no question that the American economy has slowed, possibly in a recession, partly due to rising energy prices. Now, there are some segments of the economy, however, that remain immune from this slowdown, and that would be the energy sector, particularly oil and gas companies, and many of the financial companies that are wreaking havoc on under- regulated futures markets. And it is those two issues that I would like to focus on in my five minutes today, because while there are several variables that influence energy prices-- supply and demand and things like that--there is no question that Congress can take some easy action to address these two variables: investment decisions by the oil industry, increase market concentration among oil companies, and under-regulation of futures markets that encourage harmful speculation. Addressing these issues, I believe, would provide consumers with better access to adequately competitive markets and fair energy prices. Now, everyone talks about oil company profits. ExxonMobil, as the industry leader, just since January of 2007, $51.5 billion in profits. But that is not all. In addition, by far, their largest expenditure was buying back their stock--$40 billion in stock repurchases since January 2007, compared to only $4.3 billion of capital and exploration investment in the United States. What this indicates to me is that large, vertically integrated oil companies are not reinvesting these record earnings, fueled by high market prices, back into the kinds of investments that are going to provide consumers with the kind of long-term relief that they need. In all, the largest five oil companies operating in America have spent $170 billion buying back stock since 2005, and that is more than they have spent investing in U.S. oil infrastructure. And the profit margins on their operations have been very robust. The return on capital employed, which is the measurement that the oil industry uses, have been very healthy. Exxon, the industry leader, a 32 percent return on capital employed for its global operations and a 65 percent return on capital employed on its U.S. refining business. And that is why they are not building new refineries. Because their profit margins are so high with tight refining capacity helped by a number of mergers in the last few years that reduced competition in this sector, they don't want this gravy train to end. Now, consumers have been doing their part. Gasoline consumption slowed last year. We have got excess supplies of crude oil. But, yet, the speculators on Wall Street continue to drive the price up. And most analysts, including us at Public Citizen, believe that there is a huge disconnect between supply-demand fundamentals and the current record-high market prices for oil, and that has to do with the rise of harmful speculation driven mainly by relatively new players, such as hedge funds and some old standbys such as large investment banks like Goldman Sachs and a few of the large oil companies. Because Congress de-regulated these energy trading exchanges in the year 2000, much of the operations of these energy traders are below the radar screen of an effective police force of Federal regulators. Lacking that kind of transparency, lacking the kind of basic disclosure, these players are potentially engaging in harmful anti-competitive practices on these futures markets that are driving prices up. Re-regulating these exchanges is key to restoring sanity to our futures markets and to reduce the level of harmful speculation. Additionally, the rise of these financial players in acquiring and controlling physical energy infrastructure assets, such as Goldman Sachs' acquisition in 2006 of 40,000 miles of petroleum product pipeline in their acquisition of Kinder Morgan, has clearly given them an insider's peek to allow them better access to push prices up. So restoring some sanity to these futures markets would bring prices down to consumers. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, and thanks for sticking close to your appointed time. Mr. Ryan Todd, Integrated Oils Analyst, Deutsche Bank AG will be next. And you can depart from your prepared testimony if you wish. I always like it if members of the panel begin to enter into a little bit more of an interaction where they disagree, but go right ahead with however you wish to proceed with your five minutes, Mr. Todd. Mr. Todd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by touching on crude oil prices, as that is really at the root of the comments here today and the root of high gasoline and high diesel prices. As a little preface to that, I would like to say that in a previous life, prior to working at Deutsche Bank, I was actually an upstream engineer involved in the exploration and production of oil and gas supplies. So I have sat on both sides of the table, and one thing I can say from sitting on both sides of the table---- Mr. DeFazio. For clarification, what is an upstream engineer? I assume that means you are not working on getting it out of the ground, you are somewhere further up in the process? Mr. Todd. No, it is exploration and production activities, as opposed to refining activities, which would be downstream. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. All right, so upstream. Okay, good. Thank you. We will credit you that 15 seconds. Go ahead. Mr. Todd. Thank you. As I was saying, one thing that I think is clear from my time on both sides of the table is that both the oil industry and Wall Street has done a terrible job at forecasting oil prices for various reasons, and one of the things--with an economics background, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I think has been very interesting--outside of the straightforward supply-demand issues involved--is the fact that we have seen that higher prices have actually lowered supply in many ways and actually increased demand. Now, when I say that, it seems a little backward economically, but what we have seen is that as prices have risen globally, the international oil companies--due to resource nationalism, increasing government fiscal takes abroad and sometimes here at home, and an incredibly tight service and construction industry--have provided incredible constraints on the industry's ability to ramp up supply. At the same time, demand has been surprisingly robust here in the United States up until just recently, and certainly demand growth internationally has been very, very strong. Demand growth in oil producing nations especially, we have seen that higher oil prices have actually driven rapid demographic and GDP growth in oil producing nations who are flushed with cash and can afford to subsidize energy prices, which actually make demand even stronger as prices go higher. So the markets look at this, they see that spare capacity is incredibly tight globally, and even though they see that potentially on forecasts there could be a loosening in the balance in coming months, they look ahead and they worry that geologic constraints and the constraints in growing supply that I mentioned above will limit the industry's ability to generate enough supply to meet growing demand. Now, economically speaking, the one way to get around this is to drive up prices to a high enough level that there is a demand destruction, restoring balance to the supply-demand balance globally. With this in mind, we look at gasoline prices. The number one prices with gasoline prices is crude oil prices. A year ago we testified before the Senate that higher gasoline prices would eventually create higher gasoline prices. Not a very pleasant thing to say, but certainly we have seen that to a certain extent. A year ago, if you were to look, crude oil prices in terms of dollars per gallon, were essentially $1.60 a gallon. If you were to throw on refining the marketing margin on top of that, maybe an additional $0.80. Some retail and tax on top of that and you basically get to your $3.00 a gallon. Today we see that just in terms of crude cost per gallon it stands at about $2.85 a gallon. If you put that close to $0.60 of retail and tax margin on top of that, you are approaching a price of almost $3.50 a gallon, assuming you can make gasoline for free, assuming refining makes no profit whatsoever. Now, this we have actually seen in the first quarter of this year. Most refiners are actually losing money. Refining margins have actually been negative for many weeks in the first quarter of this year, partially due to the fact, again, of high crude prices and falling demand here in the United States. So that brings us to diesel. Now, diesel prices have risen more quickly than gasoline prices. There is no surprise there. Historically, diesel was at a discount to gasoline. Essentially what we have seen is a demand or a premium in the market. The dieselization of the European auto fleets has European demand up 2.5 percent year-on-year on average over the past few years versus gasoline demand that was down 2 percent a year over that same time frame. International demand has been strong, both transportation and industry-oriented, and U.S. diesel demand in the last three months is up almost 10 percent year-on-year versus gasoline demand, which is down almost 1 percent year-on- year over the same time period. Again, I think some of this will probably come out. The diesel demand is probably less discretionary; it is very industrial-oriented. So strong demand and tight U.S. refining capacity, which has been built to maximize gasoline production, not diesel production, has driven diesel prices to record levels. Now, the best thing, from our recommendation, is to allow the markets to allocate capital to the places which are tight, in this case diesel capacity, which is happening here in the United States as it is expanding, but it is something that does take time and capital. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Very good. We now turn to Mr. John Felmy, Economist for the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Felmy. Mr. Felmy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Duncan. I am John Felmy, Chief Economist of API, the national trade association of U.S. oil and natural gas industry. API represents nearly 400 companies involved in all aspects of oil and natural gas industry, including exploration and production, refining, marketing, transportation, as well as service companies that support our industry. I would like to talk about petroleum markets today and why prices have been rising. Higher prices are a burden on families and businesses, particularly those in the transportation sector such as trucking and the airlines. Being able to understand why the increases have happened is the first step to being able to do something about them. The biggest factor in the price increases? It is higher crude prices, as mentioned earlier. Throughout the first four months of the year, average crude oil prices were up about $1.00 per gallon, $42.00 per barrel higher than the same period a year ago. A similar comparison shows that gasoline prices are up $0.71 a gallon and diesel up $1.03. Gasoline prices have risen more slowly because of weakening demand, record production, strong imports, and ample inventories. Crude oil, the raw material for all petroleum fuels, is the biggest cost component of gasoline and diesel. Crude oil is bought and sold on international markets, and most of what we need we import. This week, refiners were paying as much as $2.86 per gallon of crude oil they need to make a gallon of gasoline or diesel and other products. That is most of the price at the pump. When you add about $0.47 in gasoline taxes (or almost $0.54 cents in diesel taxes) to each gallon, you have accounted for the vast majority of what people are paying. Crude oil prices have been rising because of strong worldwide demand, even as U.S. overall petroleum demand, including demand for gasoline, has flattened. However, in the U.S., demand for diesel has remained strong. This follows a long-term trend here and around the world. Over the past five years, U.S. demand for highway diesel has been rising at triple the rate of gasoline. In Europe, demand has also been rising, reflecting growth in diesel vehicles, spurred in part by lower taxes on diesel. Continuing strong U.S. demand for diesel versus weakening demand for gasoline is a key factor why diesel prices have been higher here than gasoline prices. Demand for diesel has remained strong in the face of higher prices at the pump in large part because its use is less discretionary. Consumption is mostly business-related. Fuel is an indispensable cost component and just one of the costs in the manufacturing- distribution chain. Also, keep in mind that, unlike Europe, taxes on diesel in the U.S. are higher than on gasoline, and the new ultra-low sulfur diesel formulations cost more to produce, too. U.S. refiners have been working hard to meet demand, churning out record amounts of both gasoline and distillate, which includes heating oil and gasoline, nearly 9 million barrels of gasoline and more than 4 million barrels per day of distillate during the first four months of this year. At the same time, they continue to invest heavily in environmental improvements, including billions of dollars for cleaner burning gasolines and diesel fuels. Recently, despite healthy industry earnings, refiner and retail margins have tightened. Industry earnings are strong, but don't be deceived by the big numbers. The size of gross earnings is largely a function of the size of the industry, which is massive because of the magnitude of the job the industry has to do. Both taxes paid and investments made to keep supplies coming in years ahead are also massive, which is why earnings on each dollar of sales last year aren't as remarkable as the rhetoric and accusations might suggest. In 2007, earnings per dollar of sales were just over $0.08, about a penny above the all-industry manufacturing average and a good bit lower than the rates of some other prominent industries. And I might add that for the companies that reported so far for the first quarter, the profit rate of the industry was 7.5 cents on a dollar, and for refiners it was about one-half a cent, with some refining companies losing money. Siphoning away earnings from the industry through new tax schemes won't help address the current market situation. It won't increase investments, it won't produce more supply, and it won't help consumers. It will hurt oil and natural gas company owners, 98.5 percent of which have no connection with the oil industry other than through pensions they receive invested in oil company stock or through their 401(k)s, IRAs, and other stock holdings. Price gouging laws, another term for price controls, also won't work. They would discourage investment in new supplies and could lead to allocation controls and gasoline lines. There is no magic wand to fix this situation, nor is there a silver bullet. It comes down to increasing supply and reducing demand. There are a lot of ways to work on both ends of that equation, including developing other forms of energy and conserving. However, one strategy we can't overlook is expanding access to more of the Nation's petroleum reserves, much of which government policies have put off limits. Energy independence is a slogan, not good policy, but we can produce more and ease global market tightness. That, along with more conservation, is how to put downward pressure on crude oil prices. That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer your questions. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Felmy. I thank all the witnesses for being so succinct. We will now proceed to the questioning. Mr. Slocum, you touched on something which neither of the second two witnesses mentioned, and I am going to ask them about that, which is the issue of what is commonly called the Enron loophole, which dealt with commodities trading, the commodities modernization act, and regulation of derivatives and over-the-counter trade blossoming in energy. What would you say is the premium for those speculative activities on a gallon of gas? Mr. Slocum. Roughly $0.70 per gallon of regular gasoline, which is about $30.00 per barrel of crude oil. And that is a fairly conservative estimate of the role of pure speculation in these futures markets. Mr. DeFazio. But don't economists say, well, it is not just speculative, that creates liquidity and it is guarding against risk? I mean, surely, it is the producers and/or the consumers in these markets, right? Mr. Slocum. No, not necessarily. It is absolutely true that a certain amount of speculation or hedging is essential, but we have got a type of financial bubble that is being created, much like we just went through in a very painful way, and will continue to go through in a painful way, in the housing market, where the lack of adequate regulation over this market has encouraged a high level of speculative activity by financial firms, many of whom have no direct connection to the physical delivery or production of the product. The vast majority of trades, more than 95 percent, on these markets do not result in the physical delivery of crude oil or other petroleum products, and it is that level of speculation that has been driving these prices up. Mr. DeFazio. So your position is a return to at least the status quo in terms of regulation? I understand they have established an exchange in London now. How can you control speculation in worldwide markets? But, anyway, your position is about $0.70 of what people are paying at the pump today is a windfall for speculators one way or another. Mr. Slocum. That is correct. Mr. DeFazio. And, by the way, Goldman Sachs did predict today that oil would go to $200 a barrel within the next two years. Mr. Slocum. And that itself has created a feeding frenzy, because speculators have been driving the price up this morning because now the ceiling has been set far higher. So it isn't necessarily unrest in Nigeria or other issues, but, rather, predictions by large commodity dealers that the sky is the limit. Mr. DeFazio. Okay, so, Mr. Todd, Mr. Felmy, do you think there is any credibility to the idea that some of this is speculative fluff; we are paying more than we need to because people are trading off the books in a very opaque way, may well be self-dealing, but none of that violates any laws because the laws don't apply? Should we take some steps to reimpose at least what existed previously in terms of the level of regulation of these markets? Since Enron no longer exists, we know they are not going to come to the Hill and lobby. Well, they exist, but in a different form, shall we say. Mr. Todd? Mr. Todd. I would disagree. Certainly, I am not a commodities trader, so---- Mr. DeFazio. So you don't think there is any impact by speculators on the market? Mr. Todd. I certainly think that the speculation can--it does not create trends; it can exaggerate trends sometimes. It can create short-term volatility at times. Mr. DeFazio. Would you say $200 would be an exaggerated trend, if we are headed there, and Goldman, who deals in these kinds of exchanges, is predicting that? And maybe before they predicted that, yesterday they went long? Mr. Todd. I think, in general, the effects of speculation on the market is speculation. Most of the serious studies that I have seen on the effects of speculation have generally disagreed with Mr. Slocum's analysis. I believe---- Mr. DeFazio. What about what Lee Raymond said, it was $20 on a $60 barrel? I mean, he was a pretty smart guy, wasn't he? Didn't you work for them, ExxonMobil? Mr. Todd. I did previously work for ExxonMobil. Mr. DeFazio. Was he exaggerating? Mr. Todd. He was a pretty smart guy. There is a certain amount of fear volatility in premium which is built into the market, and I certainly would agree with that, and I think Mr. Raymond and---- Mr. DeFazio. Okay, so you don't think we should re- regulate; everything is just fine the way it is and it is all just being driven by pure market forces, except for some---- Mr. Todd. I think that increased visibility in the futures trading market probably would not do undue damage. At the same time, I think that with increased visibility and increased transparency you would see that essentially the supply-demand fundamentals, which are incredibly tight when the market looks ahead and they say, you know what, we don't believe--every year we forecast---- Mr. DeFazio. That was a good answer. So you are saying it wouldn't cause undue harm; i.e., we could try it and then we would see that really there isn't a lot of speculation. That would be great. Then you wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be here next year saying, well, we can take care of part of this problem, at least, in the short-term by reigning in the speculation. So that would be great. Mr. Felmy? Mr. Felmy. Mr. Chairman, the whole area of speculation is highly complex, and I have been to conferences where I have seen very thoughtful, very intelligent people come down on both sides of it. What I see internationally is tight market conditions, as Mr. Todd mentioned. We see strong continued demand growth in China, even though the U.S. has slowed---- Mr. DeFazio. Right. We have covered this ground. But the question is do you believe, as Mr. Todd just said, that if we were just to--you know, since Enron caused my part of the Country to pay about 30 percent more for electricity because of a bankrupt company that was manipulating the market. And we can say there was a deal of speculation going on there, so if we changed the rules to accommodate them. They are gone. Could we just do away with the Enron loophole, go back to the way things were and not cause undue harm, would you agree? And then we could get to the bottom of this, whether speculation is or is not a culprit in the big run-up? Mr. Felmy. Well, I personally---- Mr. DeFazio. I mean, what would it hurt to have these trades at least no longer opaque and no longer off the books? What would it hurt to have the trading in just--we are not going to set prices, we are just going to say we want to know what is going on here with the trading and who---- Mr. Felmy. Well, I would rely on the views of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which is the regulator, in terms of what they feel they need in terms of regulation. But I think in terms---- Mr. DeFazio. Well, come on, in the Bush Administration? They don't believe in regulation. They have contempt for government and they hate regulation. So do you---- Mr. Felmy. Mr. Chairman, I think it comes down to fundamentals. Mr. DeFazio. Do you, Mr. Felmy, do you or do you not support what Mr. Todd said? I mean, you disagree, but would it hurt if we just provided that information in some modicum of regulation of the market? Would that hurt your---- Mr. Felmy. Well, I would have to see the nature of the regulation. Mr. DeFazio. Okay, thank you. Mr. Felmy. But I would also share that---- Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Mr. Felmy, thank you. I don't want to take up so much time, so I want to ask another question. Let's go to the profits. It is interesting that you report profits one way when you talk to us, both Mr. Todd and Mr. Felmy--they are really not making much money if you look at the profits versus their gross, and it is really pretty small compared to other industries--but the funny thing is, in the ExxonMobil financial and operating review, they don't use that measure. So if that is the most appropriate measure, why don't they report it that way to their stockholders? To their stockholders, they talk about fabulous returns, great rate of return on the share, you know, all those sorts of things they talk about here. They don't say, aw, gee, we are really not doing too good. In fact, I did see the head of ExxonMobil bemoaning the fact that they only had the second largest quarterly profit in the history of the world, slightly less than the first largest, which was theirs last year, in the first quarter of this year. So I guess why is it you come to us and say they are really not making much money, and they report to the world and their stockholders that they are making bucket loads of money? Why do you use this measure that they don't use in their own report? Mr. Felmy. Because, Mr. Chairman, we are asked to explain how much of that price is earnings, and that is the only way you can do it, to basically take net income divided by sales to get 7.5 cents for the first quarter. Mr. DeFazio. Why is it not in their financial report? Mr. Felmy. But in terms of their financials, Mr. Chairman, it is a case that they are explaining the return on the capital that they used, the return on the equity, and that is their business function, so that is their appropriate way. Mr. DeFazio. Good. Okay, one last question. Now, Mr. Todd said that we should let the markets determine where the capital would go and maybe we could deal with our diesel refining shortage or other refinery shortages or exploration, you know, sort of a paucity of investment there, although he mentioned other constraints, to be fair. But last year, when ExxonMobil bought back $40 billion worth of stock and their capital investment was 10 percent of that, that is market forces, right? Because they were driving up their stock value; they were buying back their stock. So when are they going to start using some of these fabulous profits for diesel refining capacity? My understanding is they say they have no intention of building a new refinery or they are going to use it more robustly for exploration or, God forbid, maybe looking at alternative fuels or technologies. Mr. Felmy. Mr. Chairman, the companies are working for the benefit of their shareholders, which are the millions of retirees and other Americans that have invested in these oil companies. Mr. DeFazio. Yes, yes, I have heard that before. Mr. Felmy. It is a difficult challenge to be able to decide how much you are going to be able to invest, which, incidentally, the industry invested $175 billion last year, compared to $155 billion of net income. They also make decisions in terms of things like share buy-backs, which I am stunned that people criticize that because they are supporting their shareholders; they pay dividends and they keep money for a rainy day. Mr. DeFazio. Okay, thank you. Mr. Felmy. These are all decisions they need to make. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Slocum, would you like to respond to that? Mr. Slocum. I would. Mr. DeFazio. And this will be the last. Mr. Slocum. Absolutely, a CEO of an oil company that did not do things to return value to shareholders should be fired, and it is true that I don't think any of the CEOs of any of the major oil companies are going to be fired any time soon. The question is, though, what government policies are promoting this. It is not the job of the government to look after the shareholders all the time of these corporations; that is the job of the energy company CEOs. And when I see billions of dollars in subsidies that are provided courtesy of the American taxpayer, when I see below market or non-payment of royalties for the privilege of extracting valuable energy commodities from land owned by the American people, I see an opportunity for reform. I think that oil companies should have slightly higher tax liability by revoking all of these valuable subsidies so that we can increase investments where the oil companies are unwilling to do, in things that will actually get us off of our addiction to oil by heavily investing in mass transit, providing bigger financial incentives to American families, to buy more super-fuel efficient vehicles and install solar panels on their home---- Mr. DeFazio. Okay, we are getting a little off the subject here, but---- Mr. Slocum. Sorry. Mr. DeFazio. Appreciate your global view of how we might do it, but thank you. With that, I will turn to Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I expressed my views in my statement, so I want to yield my time at this time to Mr. Coble. Mr. Coble. I thank you, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Tennessee, in his opening statement, indicated that this issue is essential to our economy and our daily lives. Mr. Chairman, if anybody doubts that, you check with truckers and farmers and nurses and teachers who have to use their automobiles in their daily work. It clearly does, Mr. Duncan, impact us negatively, the soaring price, that is. Mr. Chairman, pardon my modesty, but two decades ago I indicated that we needed to explore, drill, refine, and it could be done, I am confident, without damaging the environment, and many others joined me when I said that; and those words were prophetic at the time I think prophetic now. Gentlemen, good to have you all with us. Let me put this question to either of you. It may have been touched on, but I want to revisit it. Diesel prices have traditionally been lower than gasoline prices. In recent times, however, diesel has consistently been higher than gasoline. What has caused the reversal, A, and is this likely to change in the foreseeable future? Either of you. Fire away, Mr. Todd. Mr. Todd. I will speak to that. In general, there are a few things at play, which I touched on briefly in my testimony. Primarily, diesel demand is growing much more quickly, both here in the United States and internationally, versus gasoline demand. That stretching of the diesel production capacity is what has driven up prices. It can't be ignored, as well, that diesel is more expensive to produce now due to additional regulation, ultra-low sulfur diesel. There is additional cost of supply, but it is primarily demand driven. Mr. Coble. Anybody want to weigh in further? Mr. Felmy. Well, I would add, Congressman, that, in addition, the industry has been doing a lot in terms of producing record amounts of distillate product. We have also seen imports decline as continued demand worldwide for diesel limits available supply. So it is a combination of those factors too. Mr. Coble. Well, when I indicated that I called, two decades ago, for exploring, I am sure that we could explore without exploiting. I am not promoting dirty air or dirty water; it can be done safely, I am convinced of that. Now, having said that, new refineries have not been built in America, I am thinking, for two, perhaps in excess of two decades. Has there been any increase in refining capacity in the United States? And, if so, how much has capacity grown and how has this been accomplished without building new refineries? Mr. Felmy. Congressman, if you look back over the lasts 10 to 12 years, we have seen capacity of the refineries within the existing fences expand by roughly around 200,000 barrels a day. That is within the existing fences and that is the equivalent of a new 200,000 barrel a day refinery every year for that same period. Mr. Coble. Yes, you want to weigh in, Mr. Slocum? Mr. Slocum. Yes. It is true that the industry has been conducting recent refining expansions and does have plans for more, but it is not at a rate that is going to keep up with projected demand; and we have seen that the industry lagged behind on providing excess capacity for diesel. And I don't have access to the latest numbers, probably my esteemed colleague at Deutsche Bank may, but I believe that refining margins for diesel have probably been far stronger in recent months and recent years compared to in the past. So the profit incentive is there but, again, I haven't seen the corresponding level of financial commitment by the industry to reinvest those record earnings and take those price signals and invest it in the infrastructure that our economy desperately needs. Mr. Coble. Thank you. Mr. Felmy, in your written testimony you indicate that crude oil is the biggest component of diesel. You furthermore state that the United States imports most of what we need. How much of an impact does the weak dollar have on the price of diesel and would increasing the domestic supply of oil potentially reduce costs of diesel? Mr. Felmy. Well, first, there is no question that increasing supply and reducing demand can help the prices of oil commodities, including crude oil, which then can be manufactured to diesel. In terms of the share, what we have seen is a continued increase in the cost of crude oil such as it has gone up by $1.00 a gallon and diesel has been up $1.03. So it is very easy to see how much of the cost increases have been going up due to the higher crude costs. Mr. Coble. Mr. Todd, your body language tells me you want to say something. Mr. Todd. Regarding the question on the dollar, I would say that it is very clear that the Federal policy, which is--and slowing economy, which has contributed to weaken our dollar to record levels, has had a very strong impact on crude oil prices and, thus, gasoline and diesel prices. The two have marched, since January of 2007, more or less hand-in-hand, crude price and the devaluation of the dollar. Many people look at buying crude as a hedge against the dollar devaluation, so very strong correlation. Mr. Coble. Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. Mr. Slocum? Mr. Slocum. Yes. And I do think there is a certain chick and egg phenomenon with the weakening dollar and rising crude oil prices that it is unclear at this point which variable is chasing the other; and it could be a situation where the speculators that are driving up the price of a barrel of crude are helping contribute to the further erosion of the value of the dollar. Mr. Coble. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Coble. We will go in the order in which Members appeared. Mr. Sires? Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you for being here today, trying to make sense of all this that is happening. I just have a couple of questions. As you know, there are a number of proposals before Congress that would require fuel surcharges to be collected by the motor carrier or the broker and to be passed through to the drivers bearing the cost of the fuel. How do you see this regulation affecting the trucking industry, this surcharge pass-through? Anyone. Because I am very concerned about the transparency of it, how it affects, you know, just the entire industry. Mr. Felmy. Congressman, we don't have a position on that issue at this point, so I am afraid I can't help you in that regard. Mr. Sires. Do you see a better way? Can you think of a better way than passing on a surcharge? Do you have a position on that? Mr. Felmy. We have not addressed this issue. Mr. Sires. No. Anybody else? Mr. Slocum? Mr. Slocum. No, this isn't an issue that Public Citizen has been intimately involved with, unfortunately. I am happy to get back to you in some written statement on Public Citizen's analysis of the situation. Mr. Sires. That would be great, because there are a number of proposals floating around here. Maybe you can help me understand this, because I am not as knowledgeable as some people. It seems to me that the crude oil jumps from one day to the next, and it seems to me there are already people hiding behind the pump, ready to raise the price as soon as it jumps. What about all those purchases before that, the supply that was bought before that? How does that work? How does it seem to me that oil prices jump from one day to the next and it is already on the pumps the next day, it seems to me? How does that work? Mr. Slocum, can you help me with that? Mr. Slocum. Right. There have been some investigations, particularly by some State attorney generals, into potentially anti-competitive practices in so-called zonal pricing and other financial and contractual arrangements between refiners and other large wholesale suppliers and some of the regional distributors and retailers. There is no question that there has been--just as we have seen a rise in the market concentration within the refining industry, we have also seen it in some of these other wholesale distributional systems. So I think that Congress conducting an investigation that would complement what some attorney generals have been doing at the State level to determine whether or not these markets and these financial arrangements are adequately competitive and whether or not they are resulting in higher prices to consumers at the pump than there otherwise would be if we had a little more competition or transparency in these contractual arrangements. Mr. Felmy. If I could respond. I think that you either believe in conspiracy or markets, and what we have here is a very rapid transmission of price information throughout the system. Whereas, in the past, a dealer or a wholesaler would not know what the prices are; now, within seconds, they know what is going on in the futures exchange, they know what is happening in wholesale markets, they have got price signals. So things move very quickly. In terms of the product that they have purchased before, remember, this is not a cost-plus business and, as explained to me or explained publicly by the association that deals with that, this is a cash flow concern by retailers. Ninety percent of the retailers are not owned by the integrated oil companies and they have a real cash flow challenge when you have price change. So if they are looking over their shoulder, wondering what is going to be the cost of the next delivery, then they may not have the cash flow without responding in advance. That is just simply from presentations I have heard from the retailer side of the business. Mr. Sires. Thank you very much. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. We now turn to Mr. Latta. Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. Good morning and, again, thank you and Ranking Member Duncan. I too want to thank you very much for holding these hearings and welcome to the witnesses. Just briefly, as has already been pointed out by the Ranking Member, we do have a crisis in this Country on continuing our reliance on foreign oil, and the rising cost of the diesel fuel is another indicators of the disaster that is going to occur in this Country if we don't change our course now and stop that over-reliance on that oil from other countries. As has been pointed out again by the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan, the United States is at a crucial point in terms of our own domestic energy production. With estimates that China and India, combined, will consume more energy than the United States by 2015, we have to seriously take a look at our own domestic energy production and continue to reduce our dependence and reliance on Middle Eastern oil. China's increasing offshore energy production to reduce its own dependence on foreign oil, growing their own production at an average of 15.3 percent per year, with plans to make offshore production of China's largest source of oil by doubling production by 2010. I hear daily from my constituents in Northwest Ohio regarding the rising diesel prices, as well as gas prices. It hits the automobile driver, the truck driver, looking at their own personal pocketbooks, and this rise in the diesel fuel is having a dramatic increase on the effect of businesses in our area. Consequently, it is not only directing the impact of paying more for that diesel fuel, but the higher costs are being passed down to the consumer through the rising cost of consumer goods. Where I am from, in Northwest Ohio, I live just south of the Ohio Turnpike, along I-75, and within a day's drive I am within 60 percent of the United States population, so we are heavily into trucking and shipping in my area. Trucks transport freight to 19,346 manufacturing companies in Ohio, supply goods to 59,660 retail stores, and stock 24,466 wholesale trade companies. In addition, trucks supply goods to 5,414 agricultural businesses and deliver the produce and products to markets to nearly 80 percent of the communities in Ohio that are only exclusively served by trucks. So the rise in the diesel fuel cost in the trucking industry is a major crisis in the Country. Talking about China and its energy usage and where they are going to be in next few years, really, I guess the question is going to be on diesel usage, where you see diesel usage in China and where it is going to be in the near future, and what is that doing to do to the overall market, not only across the world, but here in the United States; and how much is that going to drive the cost in the near future, because that is one of the questions. You drive by the stations and you see the diesel cost continuing to go up. But as we are in daily competition for that same barrel of oil across the world, and with China using as much energy as it is going to use in the near future, where do you see the oil or oil with diesel in the near future with the amount that China is going to be consuming? Mr. Todd. I will touch briefly on that. We would see that diesel will remain at a premium to gasoline, probably, structurally going forward. Diesel growth globally, partly driven by diesel growth in China, India, and developing nations, but also driven by diesel growth in Europe and here at home, will grow faster than gasoline and will probably keep diesel at a premium to gasoline going forward. Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Ms. Hirono. Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that this market, this industry is very, very complicated and regulators, State as well as Federal, are very hard-pressed to figure out what is going on. The State of Hawaii had also filed a lawsuit a number of years ago regarding pricing in this industry, and we had to settle because it is really hard to prove anything. Now, Mr. Todd and Mr. Felmy, if I read your testimony, the gist of your testimony, basically, you wouldn't want the Federal Government to step back in to re-regulate; you pretty much would like to have the marketplace set prices. I think that was the gist of your testimony. Is that accurate? Okay, I am going somewhere with this. You would like the free marketplace to do what a free market is supposed to do. However, we know that we provide billions and billions of dollars in subsidies to this industry, so, on the one hand you are saying let the free market dictate and set the prices; on the other this is an industry that enjoys billions of dollars in subsidies. So what I can't see as a consumer is why we should continue to do this. I mean, really, can you think of a really good reason why you should have both sides, you know, have Government support you as well as arguing that Government should leave you alone? Mr. Felmy. Well, I think, Congresswoman, it is, first, very helpful to look at what the real subsidies are there. The Department of Energy just released a study last week that indicated that the total subsidies for all aspects of the oil and gas industry were about $2 billion. And when you convert that to million Btu, they were very nearly the bottom of energy industries in terms of those provisions. Mr. Slocum's testimony came up with a number of $9 billion. I honestly can't find that anywhere in the report. But if you look at it in terms of the actual subsidies, they are very low. But, more importantly, to the extent that you have subsidies or anything that lowers the cost to the industry, it can benefit consumers. Ms. Hirono. I don't know how you can say that when the prices keep going up. As a consumer, I don't see how these subsidies are particularly helping to keep the prices of gasoline and diesel low. Mr. Felmy. Because it lowers the cost of operations. The primary reason why we are seeing gasoline prices go up is the increase in the cost of manufacturing the product via crude oil. Ms. Hirono. Well, okay. We can sit here and have all kinds of arguments, but I think if we look at the bottom line for consumers, it is very difficult to figure out what we should do in order to create alternative energy to wean ourselves away from imported oil and not having to drill in pristine areas of our Country. My point is this is a very complicated industry and we are hard pressed, but it seems to me that we should start with just getting rid of these subsidies that I don't think can be justified. Thank you. Mr. Felmy. Then you are raising the cost of the operation of the industry, and there is no way you can argue that helps consumers. Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Slocum. Congresswoman, if I may respond to your questions about subsidies. Ms. Hirono. Go ahead. Mr. Slocum. It is true that the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which is the research arm of the Department of Energy, recently came out with a much needed report looking at overall energy subsidies. And it is true that their number for the oil industry was just over $2 billion a year annually, which is a huge number. But the Department of Energy did not include several very large tax breaks that are enjoyed by the petroleum industry in that analysis, and that is the primary difference between our two calculations. The first large tax break that the Department of Energy's analysis did not include was the manufacturing tax deduction which Congress provided many different industries in the fall of 2004, but it classified oil extraction and oil refining as a manufacturing activity. The Department of Energy did not include that, and that is a highly lucrative tax break, over $700 million a year. In addition, the last in-first out accounting method, so called LIFO, which some Members of Congress have targeted for repeal, that would constitute a one- time value of between $4 billion and $5 billion. So those tax breaks were not included in the Department of Energy analysis and Public Citizen thought it prudent to include those. Mr. Felmy. If I may, those are provisions that are available to all industries, and there is no justification for singling out the oil industry. And raising those will not help consumers; it raises the cost of operation. Mr. DeFazio. Okay, thank you, Ms. Hirono. Mr. Felmy, if I may, so you are saying the $2 billion a year subsidy from the taxpayers to the industry, if the industry didn't receive that subsidy from the taxpayers, you would be charging them even more at the pump? Mr. Felmy. Mr. Chairman, I am not---- Mr. DeFazio. That $2 billion would translate to higher prices? Mr. Felmy. I am not going into prices, Mr. Chairman. I am simply saying it would be a higher cost for the industry, and there is no way you could make that argument that it would benefit the consumers. Mr. DeFazio. But maybe it would come out of their profits, or maybe it would come out of their stock buy-back program, or maybe it would come out of the CEO's retirement pension--$400 million, not bad for Mr. Raymond. But okay, thank you. We would turn now to Mr. Boustany. Mr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, first, we should start off with a little bit of a dose of reality in looking at the oil and gas markets, and the complexity of it. There is significant risk--geopolitical risk, geologic risk--and that hasn't really come up in this discussion. I think, secondly, we have to accept the fact that we are dependent on fossil fuels and will be for the foreseeable future. So we need to strategically manage that dependence. We have had 40 years of energy policies that really have not been much of energy policy in this Country, and this 110th Congress is no exception. In fact, some of the policies being advocated are entirely detrimental. We lack a long-term, a mid-term, and a short-term policy, particularly just looking at the fossil fuel industry, with regard to upstream and downstream development, and these are critical issues. I know Mr. Slocum mentioned the issue about refining capacity and why profits aren't being used for refining capacity. But if you look at refining capacity and the barriers to building out refining capacity in this Country, they are enormous. I have spoken to the Kuwaitis and tried to entice them to come down in Louisiana in my State to build a new refinery, and they said no, absolutely not, unless we find a U.S. partner; it is entirely too expensive; we would rather build in North Africa or we will build another refinery in the Mid-East. So what are we doing? We are sitting here and we are making our U.S. companies less competitive. We are looking at taking away important manufacturing breaks that all of our manufacturing sector has at this time, and we complain that we are chasing manufacturing out of this Country. Give me a break. And then to demonize the U.S. oil and gas companies, let's look at what happened in the Gulf of Mexico after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. In record time, when 80 percent of all the production was down, in record time they got this back up and running to deal with the problems we had in this Country. It was a remarkable turnaround. So I think we need a little balance in this discussion, first and foremost. We have to recognize we must strategically manage this dependence as we then transition into investment into alternative fuels and other energy options. But let me get to a couple of questions. One, we have talked about the profits; we have talked a little bit about subsidies. Could you gentlemen talk about what U.S. oil companies currently pay in taxes? Mr. Felmy. If I could. If you look at the last year of available data, Department of Energy indicated that if you take a share of taxes as a share of net income before taxes, the oil and gas industry, under their financial reporting system, paid 40.7 cents on the dollar in taxes, compared to all manufacturing of 22.1 cents. So it is a heavily taxed industry in terms of the share of their net income. Mr. Boustany. Thank you. Any of you other gentlemen want to comment on this? Mr. Slocum. I think it is probably accurate that the oil industry is paying more in taxes than they have in the past, and that is primarily because they are awash in so much money. It is a very lucrative business. Mr. Boustany. Mr. Slocum, do you understand the cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry, and the fact that oil was down at $10.00 a barrel, less than $10.00 a barrel in the late 1990s and that it is a multi-year planning process and that you have got significant geopolitical and geologic risk? So to simply look at this in one-year terms is really an inaccurate depiction of the reality. Mr. Slocum. Well, I absolutely agree that historically the industry has been very cyclical, but I think some elements of that cyclical history are being repealed. I think that the industry responded to that first by engaging in an unprecedented wave of mergers to address some of the problems that occurred---- Mr. Boustany. So the U.S. oil industry is remarkably resilient and flexible. We should be proud of that and we shouldn't be advocating policies by singling out the oil and gas industry to make them less competitive when they have to fight against national oil companies and all the geopolitical risks that are attendant with that. Secondly, I would say that all the discussion about speculation, while interesting, is really merely diversionary in many respects because we do have very accurate, very timely pricing information throughout the oil and gas industry. But it basically ignores the fact that we have a fundamental, very tight supply and demand equation, and when almost 1 million barrels a day are taken off the Nigerian market because of pipeline disruptions and terrorist activity, when you have the U.K., a strike which took some 500,000 or so barrels off per day, and then the Saudis are dealing with a situation whereby they do not have the reserve capacity now to ramp up production to meet extra demand, we need to focus on the fundamentals in this industry and do everything that we can to make this a more competitive industry and promote U.S. interest to strategically manage our oil dependence at this time. So I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's look at some reasonable policies, a real energy policy that looks at the entire spectrum and looks at drilling in this Country. It can be done in environmentally sound ways and with a light footprint; we have seen it in Louisiana. The oil and gas companies have made tremendous strides in this area. I think we need to look at a real energy policy and not just simply try to point fingers and pick out demons. With that, Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired and I yield back. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Just one clarification to the answer to one point. Mr. Felmy, you said the industry paid 40 percent in taxes. So ExxonMobil--I am staggered by this. So they had a $40 billion profit last year and they paid 40 percent in taxes? Would I find that if I go through their report? Mr. Felmy. I am not familiar with the Exxon financials to be able to give you an answer to that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Well, but where did the 40 percent number come from? Mr. Felmy. The 40 percent number comes from Table 1 of the financial reporting system of the U.S. Department of Energy that tabulates the financial information on the major oil companies of the United States, and it is basically just taking income taxes as a share of net income before taxes, and it works out to 40.7. Mr. DeFazio. So income taxes as a share of---- Mr. Felmy. Net income before taxes. Mr. DeFazio.--net income before taxes. Okay. So they are paying over the highest corporate rate in America, then. There is no 40 percent bracket for corporations. So they are overpaying their tax. I guess we will see. Okay. We will have to look at that. Thank you. Mr. Slocum. Mr. Chairman, may I add something to that, sir? Any estimate that is being provided by the Department of Energy or other entity is just that, it is an estimate. The only way that we will find out exactly how much they are paying in taxes is to consult with the Internal Revenue Service. We are not necessarily saying to make those public---- Mr. DeFazio. Okay, thank you. Ms. Richardson. Ms. Richardson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for you, Mr. Felmy. I am kind of a new Member on the block, and before I get into my question, I am a new Member here, but I wasn't very comfortable with, I felt, how you were cutting off our Chairman, and I would really appreciate it, in the future, a little more respect. I worked very hard to get here, and I think the American people sent us here for a purpose, and I felt it was crossing the line. And I feel very comfortable in making that statement to you. So, Mr. Felmy, my question is in which piece of the oil pipeline can Congress, in your opinion, do the most to promote lower diesel prices? What do you recommend regarding distribution prices, taxation, etc.? And how do you blame the weak dollar for our current prices? Mr. Felmy. Well, the most important thing that Congress can do is to increase supplies or reduce demand. Now, in the case of diesel, that is an enormous challenge because diesel is not discretionary; the trucking community is very much tied to operations on that. We can, however, do things that increase supply. We can improve the infrastructure. We can aid things that could lead to overall improvement in the market, which would reduce the cost of manufacturing diesel. So there a host of things that can be done to be able to improve supply or reduce demand. Ms. Richardson. I thought I read, though, that the supply, in fact, we do have adequate supply. Would you say that that is not true? Mr. Felmy. Well, if you look at the worldwide situation, which is what you have to look at, for example, in 2007 we saw that production worldwide for oil was virtually flat, at the same time that demand went up by 1.1 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency. So there is no question to me that what we see is a tighter market. Going forward, we will have to see what happens with worldwide demand. IEA is forecasting about a percent and a half increase in world demand, and we have these struggles, as was mentioned earlier, in terms of Nigeria, the blip that happened in Scotland, and a host of other places around the globe for producing oil, not to mention which Venezuelan production, what will happen with President Chavez's plans, Mexican oil production. So we have an enormous struggle in terms of a tight market with only a small amount of excess capacity to be able to respond to shocks. Ms. Richardson. So are you saying to me that we can do nothing to reduce our costs except for to increase our supply or reduce our demand, that there are no other things within the industry that can be done to help with this issue? I am not saying completely resolve the issue, but you mean to tell me there is absolutely nothing within the industry that can be done besides us addressing those two issues, increasing supply or reducing demand? Mr. Felmy. Well, as an economist, those are the things that we look at first and primarily. To increase supply is to both produce more oil, perhaps more refinery capacity for diesel because of the tightening market for diesel worldwide, in Europe, potentially in the U.S., and so on. So it is something that we need to look at. Some of our companies are expanding in that regard, looking at more opportunities in diesel, which appear to be something they are considering. So, yes, at a lower level, that is really what, ultimately, the supply and demand factors come into play. Ms. Richardson. Okay, but we have heard the Chairman and several other Members mention some other areas that could be considered. You don't equally feel that those are valuable, besides increasing supply and reducing demand? Mr. Felmy. Well, I think that it is the market fundamentals that are driving the situation. If you look at how much crude oil costs are up, they are up $1.00 a gallon year over year; diesel is up $1.03; gasoline is up $0.71. So that tells me very clearly what we see is, at least in my opinion, market fundamentals that are the situation Ms. Richardson. Okay. My last comment. Mr. Chairman, I understand that currently we have had a little discussion about the Enron loop, and I guess it is Mr. Welch who I think currently has a piece of legislation that would deal specifically with this. I would be willing to follow your lead on what you recommend as we, as a Committee, could help to bring that forward, if you feel it is appropriate after this discussion. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. In fact, the issue is also in discussion as part of the farm bill. It may get resolved there. If it doesn't get resolved there, Mr. Welch has legislation and I believe Mr. Stupak has legislation on the same subject, as do I. So we have some choices out there and I think it would be prudent to at least deal with that. We now turn to the former Chairman from the great State of Alaska, Mr. Young. Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an interesting presentation. I am, of course, one who has been through this war over the years. Deja vu. I can remember when we had the embargo in 1973 and we immediately acted to increase the supply by building the Trans Alaska Pipeline. That is the last action we have done in this Congress to increase the supply of fossil fuels to the United States and American citizens, the last act; and I think it is long overdue. I do not believe that we can ever drill our way into total independence, but we can drill our way into some stability, Mr. Chairman, in the sense that we have ANWR, 74 miles from an existing pipeline. We could deliver a million and a half barrels of oil and supply the United States in three years. That doesn't solve the problem. If we want to solve the problem and quit pandering to the general public--and that is what this Congress is doing, is pandering now--we are not looking at a solution to a problem-- if we would like to solve this problem, being as you are the Chairman of the Subcommittee, I suggest we raise the taxes to $1.00 a gallon. That makes you put your money where your mouth is. Because if we can stabilize the cost of fossil fuels, then there would be the incentive and the stability to use and develop the alternate sources of energy, other than ethanol, which I am strongly opposed to. But no one wants to touch that. You don't even mention it. I tried it in a highway bill. I wanted to raise it $0.05 a gallon and, my God, the world came to an end. Now we have the question on diesel fuel, which is actually a different program. I can't see why we can't--because diesel plays a major role in delivering products through the trucks and the locomotives to our consumers--why we can't set up a different strata. If we don't want to raise diesel fuel taxes, then raise it on gasoline. So people would have the knowledge that, yes, it is not going to go down--and, by the way, I don't think it will because we have built no refineries--and we are still dependent. And we just watched what happened in Nigeria yesterday, and it put up the price of oil $3.00 because we don't have any reserve, Mr. Chairman. We don't have the refinery capability and supply is not there, and what has occurred is we are really in shortage of storage and shortage of reserves now, and foreign countries are consuming what we do not have availability to. That is our problem. We can talk about the environment all you want. I know Mr. Slocum is down there. If you want to solve the environment, back a tax for $1.00 a gallon so people will stop driving like a bunch of idiots, which they are doing right now. Did anybody watch anybody drive here today when you came to work? They are driving cars 100 miles an hour. I drive 60 miles an hour and they pass me like I am standing, and they honk the horn at me and wondering why they are spending fuel. Yet, they are complaining about $4.00 gasoline. I worry about the truckers. I worry about those that deliver product to consumers. But I am not worried about the general public when it comes down to how they misuse the fossil fuels we have left. So we have a lot of oil in this Nation. We have not developed it. Not one development other than the Gulf of Mexico other than the Trans Alaska Pipeline. Approximately 36 million barrels of oil in ANWR can't be open. Chukchi Sea, $2.6 billion we bid on that last week, the oil industry did. I don't know whether they are going to be able to develop it or not. Beaufort Sea, Lucian Chain, off the Coast of California, off the coast of Florida, off the coast of North Carolina, coast of Virginia, all oil. Rocky Mountains. We just haven't done it. So we have a choice, Mr. Chairman, and this hearing and everybody else need to understand it, and this Congress, to get off the duff and either do something or quit pandering to the general public and look for a real solution. It is easy to blame the major oil companies. Absolutely, let's blame them. Let's tax them. But when you do that, you are not going to hurt Exxon, you are not going to hurt BP, you are not going to hurt Shell. You are going to hurt the domestic production. Those are international companies. And then we do not have any production in this Nation. So, Mr. Chairman, I think these hearings are good. I don't have any questions. I like to make statements on this type of matter because I have been doing it for years. We have got to start doing something instead of talking. We have to start doing something with result. And I will promote a tax so the general public will slow down, will change their driving habits, will have a different vehicle, and we will save fuel. I am not for trucks for doing that because they are delivering the products we consume. We did this in World War II. If you go back to the history, we had a 35 mile an hour speed limit. I am not advocating that; my God, everybody gum and glue it. We did have gas ration. I am not advocating that. But we also had preferential use of fossil fuels. The farmer had use of fossil fuels at a more reasonable rate and no rationing, because he was producing food for the war effort. Maybe we ought to look at that. Maybe we ought to give a break to the truckers and the locomotives and the people that are delivering products. Maybe we ought to do that. But we better do something instead of just talking. I have been in this business long enough to watch nothing happen in this Congress when it comes to fossil fuels that we are dependent upon the foreign countries today. China is consuming more barrels of oil today than we are. Not per capita, per day. And they are going to triple that in the next two years. So the sellers, they don't have to sell it to us anymore; they sell it to another country with a heartbeat. So we have got to start developing our own sources. And it is here, we have the Btus. I haven't even talked about coal, because under this Speaker we can't talk about coal because we contaminate the air; in the meantime, we all can break ourselves economically in this Country. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope everybody just starts thinking about the solutions. Solutions, I have them: raise a tax on a gas so the public starts being aware it is going to be high for the rest of the time and the rest of their lives, and they will drive differently and have a different automobile; make an exemption for trucks and locomotives and ships that deliver products to and from this Nation to the consumer; instigate an idea that maybe there is a better way than ethanol, which is the dumbest thing we ever did when you think about it--a food for a fuel, when we have starving people in this Country and in this world? So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing and thank you for putting up with me and thank you for recognizing me. I yield back the balance. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the former Chairman for his provocative statement. Mr. Baird. Mr. Baird. I thank the Chair. I actually thank the former Chair as well. He didn't give you a chance to answer his statement, but I would like to. I think he raises some pretty good points, both about the issue of what the impact of a gas tax might be and also about the idea of distinguishing between the delivery and cargo sector of our economy versus the personal vehicle sector. And the reason I am interested in that is because passenger vehicle use has options: you can carpool, you can take buses; not always, but many options. But it seems to me the delivery sector, the cargo sector doesn't. So take a few minutes and respond, if you would, to Mr. Young's provocative thoughts and share your thoughts on that, if you would. Mr. Slocum. Sure, please. I will start. First, they were indeed very important comments, and in response to opening up new areas of domestic production, which a number of Members have raised today, well, Congress did just that in December of 2006. Congress voted to open up 8.3 million acres of new development in the Gulf of Mexico, and the markets responded by sending the price of crude oil skywards. So increasing domestic levels of production when there is no shortage of crude oil is not a solution to energy independence or to lower prices. Consumers are doing their part. I believe that motorists are not gluttons for punishment; they have reduced demand by over a percent, which is fairly remarkable in an economy our size and a population of over 300 million people. Mr. Baird. Talk a little less on the production side and more about the impact of the $1.00 a gallon gas tax in terms of anticipated impact on consumption and also the differential notion that I think is intriguing between taxing gasoline versus diesel. Mr. Slocum. First of all, Public Citizen opposes efforts to temporarily repeal the Federal gas tax. We do not believe that a Federal gas tax, which has remained the same since the mid- 1990s, at 18.4 cents a gallon and 24.4 cents a gallon for diesel, is a culprit behind high prices. Right now, those represent---- Mr. Baird. I will stipulate to that. Go ahead with his proposal. Mr. Slocum. Well, I agree with the sentiment of what the Congressman is saying, that an increased gas tax may result in less demand. The problem, from Public Citizen's point of view, is the punitive action that that has. We have already seen people with rising crude and gasoline prices pay what essentially amounts to a tax, and I believe that our President---- Mr. Baird. I am going to ask Mr. Todd and Mr. Felmy to comment on this. Mr. Todd. In general, I think that we have typically tried to do a policy here in the United States which says we want to protect the environment, we want to increase supply, we want to have cheap gasoline. We want to do all these things that are kind of mutually exclusive. With that being said, I think that a higher gasoline tax in order to destroy demand is probably a--it is tough to get through here in Washington, but it is probably not a bad policy. Mr. Baird. What about this differential between gasoline tax versus diesel tax to spare the cargo transportation sector from the personal vehicle use? Mr. Todd. We haven't looked at it and I would have a tough time commenting on it. Certainly, in Europe, they have favored diesel versus gasoline, which is why they drive diesels; and we have favored gasoline, which is why we drive gasoline cars. So it would seem like---- Mr. Baird. I am not---- Mr. Todd.--but you would have to have a corresponding increase certainly in diesel production capacity to make it work; otherwise, you would artificially inflate diesel demand without---- Mr. Baird. That is a good point. I am not sure the distinction between the type of fuel versus--I think it is better to distinguish between the usage of the fuel. And if there is a manner in which you could--you know, I don't care if a truck delivering groceries is a diesel powered truck or a gas powered truck. That use, in my mind, should have preference, as Mr. Young seemed to suggest, over passenger vehicle because there is less flexibility. Mr. Felmy? Mr. Felmy. In general, we don't have a perspective on the level of taxation as it is used for road construction, things along that line. We do object to general taxation of that type that is used for overall goals such as deficit reduction and things like that. The differential in terms of diesel versus gasoline is fairly complex; there are a lot of things that you need to look into. Diesel car technology presents a tremendous opportunity going forward in terms of efficiency improvements with now the introduction of ultra low sulfur diesel. So one could see, if you were trying to move toward more efficiency, that would be one technique to do it. Mr. Baird. Mr. Slocum, one final question, which I actually can't resist. Was Ralph Nader the founder of Public Citizen? Mr. Slocum. Yes, he was, in 1971, and he ceased being president in 1980. So it has been a while. Mr. Baird. I will spare you my thoughts on the impact of Mr. Nader on the environment with the result of the election of 2000. Mr. Slocum. I appreciate that. Mr. DeFazio. We now turn to Mrs. Capito. Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the panel, too. This is an extremely important issue and very complex, as we have heard. I have two questions. First, I represent the State of West Virginia. It has abundant resources of coal. Former Chairman Young alluded to coal, but there is technology there where coal can be liquified and used for diesel or for other fuels. They do it in South Africa, I believe, for almost all of their fuel. With the price of oil going up so excruciatingly high, the reason that we don't have these coal liquification plants, among other reasons, is the absolute cost of them; and there is a lot of technology on carbon catcher aspect of this. Do you all have any comments on coal liquification as a way to ease the situation around the high price of diesel and gas in general? Mr. Slocum. Sure. Given the extremely high capital costs involved with these coal-to-liquid projects, and given some of the environmental concerns, it still is not competitive, even in an era of record-high crude oil prices. The coal-to-liquid industry has addressed that by entering into or proposing to enter into long-term purchase agreements with the Air Force. I would not see broader application other than in select segments of the economy, just because of the enormous costs involved, capital costs, for those projects. Mrs. Capito. Mr. Felmy? Mr. Felmy. I think the National Petroleum Council said very clearly that, going forward, we are going to need all forms of energy; we are going to need energy efficiency improvements; we are going to need alternatives; we are going to need renewables. Coal to liquids is one of that suite of things that we are going to need. Yes, it is high-cost right now, but technology improves. This is a demonstrated technology that has been around for a very long time. And if memory serves me, I think the Department of Energy has a forecast for coal to liquids somewhere around 700,000 barrels a day, going forward, by 2030. That is dependent, of course, on capital costs and so on, but it is one of the things we need to look at. Mrs. Capito. Thank you. Did you have a comment? Mr. Todd. I would agree with the fact that, in general, based on the comments that I have said on the challenges to increase oil supply sufficiently, to keep up with demand, we do need everything; we need coal, we need nuclear, we need biofuels, we need conservation, we need wind energy. We need the whole range of the spectrum. It is very difficult, from a cost perspective, with coal; it is difficult from an environmental perspective barring carbon sequestration and capture; and, in general, again, I think subsidies get very difficult, but the markets will allocate capital to those things which can be economically competitive and beneficial. Mrs. Capito. Right. That is what I would like to see. I would like to see this Congress and future Congresses take this technology, take this natural resource that we have abundantly in this Country and use it to help every single individual buying gas at the gas pump. And I particularly like the diversification aspect of coal to liquid. It is not going to solve everything, but it is going to be a small part, and can be a small part, of solution of the problem. So I appreciate all your comments and I will keep pushing for that. My second question is we have a lot of individual truckers and we have a big timbering industry; a lot of them are private contractors that really are on a needle's eye, really, balancing their budget. And I guess the most difficult thing for people right now, consumers at all levels, but particularly people who are making their living on transportation, is the total uncertainty of what you are going to wake up to the next day. And this is a difficult question, but what--can you prognosticate? Are we in the middle, are we at the bottom, are we at the top? You know, I really think that if we can get some certainty back into the market, some certainty back into stabilization of our prices, I think people would then begin to make some of the adjustments that we have talked about here today. So do you all have a comment on where are we on a scale? Are we on a run-up, a rundown? And I know it is hard to predict, but I would like to hear your comments on that. Thank you. Mr. Slocum. Well, I think Goldman Sachs answered that for us last night when they released a report saying that they were predicting $200 for a barrel of oil in a short period of time. So it is clear that the largest energy commodity trader on the planet is extremely bullish about where oil is going to go. So, unfortunately for the American economy and the American driver, we ain't seen nothing yet. I think prices are going to continue to escalate until we restore some transparency to these energy trading markets to clamp down on some of this harmful speculation that we have been experiencing. Mr. Todd. In general, I do the same thing that Arjun Murti at Goldman Sachs, who created that report this morning, I do the same thing and, in general, I wouldn't place too much weight in the forecast. We have been wrong before; we will be wrong again. The fact that Goldman Sachs says it doesn't mean oil is going to $200 a barrel. We do have a supply problem. We do need higher prices in order to--higher prices are, as we speak, rationing back demand, again, as we speak, which is good, and it is promoting alternative energies, which is also good. But, in general, where we are is going to depend to a large degree on international growth and where that goes. If we continue to see growing demand---- Mrs. Capito. So basically the uncertainty still exists. Mr. Todd. The uncertainty is---- Mrs. Capito. And will for a while. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. I would be happy to share the Goldman Sachs report with her. They have their own idea about where it is headed. Mr. Arcuri. Mr. Arcuri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here. You know, I was thinking while you were speaking. I remember one time they used to say that what was good for General Motors is good for America, and some people believed it; some people didn't. But I don't imagine anyone is ever saying what is good for ExxonMobil is good for America. And, you know, it troubles me that we sit here and I listen to you talk about supply problems, and then in the next breath they are talking about building new refineries, and it seems to me it is missing the real problem here or the real issue, and that is that the amount of oil is finite. Whether we are at peak oil now or whether we passed it a couple years ago or whether we are going to pass it in a couple years, it is going to be more and more expensive to get more oil out. And I guess the reason I said that at the beginning is my question is what are the oil companies doing to develop alternative energy? I mean, what we are trying to do is make it cheaper for us to get goods to/from where they are produced to where they are consumed, and that is what the cost of diesel is all about. So are they going to do anything? I mean, I know what they know how to do is drill for oil and refine it and pump it. Does Government have to do all of that? Do we have to be the ones that are giving subsidies to oil companies to promote it or is there any responsibility on the part of oil companies to develop alternative energy? Mr. Felmy. Congressman, the oil industry is first and foremost involved in keeping oil flowing 24/7, because that is what you are here asking us questions on. Mr. Arcuri. Well, is it energy or oil? What is it? Mr. Felmy. Well, first and foremost it is gasoline and diesel, because that is what everybody is talking about right now. But looking forward, the companies are major investors in emerging energy. Between 2000 and 2005 they invested $98 billion in total emerging energy, which included a host of new things, such as oil sands, oil shale, L&G, gas liquids, and so on. And then they also invested in non-hydrocarbons and in energy efficiency improvements. So they are looking forward, but it is a delicate, very challenging question to be where do you put your bets in the future and keeping fuel flowing. Mr. Arcuri. Well, I have been hearing that since the 1970s when I was in grammar school and we were talking about what are we going to do to lower the price of oil, what are we going to do to make America independent; and the oil companies continue to say the kind of things that I am hearing, unfortunately, today. Thirty years we have been hearing this and still there has been either no development or certainly that we haven't heard about yet because the oil companies are too busy pumping the oil that is out there. So at what point do they say we are more concerned with getting energy and keeping cars and diesel trucks moving, or are they just going to continue to pump oil and continue to watch the prices go up? Mr. Felmy. Well, they are continuing to invest heavily across the board in all types of projects. As I mentioned earlier, $175 billion, as documented by Oil & Gas Journal. They have a delicate challenge in terms of where do you make an investment so that, after all, you have a fair return to your shareholders. Mr. Arcuri. Well, but why do they keep investing in finite resources like coal and oil? Why are they not investing in other renewable sources of energy that are not finite? Mr. Felmy. I just pointed out they are investing in other non-finite energy sources, such as energy efficiency and non- hydrocarbons. So they are making those investments, but it is a difficult challenge when you have got to, first of all, satisfy your customers today and then look forward to the energy future. You also have to satisfy your owners, which are the millions of Americans who are retirees and other owners of the companies that you simply not---- Mr. Arcuri. But those are also the people that are paying a lot of money at the pump and they are also the people who are going to benefit from the developing of alternative energy in the future, which is actually going to drive up, probably, the cost of stock, effects on Mobil were to come up with alternative energy that isn't finite in its nature. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have nothing further. Mr. DeFazio. Ms. Fallin. Ms. Fallin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for joining us today to visit with us about a very important issue. I have just a couple of points I would like to make and then just ask your opinion about a couple of things. Congress, in past legislation, has voted on drilling in ANWR, in opening up Alaska and even some of the Gulf areas. In 1991, the Senate blocked it, and in 1995 President Clinton vetoed ANWR and drilling there, and then, as you have heard in testimony, we haven't had a new refinery in 25 years in the United States. And I also know from just talking to the people in the industry that it takes about 10 years to even go through the permitting process, the environmental rules and regulations, just to even talk about a refinery because it is so complicated to build one. But my question is if, in 1995, 1991, if we would have allowed more drilling--allowed drilling, I should say, in ANWR, and more off-coast drilling in the United States, what would have been the effect upon our supply and the cost of gasoline today if the United States policy had been different, and if we had had the refineries being built during that time period? Mr. Felmy. Well, I think if you look at the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act, which was passed in 1995, on the impact of production in the Gulf, it is truly stunning. They have gone from a very small estimate of resources to finding, I believe it is, something on the order of 10 billion barrels equivalent. That is added supply; it is an increasing share of the Gulf's production, and it is an important additional supply. If you look at the time lines for developing ANWR in terms of everything you would have to do to be able to go through the whole process of permitting, finding, and so on, we would probably be producing right now. How much is of course uncertain until you are actually producing, but the USGS estimates are for a mean estimate of 10 billion barrels, which, if you produced it over 30 years, would 1 million barrels a day. So those could be some substantial--first of all, they are substantial improvement in resources and could be additional. And in terms of refinery, we haven't built a new refinery, but we have expanded existing capacity. We may need more capacity going forward, and that is on the drawing boards right now according to the Department of Energy. Ms. Fallin. Would it have had an effect upon the price of gasoline today if we had those supplies online? Mr. Felmy. Well, I can't speculate about price because of antitrust law, but it is fundamental to an economist core existence that if you increase supply, all other things equal, it can help the market. Ms. Fallin. Okay. Mr. Todd, do you have a comment? Mr. Todd. I would agree that, in economic terms, the prices would probably be lower, but we have no idea how much lower they would be. Again, in general, I think it is good policy for us to, if we, as consumers, want to use oil, to produce as much as we can, just as we ask other countries to produce as much as they can. So, yes, we would probably be lower, but no idea how much. Ms. Fallin. Don't know for sure? Mr. Todd. And in terms of refining capacity, again, there seems to be a lot of discussion about how much refining capacity we are building. We are adding significant refining capacity and we have every year for probably the last 20 years. There is major investment going on as we speak, a major investment in Texas, a major one in Louisiana, adding additional capacity, adding additional capacity that is actually focused on producing as much diesel as possible. Again, that is where the higher margins are and that is where the capital is going. But, again, it is a global balance as well. Refineries are being built internationally. Refiners in general are not making any money right now, or very little money, so it is a delicate balance. When you look on an investment time frame that is 10 years down the road, as to if we ramp up ethanol production, if we all drive more fuel- efficient cars, if we do these things, what are the incentives for me to build a refinery now that is going to come online five years from now, when we might have an entirely different environment? Ms. Fallin. My time is about ran out, but let me ask you another question. Some Members of Congress have been advocating putting a windfall profits tax back in place. What would that do to the marketplace and supply and demand and the cost? Mr. Todd. It would lower supply. Ms. Fallin. And---- Mr. Todd. Higher taxes have never increased supply, so I have a very difficult time envisioning that it would do anything other than increase prices. Ms. Fallin. And if yo lower supply, what happens? Mr. Todd. Prices go up. Ms. Fallin. Okay. Sir? Mr. Felmy. I think it is instructive from the studies of the Congressional Research Service that we affirm that, that the windfall profits tax of the early 1980s led to reduced supply, increased imports, and that is not good for consumers. Ms. Fallin. So you are telling me that gasoline prices could go up even further? Mr. Felmy. Once again, I don't speculate on gasoline prices because of antitrust, but I see a tighter market. Ms. Fallin. Let me ask the economist. Mr. Todd. Yes. Ms. Fallin. Okay. Did you have something you wanted to say? Mr. Slocum. Yes, please. First, the primary decisions in the oil and gas industry affecting production is the market price of that underlying commodity. And unless you price a windfall profits tax at a punitive Swedish style rate, it is not going to discourage production as long as oil is over $100 a barrel. And the proposals that I have seen from Congress thus far are not punitive tax rates, they are tax rates that would reduce somewhat returns to shareholders, to the owners of publicly held companies. But, typically, economists do not believe that corporate income taxes are paid by end consumers; they are paid by the shareholders of the company in the form of slightly lower stock value or lower dividends, things like that. So I would disagree that enactment of a reasonable windfall profits tax would hamper domestic oil production. And getting back at some of the other questions you were asking, about whether or not bringing on new sources of production, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, would reduce prices, we have already seen that basic supply-demand fundamentals are not being followed in the crude oil markets. U.S. gasoline demand is down over a percent from a year ago, and that is significant because the United States is far and away the largest gasoline consumer on the planet, and the markets have responded by increasing the market price, which is exactly the inverse of what you would expect. So even if we were bringing on massive new supplies, as long as we have dysfunctional, non-transparent futures markets where prices are actually set, it will probably be irrelevant what is going on in supply and demand. Ms. Fallin. I appreciate your answer to that, but I think my question was more towards if we increase the U.S. supply-- since now we buy over 62 percent of our energy needs from foreign countries--what would that do to our own market and supply and the cost of gasoline. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for the question, and I think it was responsive. Mr. Braley. Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to comment that I certainly agree with your characterization of the former Chairman's testimony as provocative. There were things that he said that I agreed with; there were things he said that I found intriguing; and there were things that I blatantly disagreed with. And as a big fan of the TV show Ice Road Truckers, which is filmed in his State, and as a former trucker, I take a very serious interest in the topic we are here to discuss today. I got my driver's license on October 30th of 1974, right in the wake of the oil embargo and the aftermath, and there were a lot of things that happened that the oil and gas industry didn't have much to do with. One of the things we saw was we saw incredible change in innovation in the U.S. auto industry, which produced vehicles like the Chevy Vega, the Ford Pinto, the AMC Gremlin, and a host of other vehicles whose sole purpose was to try to get better fuel mileage and to preserve the precious resources that we had available in this Country. Setting aside for the moment some of the safety implications of those vehicles, one of the things we know is, if we look back through history, we can see various spurts of innovation to try to address things that affect both supply and demand in the marketplace we are talking about. For example, if you go back and look at some of the documentation from Renault, a French auto maker, in the early part of this century you will see that they were producing an internal combustion engine that was capable of getting 70 miles per gallon, almost 100 years ago. So one of the concerns I have on this Committee is that we are looking at this problem in a global viewpoint, not just a narrow focus viewpoint. And I want to start with you, Mr. Felmy, because you are an economist by training, is that correct? Mr. Felmy. Yes. Mr. Braley. And I think you would agree that one of the things economists have to do is have an understanding of history. Mr. Felmy. Yes. Mr. Braley. Because market trends and things economists study are based upon an assessment of how things evolve historically and how we can predict future economic trends based on things we have learned from the past. Is that a fair statement? Mr. Felmy. Yes.. Mr. Braley. One of the things that students of history know is that there was a little thing called the whiskey rebellion in this Country. Do you remember that? Mr. Felmy. I would say yes, barely. Mr. Braley. All right. Mr. Felmy. I couldn't give you any details on it, but I do remember the title of the history. Mr. Braley. One of the things that former Chairman Young was talking about was that his opinion that ethanol was an incredibly poor idea as part of this equation we are talking about. Do you remember him saying that? Mr. Felmy. Yes. Mr. Braley. Do you agree with that statement? Mr. Felmy. Well, the oil industry has been committed to adding more ethanol into the fuel supply. We were originally agreed to the renewable fuel standard, and the industry has a requirement this year of using 9 billion gallons, and the industry is working very hard to meet those requirements for ethanol. It is the law. Mr. Braley. Well, I brought up the whiskey rebellion for a very specific purpose, because the truth is we have been refining corn a lot longer in this Country than we have been refining petroleum, isn't that true? Mr. Felmy. Oh, absolutely. There is no question. Worldwide we have been refining ethanol without gasoline additives for a long time. Mr. Braley. And, in fact, frontier farmers, which caused the whiskey rebellion, were converting corn into grain alcohol and selling it because it was easier to transport it in that fashion than in a food commodity fashion. Mr. Felmy. No question. In fact, if history reminds me, I think Abraham Lincoln was involved in shipping whiskey across the rivers at that point, and I think it is also a case that Henry Ford, one of his original vehicles was designed to run on ethanol, if memory serves me. Mr. Braley. That is correct. Now, one of the things that has happened here in Washington lately is ethanol is being blamed for a lot of things. It is being blamed for the rise in rice prices worldwide; it is being blamed for the rise in food cost and in energy cost. One of the questions I have for you is do you like to eat corn? Mr. Felmy. Absolutely. It is one of my favorite vegetables. Mr. Braley. Good. Well, I had some great---- Mr. Felmy. I love it every summer. Mr. Braley. Do you understand, Mr. Felmy, that there is a big difference between the corn you buy in a store and the corn that is grown in cornfields in Iowa and Illinois and Indiana that is used to produce ethanol? Mr. Felmy. Having grown up in central Pennsylvania, I know the problems you have when you eat the wrong type. Mr. Braley. It is not a very tasty---- Mr. Felmy. It is not a pretty sight. Mr. Braley. Exactly right. Mr. Slocum, one of the things that we have been talking about here today is how supply and demand affect the actual price that people at the pump, especially as it relates to the trucking industry, and I would like you to comment on one of Mr. Felmy's earlier statements, where he said you either believe in conspiracy or markets, as explanation of what is happening right now in the oil market. One of the things that I have learned from studying history is that usually conspiracies develop in the absence of appropriate market regulation and intervention, and I would like you to comment on that as you see it relating to the problems that bring us here today. Mr. Slocum. Right. I don't know if I would use the word conspiracy to talk about some of the anti-competitive issues that Public Citizen believes exists in America's energy markets; it is more, as the Federal Trade Commission has termed them, profit maximization strategies. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are being conducted in a competitive fashion. But when you have got an industry like petroleum and oil and gas that is inelastic in its supply, and you have demand that is largely inelastic, and you have high levels of market concentration of producers and refiners, and you have got unregulated energy trade markets where the prices of these commodities are set, that opens the door very wide to collusive and other anti-competitive practices by the industry. And all Public Citizen is seeking is increased Government oversight over these important markets. It is bad policy, from our perspective, to allow energy markets that determine the prices we all pay in our economy and what we pay at the pump and to heat and cool our homes, to be set in an unregulated fashion. We are not talking about Hugo Chavez style intervention here in the marketplace; we are talking about basic Government oversight over critical commodities essential to the health of the U.S. economy. And when you approve the number of vertically integrated mergers in the U.S. petroleum industry that we have over the last decade, thereby reducing the level of effective competition in key industries like refining, I believe that you are setting the stage for profits and prices that would be much higher than if consumers had access to adequately competitive markets. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his questions. Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been an interesting discussion, and I hope I am not going to be redundant in some of my questions, but it has been pretty interesting, the dialogue that we have been exchanging between the Members and the panel. My concern is that as we talk about the demand and we talk about the supply and we talk about how we are going to do the markets and how we are going to generate the price, what concerns me is the vulnerability we find ourselves in, our economy in the United States, where we are using some 21 million barrels of oil a day and some 62 percent of that comes from someplace else. And I know we talked about subsidizing oil companies, and I don't think we do that; that is based on the research that we must find additional energy, and we are doing the same thing, I guess, in the other alternative fuels, be it wind or be it ethanol or whatever else we find out there. So I think we must look at it as a total picture, not just isolate one item against the other. I was impressed when my good friend from Louisiana really brought some calm and reality to the process by saying that we have got to get off of the oil glut or whatever we call ourselves today. So we must find an alternative energy solution, but we can't do it unless we have cooperation across the whole spectrum. We cannot reduce our demand for 13 million barrels of oil a day that we get from outside the continental United States, a lot of places that don't particularly like who we are and a lot of it is not stable, like the Nigerian problem we find ourselves in today. And everything that happens impacts the oil price, so the consumer has to deal with it. And I was just doing a little quick calculation, and maybe some of you guys have got a quicker pencil than mine, but at the price of oil of $120 a barrel, and we are using 13 million barrels coming from offshore, we are generating over half a trillion dollars worth of trade imbalance every year, which is a major concern as we deal with the price of the dollar and we are buying oil with the dollar and the Euro is being bought, which is now $1.57 or something compared to the dollar. So all of those factors injected in, we have got to become energy independent in the United States. We not only have to deal with lack of our own energy supply, but now we have got to compete in some kind of a monetary market that the dollar is pretty weak. So with that being said, Mr. Felmy, do you know whether we could convert those trucks from diesel to natural gas? Would that be a major cost to do that? Mr. Felmy. I would think that it would be a major cost. It is quite a bit of different combustive thing. I am not an engineer to give you any specifics, but it would strike me as being fairly high cost. And then the challenge in terms of natural gas is that we don't have a lot of excess natural gas. Our production has been relatively flat; we are relying more and more on imports, including liquified natural gas imports. So that would present some other challenges. Mr. Brown. Well, but you know, just like we do in our petroleum explorations, we have plenty of natural gas. I know off the coast of South Carolina. We are not talking about the beaches. We are talking about 50 miles, even 100 miles off the coast. There is a tremendous reserve of natural gas, but there again we are not dealing with that issue. We need to be proactive in trying to find alternative energy supplies. We have particular potential for nuclear power which we are using about 20 percent in the United States, 80 percent of France. We have a lot of catching up to do if we have the will to do it, and sometimes our energy policy is no and no is not the answer. Mr. Felmy. I think the National Petroleum Council clearly said exactly that, that we are going to need all forms of energy. We are going to need energy efficiency, and all too often things are taken off the table before you have a real opportunity. There is an excess of 600 trillion feet of natural gas that is estimated that you could produce, much of which is off limits. The Marcellus Gas Shale Play in my area of Pennsylvania is an exciting opportunity. There is a host of resources we could develop. Mr. Brown. Right. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for this exchange. Mr. DeFazio. I thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr. Space. Mr. Space. I yield, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan. We need to get on to the second panel, so I thank the witnesses for being with us. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. I will just ask one last question. I am just curious. We visited the refinery issue, and we heard that last year refineries were very profitable. This year, refineries are theoretically losing money. But I guess the question is if Exxon Mobil is a fairly major refinery, if they almost beat their quarterly record profit for the largest corporate quarterly profit in the history of the world, and they are losing money on refining, where does the money come from? Mr. Todd. From the oil and gas production side of the business. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. So, basically, if you are vertically integrated, maybe in certain years you can make the money over here with squeezed refinery capacity and the concentration in refining and, in other years, you are going to make the money over here in the production side. Vertical integration is a great thing that way, right? Mr. Todd. Yes. To a certain extent, it provides a type of natural hedge. Mr. DeFazio. Not to the particular source maybe. Mr. Todd. It provides a type of a natural hedge for a company, correct, but it doesn't always work out that way. In the late nineties, nobody was making very much money on anything, upstream or downstream. Mr. DeFazio. Right. Well, I doubt we are headed back to the nineties, particularly looking at Goldman Sachs, but I can agree with you. I hope they are wrong, but I am sure they did very well today because if they are going to put the report out today. I would love to see what their positions in the market were yesterday. I thank all the members of the panel for your forbearance. This went on longer than we expected, but we will go to the next panel. Thank you very much. I am going to take a one minute break. The next panel can get set up. [Recess.] Mr. DeFazio. All right. We are going to move on now to our second panel. I guess referring back to the first panel, when we talked about upstream-downstream, you folks are the downstream portion of this issue. You are getting to deal with the high prices. I am not certain we convinced anybody or illuminated too much, but I thought it would be useful just to have some discussion of some of the causes of high prices and some potential ways to address it. We are going to go now to panel two. We will go first to Ms. Suzanne Te Beau from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation. Ms. Te Beau. TESTIMONY OF SUZANNE M. TE BEAU, CHIEF COUNSEL FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; TODD SPENCER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OWNER- OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; MIKE CARD, PRESIDENT, COMBINED TRANSPORT; ROBERT A. VOLTMANN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES ASSOCIATION; AND WAYNE JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF LOGISTICS, AMERICAN GYPSUM COMPANY Ms. Te Beau. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan. I am the Chief Counsel for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and am here today on behalf of Administrator John Hill who was not able to attend. I have been asked to provide background on the agency's jurisdiction over interstate property brokers. For FMCSA's purposes, a broker is defined as a person other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier that sells, offers for sale, negotiates for or holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as selling, providing, or arranging for transportation by motor carrier for compensation. Generally, brokers are transportation intermediaries who procure the services of motor carriers to transport property. Historically, Federal oversight of brokers has been limited primarily to ensuring that brokers register for authority, provide evidence of financial responsibility, and designate process agents for service. Brokers arranging for transportation of property in interstate commerce were first regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1935. Brokers were required to obtain operating authority from the ICC and meet financial responsibility and other regulatory requirements. The ICC Termination Act of 1995 continued the registration requirement if the broker is fit, willing, and able to provide the service, comply with applicable regulations, and continued the financial responsibility requirement. The brokers must file evidence of financial responsibility such as a surety bond or trust fund agreement. However, ICCTA transferred oversight of these requirements to the Department of Transportation where they were delegated to the Federal Highway Administration. With the enactment of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which established FMCSA, oversight of this authority was then transferred to our agency. MCSIA, however, did not amend any of the broker statutory or regulatory requirements, but did reemphasize that the primary mission of FMCSA was safety. In 2005, Congress enacted SAFETEA-LU, which addressed broker requirements. Specifically Section 4142(c) of SAFETEA-LU continued the registration requirement for brokers of household goods. However, it amended the law to provide the Secretary discretion to continue to register brokers of non-household goods if the Secretary finds that such registration is needed for the protection of shippers. FMCSA believed it was in the best interest of shippers to continue registering all brokers. In August 2006, the Agency published a notice in the Federal Register finding that continued registration of non-household goods brokers is needed for the protection of shippers. As a result, property brokers remain subject to both registration and bond requirements. SAFETEA-LU added requirements specific to households goods brokers designed to better educate shippers who use the services of such brokers by requiring the distribution of key information regarding the moving transaction. The statute increased existing penalties or created new penalties for certain household goods broker infractions. In addition to these statutory requirements, property brokers are subject to a number of regulations found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations primarily found in Parts 371 and 387 contain record-keeping and accounting requirements and prohibit misrepresentation and rebating, impose broker financial responsibility requirements, require brokers to preserve records, and establish procedures for designating process agents. Under the Household Goods Consumer Protection Regulations, a broker of household goods is prohibited from providing an estimate before it has an agreement in place with a carrier evidencing that the carrier has adopted the broker's estimate. To implement Section 4212 of SAFETEA-LU and provide additional protections to individual household goods shippers, in February 2007, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing a separate sub-part of Part 371 regulations applicable only to household goods brokers. The NPRM proposes to raise the minimum surety bond or trust fund for household goods brokers to $25,000. We anticipate publishing of this final rule in 2009. In order to obtain authority to operate as a broker, applicants must register and be granted operating authority. A prospective broker is required to file an application to request authority to become a broker. Upon completion of the filing, as is the case with motor carrier applicants, notice of the application is published in the FMCSA Register and there is a 10-day period to allow for protests. Before broker authority is issued, the applicant must also file evidence of a surety bond or trust fund to meet the financial responsibility requirements and a form designating its process agents. The purpose of the surety bond or trust fund agreement is to ensure that the transportation the broker arranges is provided. In other words, it is designed to protect shippers who pay brokers who do not meet their obligation to arrange for transportation service or to pay the motor carrier who does not receive payment. As to enforcement, FMCSA's oversight efforts are integrated with other aspects of the agency's enforcement program. Following a grant of authority, FMCSA monitors the status of the brokers' surety bond or trust fund agreement through its licensing and insurance data system, which is also accessible to law enforcement and the general public from the FMCSA web site. As with other areas of commercial regulations, FMCSA field investigations are complaint-driven. Many of the complaints we receive regarding brokers are outside the scope of our jurisdiction. These types of complaints usually concern contractual disputes for which a private right of action is available to the complainants. When we receive complaints that do fall within the scope of our authority, we generally respond with a field investigation. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my brief summary of FMCSA's statutory and regulatory authority over interstate property brokers. I would be pleased to answer any questions. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Ms. Te Beau. We would now turn to our next witness. I want to make sure_ they gave me a different order here_I have the order right, yes. It would be Mr. Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. Mr. Spencer. Mr. Spencer. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am very pleased to be here to testify today on this extremely important issue to small business trucking and the nation. As you know, the trucking industry plays a vital role in our Nation's economic well-being. Small businesses comprise a vast majority of this industry in the United States. Approximately 96 percent of motor carriers have fleets of 20 or fewer trucks and 87 percent operate just 6 or fewer trucks. This is very much a small business industry, and the cost of fuel is very often the largest operating expense with which small business truckers must contend. For them, fuel costs can easily be 50 percent or more of their total operating expenses. To say the least, small business truckers are severely impacted by current prices at the pump. They are experiencing unprecedented operating cost increases and are being forced to make tough decisions in the name of saving their businesses and providing for their families. Thousands have parked their trucks or gone out of business in the past year alone. Without the services small business truckers provide the price of goods will dramatically increase and undoubtedly add to our Nation's economic woes. That is precisely what happened prior to the last recession in the year 2000 when more than 250,000 trucks were repossessed due to business failures. A recent report estimated that 935 American trucking companies went out of business in the first quarter of this year. The report estimates those businesses operated approximately 42,000 trucks and accounted for roughly 2.1 percent of the Nation's over-the-road heavy-duty truck capacity. While this data was shocking, it wasn't even the complete picture since this data doesn't include the numbers for those with five or fewer trucks that also failed. Every day at our headquarters in Missouri, we hear from truckers who have recently lost their businesses, and the overwhelming majority cite the inability to recoup increased fuel costs as a primary contributing factor to their failures. This morning, the AAA calculated the national average retail price of diesel at an astonishing $4.24 per gallon which is actually down a penny from its historic high just last week. That is more than $1.30 higher than last year at this time. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy predicts that diesel prices will continue to rise. To put this into perspective, each time the price of fuel increases by 5 cents, a trucker's annual costs increase by roughly $1,000. This is an enormous burden on the small business trucker whose average annual income is around $38,000. Throughout the history of the trucking industry, the only viable marketplace solution to erratic and rising fuel prices has been the application of a fuel surcharge. With diesel prices consistently going up, shippers are paying more now in fuel surcharges to get their freight moved than ever before. But due to the dynamics of the industry and the lack of regulatory oversight, middle men often hold all the cards and are able to exploit shippers as well as truckers particularly when it comes to surcharges. Most shippers do not realize that the surcharges they are paying aren't necessarily going through to the trucker who is paying for the fuel to move their freight. Collecting fuel surcharges and not passing them through to whoever is paying the associated fuel cost is simple fraud. It is a common practice in the trucking industry, and it has a devastating impact on small businesses. To hide their tracks, unscrupulous brokers and their representatives make outrageous claims about massive litigation and economic re-regulation whenever sunlight gets close to being shown upon some of the trucking industry's normal practices and realities that have been created. Unfortunately, FMCSA as the only Federal agency with jurisdiction over the registration and oversight of freight brokers does little, if anything, to rein in unscrupulous brokers or their activities. FMCSA seldom responds to complaints about brokers and, to my knowledge, never takes any action against them. Small businesses are truly the backbone of our Nation's economy. Their economic health is necessary if a stable trucking industry is to be available in good times and in bad to move freight across the Country. If we do not find ways to help them soon, I have no doubt that we will see greater disruptions in the movement of our Nation's commerce and a further worsening of our Nation's economy. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views today. I will be happy to answer questions. Mr. Duncan. I asked the Chairman if I could get one quick clarification. You said 935 companies went out of business in the first quarter and 87 percent of the companies had 6 or fewer trucks, but the 935 did not count the companies that had 5 or fewer trucks. So there could have been hundreds of more? Mr. Spencer. I am confident there were. You know the other figure. The actual numbers between 2000 and 2002 when we saw the last run-up in fuel prices were that a quarter of a million trucks actually ended up being repossessed. I mean that is how many that went back on the market. The economics of that and the economics overall is what precipitated the recession then. Mr. Duncan. Well, I didn't want to go into that. Mr. Spencer. Sure. Mr. Duncan. Those are shocking figures. I wanted to make sure I had it straight. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his clarification. We would now turn to the next witness. Mr. Mike Card, President, Combined Transport, Central Point, Oregon, welcome. We appreciate your being here today and the long trip. I know how long it is. Mr. Card. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Mike Card. I am the President of Combined Transport, a family owned and operated trucking company located in Central Point, Oregon. Today, I appear before you not just for my company but also the American Trucking Association who has 37,000 members, trucking companies and affiliates. Each year, the trucking industry consumes over 39 billion gallons of diesel fuel. This means that a 1 cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses. Today, it costs me approximately $1,200 to fill one truck. The dramatic increase in the price of diesel combined with the downturn in the economy jeopardizes the survival of many trucking companies. In the first quarter, as was just mentioned, over 1,000 trucking companies failed, and this was the largest number since 2001. My family built and grew Combined Transport over the past 30 years, and today we operate more than 400 trucks and employ over 500 individuals. My company purchases approximately 25,000 gallons of diesel fuel daily, and this recent escalation in the price of fuel costs me an additional $4 million a year. It is harmful to my company, the trucking industry and the U.S. economy. I am a specialized carrier. We haul specialized commodities, building materials, heavy equipment, windmill towers, transformers. Thirty-five percent of my miles that my fleet travels are empty miles. We are not hauling a load. We are returning empty, and I do not have a customer to pay for the fuel on those miles or my costs. While this is often built into the rates we charge, the rapid escalation in the price of diesel fuel has turned profitable contracts that I negotiated in October to unprofitable obligations in May because I don't have enough money built in for my costs. Against this backdrop, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss actions that Congress can take to help address the soaring price of diesel fuel. So there are three initiatives that I would like to discuss that will help reduce the trucking industry's consumption of diesel fuel. First is auxiliary power units, APUs, which will reduce idling; the second is speed limits; and the third is the EPA's SmartWay program. The first issue, idle reduction, is a very important part because our drivers live in the trucks when they are away from home. They don't idle because they want to. They idle out of necessity, and the idling is necessary to maintain the sleeper compartment's comfortable temperatures and other uses. APUs can save up to one gallon of fuel per hour and substantially reduce emissions and greenhouse gases. There are three major barriers that stand in the way of trucking companies purchasing APUs for their daily use. First is the actual cost of the devices themselves. They cost about $10,000. It is really unaffordable today to put that much money out for every truck when the economy is tough. There is also the weight problem that we have. These units weigh about 400 pounds, and it takes away from our cargo carrying capacity. Congress passed an exception to the additional weight, but not all States have taken that exception, and there is only about seven of them that have. Finally, there is a 12 percent Federal excise tax on purchasing APUs. It shouldn't be there. It shouldn't be part of the transportation usage for idling. The other big thing that we should do is we should control speed. Congressman Young mentioned the embargo problems we had in the seventies. We reduced the speed limit to 55 miles an hour back then. We think that we need to reduce speed to 65 miles an hour for all vehicles because there is a direct correlation to speed and fuel use. For example, a truck traveling at 65 miles an hour can achieve about 6 miles per gallon. A truck traveling at 75 miles per hour only achieves 5 miles a gallon. So, in addition to the fuel conservation benefits, we are confident that this measure will reduce truck-related accidents on our Nation's highways as well. The third issue is the EPA's SmartWay program. EPA's SmartWay program of which my company is an authorized member is a voluntary program patterned after the highly successful Energy Star program. It encourages trucking companies to improve their fuel efficiency by creating market-based incentives to reduce fuel consumption through the use of super single tires, better aerodynamics, APUs and other technologies. It looks like Congress might be trying to cut the cost of that program. We think that is an important program. So, even though I am not here to physically shake up Congress, like Congressman Mica mentioned, I am here to ask for help. Thank you for allowing me to come before you and thank you. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Card. We would now turn to Mr. Robert Voltmann, President and CEO, Transportation Intermediaries Association. Mr. Voltmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. TIA is the professional organization of the $162 billion U.S. third party logistics industry. All TIA members adhere to the only mandatory code of ethics in the transportation industry. Transportation intermediaries 3PLs act as travel agents for freight. They serve tens of thousands of shippers and carriers, bringing together the transportation needs of those shippers with the corresponding capacity and special equipment offered by motor, rail, air and ocean carriers. ThreePLs get to know the shipper's business and tailor a package of transportation services to meet those needs. ThreePLs have two customers in every transaction: For their shipper customer, the 3PL brings expertise, significant and sophisticated software resources, relationships with thousands of carriers, insurance coverage, claims management, carrier screening and carrier payments. For their carrier customers, 3PLs bring equilibrium to equipment imbalances, provide small carriers with access to big shippers, provide carriers with an active sales force in every market, manage the relationship with the shipper and even assume the shipper's credit risk for the carrier. It is a total fabrication to state that 3PLs are profiting from fuel surcharges. In truth, due to the dynamic nature of the 3PL carrier contracts and the more static nature of the 3PL shipper contracts, 3PLs are paying trucking companies more money when fuel spikes occur than the fuel surcharges they actually receive from shippers. As fuel costs increase, 3PLs have to pay more or the carrier will not haul the load. TIA members report that their profit margins have declined 10 percent since early 2007 versus 2008 because of the rising fuel costs and weak economy. This is the direct result of 3PLs paying their carriers more for fuel than the 3PLs receive from the shipper. The trucker alone decides how much money they need to profitably handle a specific shipment on a specific day, and they are never forced to take a shipment. Regulation is not necessary. As I stated earlier and is detailed in our written submission, shippers and 3PLs are paying fuel surcharges to carriers, sometimes at a loss to the 3PL. All carriers are free to accept or reject any load. If the shippers and 3PLs were not paying fuel surcharges the carriers wouldn't take the freight. We believe that the Truck Act will essentially return the industry to tariffs and, if enacted, every broker, forwarder and carrier would have to detail their income on every load. In no other American business has Congress so repudiated deregulation and private enterprise. Disclosure requirements would return the industry to the nightmare of lawsuits not seen since the undercharge crisis of the 1990s. If enacted, we believe that the Truck Act would also give shippers and 3PLs a strong incentive to avoid disclosure of their margins and the exposure to lawsuits under the Act by avoiding altogether the use of carriers that utilize owner- operators, and such a result would have a devastating effect on the very people this proposal is supposed to help. Mr. Chairman, the members of TIA urge this Committee to maintain a free and open market in transportation. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Now, we would turn to the last witness, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. I am Wayne Johnson, Director of Logistics for the American Gypsum Company in Dallas, Texas. I am representing today, though, the National Industrial Transportation League with more than 600 members that ship their products by all modes of transportation including motor carriers. I am also the Chairman of the League's Highway Transportation Committee. League members are well aware that diesel fuel prices have increased significantly. According to the EIA, the national average diesel price of fuel this last week was $4.14 a gallon, an increase of $1.33 since a year ago and more 62 cents in the last two months. Obviously, this rapid increase represents a challenge to all sectors of the freight transportation community. Fortunately, the transportation industry has the tools to meet this challenge. Over 25 years ago, Congress deregulated the motor carrier industry in order to free the industry from outdated, unnecessary government regulations. That policy has been a spectacular success and has resulted in a strong, innovative, efficient and highly responsive motor carrier industry. The system depends upon a complex set of individually negotiated, market-driven confidential contracts. This system is flexible, efficient and, because these agreements are negotiated in a highly competitive and dynamic environment, these agreements are extremely responsive to changes in market conditions, including the price of fuel. For years, the shippers have created fuel surcharge programs within their confidential agreements with their carriers. They reflect the differing conditions under which each shipper operates. Some shippers have a specific fuel surcharge provision in their agreements often based on national indexes. Others prefer to roll changes in fuel prices into the rate so that they pay a flat rate for all inclusive charges. Thus, there is no right answer to the question of what a fuel surcharge should be or even whether a separate fuel charge should be included in a confidential motor transportation agreement. For many shippers, fuel costs are the responsibility of the trucking company. It is protected by the fuel surcharge mechanism which it negotiates with its shippers. In other cases, the trucking company employs the services of an independent operator which typically is responsible for the cost of fuel. The independent operator has the same opportunity and responsibility to negotiate fair compensation from the trucking companies with which they do business as trucking companies have when they enter into agreements with shippers. This is a competitive system. Shippers, brokers, carriers can enter into and exit this market freely, participating on terms that they can negotiate in light of market conditions. Competition is made possible by the fact that these agreements are confidential and no party is forced to disclose its economic interest to the other. Legislation has been introduced, S. 2910 and H.R. 5934, that would require a motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder to provide to a person who bears the cost of fuel a payment in the amount equal to the charges invoiced which relate to the cost of fuel. That person would also have to provide a written list that specifically identifies any freight charge, broker's fee or commission, fuel surcharge or adjustment or other charges. Finally, the proposed legislation would forbid a person to cause a motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder to present false or misleading information in an oral representation about a rate, charge, or allowance. The League strongly opposes this proposed legislation. This bill would substantially undermine the current competitive system by forcing one party to reveal to the other its confidential business information. This would be an unprecedented, unnecessary, unwarranted intrusion into the workings of a competitive market and would likely harm competition. The proposed legislation would also be likely to spawn substantial litigation as one party tries to prove whether another caused false or misleading information in an oral representation. This type of ``he said, she said'' litigation would be almost impossible to resolve and would do nothing more than provide a windfall to the litigation bar. At bottom, this proposed legislation would undo the highly successful competitive market that the Congress has successfully created in the motor carrier industry. In sum, the League is strongly opposed to these two bills and believes that the current system of confidential contracts appropriately provides for the needs of all sectors of the transportation marketplace. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. We are going to try. The Republicans are in a bad mood today, so we are having some procedural votes. We will see how far we can get with the first round of questions. To Ms. Te Beau, I just want to clarify the law a little bit here when it talks about parties. Each party to a broker transaction has the right to review the record of the transaction required to be kept by these rules. In the logistics journal of TIA, they have a statement that says nothing in the statute or regulation requires you to send the information. You only have to make them available, make the information available in your office during normal business hours. That is part of the question. They also say that if the carrier shares the information from the accounting, you may have an action against them, i.e., a carrier who employs independent truck drivers, the TIA is saying they may have an action against them. Then the third part of the question is what is a party, because if the independent trucker working for the carrier is a party, then I don't believe TIA would be accurate in their assertion. Could you address those? Ms. Te Beau. I can try, sir. With regard to the first part, I assume that you are referring to our regulations under Part 371 for the record- keeping requirements. Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Ms. Te Beau. With regard to whether they have the right to only come and see the information onsite, the regulations do not address that specifically. I would have to look at that. I do not think we have had any complaints specifically on that. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. There is nothing that would preclude a rulemaking that would say that they have to transmit the information as opposed to making someone travel to their place of business during those working hours in order to get information which they are lawfully entitled to. Ms. Te Beau. Are you asking if the regulations preclude an interpretation that way or preclude a regulation that way? Mr. DeFazio. Preclude a regulation, there is nothing that would preclude your enhancing the regulation. Ms. Te Beau. Not that I am aware of. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Then how about party? What is a party in the case that we refer to here? Ms. Te Beau. It is not defined under the regulation, but I would think that would be a party to the agreement that is made. So it would be, I guess, a broker and the motor carrier or, if it is an owner-operator contracting with the broker. Mr. DeFazio. So you are saying that if a carrier contracts with the broker and then I enter into an agreement with the carrier, I am not entitled to any transparency about the transaction between those two? Ms. Te Beau. I am saying our regulation says party, and you are asking the definition of a party. That is the way I am reading it on its face. Mr. DeFazio. Right. Okay. How about cause of action if a carrier is good enough to share its information? Since we are talking about market forces and free markets. I don't know how many people have read Adam Smith. I did. I had to struggle through it. You know he talks about the amount of information that has to be made available. In this case, we have total opacity. We determine the charges in a very complicated way to the shippers, and then we pay the carriers in a different way, particularly the independent carriers. My question is if a carrier shared that information, what would be the cause of action? Ms. Te Beau. I do not understand there to be a cause of action. I am not clear what the cause of action would be. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Well, because they were so concerned about lawsuits, I was just concerned about them filing lawsuits against people who actually obtain market information. I was just kind of curious about that. Mr. Spencer, you look like you want to say something there. Mr. Spencer. I just find it really, really curious that the organization that says all of their members have a mandatory code of ethics and their memos that they send out to their members are basically an instruction on how to circumvent what has been the law since the 1960s. This is current law, and this is how we circumvent it because, for God's sake, we don't want to comply because this might screw up a free market. Mr. DeFazio. To Mr. Voltmann, I guess I question what is the problem with transparency? Did you ever read Adam Smith? Do you understand how markets are supposed to work? People are supposed to have some information. Mr. Voltmann. I do understand Adam Smith. In a transparent and free market, transparency comes not from privity of contract but from public information. There are 20,000 licensed property brokers in the United States. The largest single company in the United States represents less than 5 percent of the market. It is the most diverse industry, I think, you can find in the United States. The privity of contract--and the ICC never challenged this--these are regulations that go back, as Mr. Spencer said, to the 1960s. We don't believe that it does anyone any good to know what the broker has negotiated its margin with the shipper. Mr. DeFazio. Doesn't that create a more competitive market? I mean suddenly people say: Gee, it is all on the internet. I can figure out. Gee, I see what they paid. I am going to try to negotiate a better deal over here. Gee, I see what they paid. I know now, gee, I can maybe raise my price a little as an independent trucker who is going broke and can't afford the fuel on the run that they have been assigned. They are told, oh, they can choose. They can pick and choose. They have to pay for the truck. They have to keep moving. Wouldn't everybody benefit? Wouldn't this be great to have a totally transparent market so both the truckers could be more competitive and the shippers could be more competitive and the brokers could be more competitive? Mr. Voltmann. Again, Mr. Chairman, transparency in a free market comes from public information. Mr. DeFazio. Right, and this could be posted on the internet. It could be public. Mr. Voltmann. It is posted. It is public, what rates are being offered by brokers, what rates are being sought by carriers on publicly open exchange boards, hundreds of thousands of loads and transactions. This is a very crazy and diverse market without any equilibrium. Mr. DeFazio. But how are the charges established? Mr. Voltmann. The charges are out there, what people actually pay. Mr. DeFazio. Established, how they are established, including the fuel charges, that sort of thing? Mr. Voltmann. It really depends on what the carrier asks for. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. So then what is the reference in the TIA newsletter to cause of action if a carrier shares the information from the accounting? What is that about? Mr. Voltmann. We believe that the regulations provide for that carrier to see an accounting on its load but not to share privity of contract or in violation. Mr. DeFazio. The load isn't actually up on the internet? People don't actually see what is paid for the load? It is a confidential contract? Mr. Voltmann. It is confidential. Mr. DeFazio. So there is all this stuff up there, but it is not what was really paid for particular loads. Mr. Voltmann. There are. Mr. DeFazio. How do we establish that baseline? How do you know? Mr. Voltmann. In a competitive market, Mr. Chairman, it is established, one, by the market and, two, by companies and organizations that track pricing and post average price per load, average loads available in a particular market. Mr. DeFazio. So, basically, you are just saying that the independent truck drivers are just not conversant enough with the internet and they should have laptops in the cab and be tracking all this stuff. Mr. Spencer, can you comment on that? Mr. Spencer. Well, certainly that would be ideal, but still we haven't got to the disclosure that really is the core of the issue. I actually brought an example that is illustrative of how unbalanced the field is and how the lack of information can really get exploited to the Nth Degree, and it shows off the difference where the parties are, the disparity of the difference in the parties. I notice in the comments regarding how well brokers are doing that the economic end result has been their margins have been squeezed a little bit. In my comments, it was in essence there were roughly 1,000 trucking companies with 45 or more trucks that went out of business. I mean this is real. This is a real economic squeeze. Getting to the core of the question here, one specific example where a shipper paid $1,425 to have their goods moved. In addition to that, they paid $342 in a fuel surcharge for that, assuming that that surcharge was going to the person who paid for the fuel, that actually expended for the fuel. The trucker that moved the load got 600 bucks. That was an all inclusive rate, 600 bucks, which basically means the broker didn't spend a dime on fuel, took the $1,767 total, paid $600. They netted $1,167. Our trucker grossed $600 and had all of the expenses out of that. So it is not a surprise to me why these folks aren't having their margins squeezed; they are going out of business. That will continue to happen until there is a disclosure that is an actual practice, not just simply required in the laws from the sixties and hopefully required again when Congress is done. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. I hate to do this because we have been here a long time today already. Mr. Duncan, Ms. Hirono, I am not quite done, and we do have these three votes. They should go relatively quickly. The first one is a motion to adjourn, and then I don't know what the second is. Then the third vote is actually substantive. But it should all be done, hopefully, unless they have other procedural votes. Well, within five minutes of the last vote, I will be back here and would urge other Members to be back here. I can't quite predict when that will be. Hopefully, just to give everybody a little break, let's say five after 1:00. That way, you can go grab a soda or something like that. Thank you. I thank you for your forbearance. [Recess.] Mr. DeFazio. We will come back to order. We are kind of between votes here, and they are going to swear in a new Member, et cetera. So we are going to try and at least move through my part of the questions. When Mr. Duncan is able to return--Ms. Hirono and Mr. Michaud said they have questions--we will be able to get you out of here. Again, I regret this is not an efficient institution here. I guess I would like to ask for the shipper witness, Mr. Johnson, we heard a good deal from Mr. Voltmann about how everything has been. Can shippers go online and see how much other shippers are paying to move their product? Mr. Johnson. No, we cannot. Mr. DeFazio. No. Okay. Mr. Johnson. You cannot. You don't know exactly what they are paying, no. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Then as a shipper, would it disturb you that a part of the rate that is being charged includes, as we heard from Mr. Spencer, a significant fuel surcharge? Would shippers feel concerned that they are paying a higher rate ostensibly to defray the high cost of fuel, but that isn't being passed through? Mr. Johnson. No. Mr. DeFazio. That wouldn't concern shippers? Mr. Johnson. We are just interested in the competitive rates that we need at the time. As long as we feel the rate is competitive, that is what we are looking for depending on the circumstances. Mr. DeFazio. Right, competitive, but you don't know what other people are paying, and you don't know whether the fuel surcharge is an excuse to charge you a higher rate or whether it is actually being passed through to the carrier. But that doesn't matter? Just competitive means you set a price that you think you can pay and you try and find someone? Mr. Johnson. The circumstance of the shipment will determine what price we need to pay for that shipment. It may change from day to day. Mr. DeFazio. Now, Mr. Spencer, that information you gave to us, how did that particular trucker get that information? Mr. Spencer. He was able to get the information after the fact. The curious thing that I didn't mention about this load previously is this is a government shipment that he moved that, again, the disparity in what he received as opposed to what the broker collected. The characteristic of every government shipment is there will be a government bill of lading that will clearly list that information on there, that will also clearly list the fuel surcharge. I mean to not share that with the trucker is a conscious decision absolutely not to do it, but if you pursue, you can find it out after the fact. Mr. DeFazio. If you can what? Mr. Spencer. If you can pursue, many times you can find out what a government bill of lading was after the fact. Mr. DeFazio. So that is why this shipper was able to find out through the Freedom of Information Act or somehow what the government contracted for or is this a case where the independent trucker directly contracted with the broker and therefore was entitled? Of course, they aren't entitled to information on the other end, are they? They are never entitled to that information Mr. Spencer. Well, actually, the regulations, again the current regulations do say that this information is to be provided to any party to the transaction, any party. I think that is clear. They should have been entitled to that information, but they won't get that information from the broker because that is a regulation they don't comply with. With a government load, if you persist hard enough, you can generally find somebody that will give you the information, and I think that is what happened in this instance. Mr. DeFazio. So, party, once I asked Ms. Te Beau about party. Do you have an opinion on what a party is? If an independent trucker contracts with a carrier who has contracted with a broker, is the trucker a party or are they just excluded from any of it? Mr. Spencer. Oh, in my opinion, clearly they are a party. Actually, from a real perspective, they are the key party in that if they don't perform, if they don't deliver the goods, if they can't pay for the fuel, obviously no transportation service actually takes place. Mr. DeFazio. But we have heard they are free to reject loads, et cetera. I mean those arguments. Is there a reality out there? Mr. Spencer. The reality is you may very well be in a truck stop in Portland, Oregon, and you have been there for three days and various brokers post loads on load boards. Maybe they are calling you because they have your phone number, offering these various loads, and it is early. It is early in the week, and the loads are, for example, typical of the one that I mentioned. The load actually paid $1,767. They offered the trucker $600. As long as there is no urgency on the part of the broker to actually get this load covered, they have all the latitude in the world to actually shop this load downward. As the load gets later in the week, then the urgency may rise just a little bit. Well, we will give this guy another couple hundreds bucks to get the load moved. Now, bear in mind, the way this situation works not only disadvantages the trucker from an economic standpoint but also has impacts on other things as well. Here, we have a shipment that has a whole week to move, but it doesn't move until the very last minute because they haven't been able to find somebody to haul it cheap enough. Well, this impacts all kinds of other safety regulations that are directly related to how quickly a load can move. It affects speed limits. It affects hours of service compliance. These things, no matter what you may say, are always going to be intertwined. Economics impacts highway safety, and pressure impacts highway safety. To say that hey, look, we benefit greatly from this free market approach and that is the way it ought to be sort of ignores reality. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Voltmann, just sort of a housekeeping thing because I am a bit confused by your testimony, on page three, you say, the 3PL pays a carrier within hours of delivery even though the cargo shipper may take up to 30 days after delivery to pay the 3PL. That is because credit agencies are tracking and they track on days to pay, nonpayment complaints, et cetera. No one wants to have a negative credit rating. But then on page eight of your testimony, you say typically the carrier pays its fuel surcharges to the date the load is booked, say, $3.00 on April 1st. The load might actually move, however, on April 10th when fuel costs $3.25. The carrier will receive the money for that load on May 8th when he is paying $3.75 for the fuel. I had a little trouble. At the front there, we are saying they are paid within hours, and here that would seem to be several weeks. Mr. Voltmann. Mr. Chairman, it is a dynamic market. Mr. DeFazio. But I mean the original assertion is, say, overly global. Would you admit that they do not pay the carrier within hours because in some cases it is more than three weeks since you used that example? Mr. Voltmann. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. No? Okay. Mr. Voltmann. What I said was that the 3PL can pay the carrier within hours. They do pay. Mr. DeFazio. It says this is because the 3PL pays the carrier within hours. You left out, I guess, the word, can. I will add it right there, ``can'' pay the carrier within hours. Would that be correct? Mr. Voltmann. Yes. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. They can pay, but they can take up to a month or so. Mr. Voltmann. Right, and the average days of pay for shippers to brokers is about 65 days after the cargo is delivered. So the carrier is not waiting those 65 days for payment. They can receive within hours if that is what they want or within 30 days. Mr. DeFazio. Right. I just was puzzled at the contrast there. Mr. Voltmann. Okay. Mr. DeFazio. Now, you are talking about the tough times for the 3PLs and that some are losing money. It is kind of like the discussion we had with the fellow representing the Petroleum Institute where he talked about, well, if you look sales, their percentage on sales is down. Of course, Exxon Mobil just had the second largest quarterly profit in the history of the world, but you can say their profitability is down too. They didn't have the most profitable quarter in the history of the world. But you are saying the margin declined 10 percent during the first quarter compared to the first quarter of 2007: ``C.H. Robinson Worldwide, the largest 3PL in the United States, reported that its margin declined 10 percent during the first quarter compared to the first quarter of 2007. The reduction in margin is a direct result of their receiving less revenue from shippers while paying carriers more for fuel.'' I just would like to know how we are going to substantiate that because I do note that C.H. Robinson Worldwide's earnings per share was up by 19 percent, gross revenues were up by 22.6 percent, gross profits were up 13.8 percent, net income was up 18.3 percent, and gross margin was up 18.3 percent. So they are passing on all this fuel surcharge, and they are making more money. That is pretty good. Mr. Voltmann. Mr. Chairman, it is good. Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Mr. Voltmann. And it shows a dynamic, growing market. Mr. DeFazio. But are they passing on a fuel surcharge? We don't know that, do we? We can't know that. We are not allowed to know that. Mr. Voltmann. We do know that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. We do? How do we know it? Mr. Voltmann. C.H. Robinson is a publicly traded company. They have to report to the SEC. They have to report to the Wall Street analysts. Mr. DeFazio. So do they report what their fuel surcharge proceeds were and then the disbursements of that particular line item in their budget? Mr. Voltmann. They don't break it out as clearly as you are intimating. Mr. DeFazio. Right. Mr. Voltmann. What they have said in their reports and to the analysts is that fuel has decreased. The rising cost of fuel has decreased their margin because they are passing more on to the carrier than they are collecting from the shipper. Our other publicly traded companies have also reported similarly. Mr. DeFazio. Margins are down. Profits are up. Not bad, right? Mr. Voltmann. Margins are down, nor does this take into effect, Mr. Chairman, the thousands of small brokers that have gone out of business. Fifty percent of this industry, of the 20,000 companies that are in this industry, have revenues of under a million dollars gross. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Spencer or Mr. Card, you are in the business. How do you know that fuel surcharges are being passed on to your members? Mr. Spencer. Clearly, we have been inundated with comments from members about no, we are not getting any. We are only getting a portion of it, and this includes broker loads but also includes loads that come through motor carriers as well that do collect surcharges or presumably. I would think, clearly, it is something that brokers could easily report because they are required to capture that information, again by the current regulations. So is it a chronic problem? Darn right, it is, unless there is some regulation. Mr. DeFazio. How do you know? How do you know it is a chronic problem if these are proprietary agreements and the fuel surcharges are proprietary between the shippers and the brokers? Mr. Spencer. Well, you know I mentioned a while ago what would be a anecdotal example. Mr. DeFazio. Right, we have one. Until we have more transparency, we won't know for sure. Mr. Voltmann. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Mr. Voltmann. What the members are reporting to me is that 70 percent of carriers ask for an all-in rate per mile. They don't ask to have fuel broken out. If they did, the members would price it that way, but the carriers aren't asking for that. Mr. DeFazio. Fuel broken out doesn't mean the amount of money that the broker received for fuel. It just means we will break out what we are paying you for fuel. We aren't going to say to you how much we received for fuel. Mr. Voltmann. Well, Mr. Chairman, the way this market works is the broker buys freight from the shipper at a price he believes he can resell to a motor carrier and make money. It is not a real estate transaction. It is much more of a commodity transaction where the broker is deciding whether or not they can make money on the transaction. Mr. DeFazio. Right, but do shippers ask for all-in rates? Mr. Voltmann. Yes, they do. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Do they get them? Mr. Voltmann. Yes, they do. Mr. DeFazio. Whenever they ask for them? Mr. Voltmann. And so do the motor carriers when they ask for them, which is what I am telling you 70 percent of our members report. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Mr. Voltmann. Our members report that 70 percent of motor carriers only ask for a rate per mile. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. I received bad information. So I regret to inform the panel. They told me this would be a 15-minute vote, and it was a 5-minute vote, and I have 2 minutes and 20 seconds left to get there. I am trying to expedite things here as much as I can and I will urge other Members. I don't know what is happening now since we are off the program, but hopefully this will not take long. I will call the staff, and they can let you know. Thank you for your forbearance. [Recess.] Mr. DeFazio. Again, thank you for your forbearance. You are getting a little insight into how legislation is or is not made around here. Mr. Michaud, question? Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. It is very important when you look at the cost of diesel fuel and the cost of trucking all across this Country. So I appreciate your hearing this morning. I just have one question that is related to the cost of trucking and the use of diesel fuel, and my question will be for Mr. Spencer and Mr. Card, if you both could answer it. I would like to actually hear your thoughts on the current patchwork of truck weights all across the Country, with 100,000 pounds versus 80,000 pounds which relates to the cost of how much truckers can consume with diesel. So I would like each of you just to comment on the truck weight issue and the disparity across the Country. Mr. Card. Well, there is not only a disparity across the Country but across North America. There is a great new study out by the American Transportation Research Institute that talks about how more productive vehicles can really save fuel per pound of freight that is hauled. So we believe that even though the economy is slow now, as we get busy again or busier, the congestion problems that we have in this Country are going to get worse. We burn fuel sitting in traffic. It would be better to have a free flow of traffic. If we can haul larger, more productive vehicles safely, we should do it. Mr. Spencer. Our organization has always taken a position that no one is well served by a patchwork of varying State regulations on size and weight. We have always been adamant proponents of uniform sizes and uniform weights simply because to do anything different doesn't make economic sense. It works out to, quite often, a discriminatory economic move to small business because relatively only a handful of big carriers can set up for certain elements. We have also noticed the other curious element is that it is quite often not truckers that are even proponents of bigger and heavier. It is often the shipping community. Of course, I understand where they are coming from. They don't see any overriding sense of responsibility to address the highway safety issues that come along or, for that matter, the highway cost responsibility. If they think they can save a buck by moving more, they certainly will. This is an issue that begs for a broader discussion. I am certain it is going to get one as part of this highway bill. Mr. Michaud. Thank you. My next question is to Ms. Te Beau. In Maine, actually part of the interstate system has 80,000 pounds. The other part has 100,000 pounds. The Maine Department of Transportation did an analysis on safety issues to get the trucks off the secondary roads. I believe they came back and said you actually could help reduce the number of fatal accidents by as much as 10 percent by increasing the weight limit on the interstate. So my question to you is on the safety issue. Do you feel that the 100,000 pounds is an unsafe issue? Ms. Te Beau. First of all, FMCSA doesn't regulate the size and weight issues. I know that sounds a little strange. It is actually a Federal Highway Administration issue. Naturally, we are interested in safety interests and things that address that, but I am not in a position to provide an answer to your question. Mr. Michaud. So you never looked at the safety issue at all or have done any studies on that then? Ms. Te Beau. It would be the other administration that would have. Mr. Michaud. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Ms. Hirono. Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to get your position straight, Mr. Card, do you support H.R. 5934? Does your organization support that? Mr. Card. I don't know what H.R. 5934 is? Ms. Hirono. It is the one relating to making sure that truckers know how much the surcharge is. It is the one that Mr. Voltmann and Mr. Johnson do not support. If you haven't taken a position on it, that is okay. Mr. Card. I haven't taken a position on it. Ms. Hirono. Mr. Spencer, what about your organization? Mr. Spencer. Oh, clearly, we are supporters of the two key elements of that legislation. I think it is really important that we understand just how simple this is. One, it simply says if a shipper pays a fuel surcharge, if. It doesn't require them to or any particular amount, but if they do, it should go for its intended purpose to the trucker. The other element of that is simply transparency in the transaction which has been required since the sixties, just simply never been complied with. Obviously, it won't, left up to the market because it benefits the other not to comply. Ms. Hirono. Another question: This is an industry where, for example, the sum of the barriers to entry for trucking companies is far lower than for brokers, et cetera. There was some testimony--I believe it was from both Mr. Voltmann and Mr. Johnson--that indicated that this is an industry where the truckers should be able to negotiate their contracts. But this is for Mr. Card and Mr. Spencer. Since you both testified that the trucking side of the equation is made up of many small trucking companies, when you look at the negotiation power of the brokers vis-a-vis the truckers, I would say that there is an unequal negotiation power. Would you agree with that? Mr. Spencer. I clearly would agree with that and understand. I can't understand how it serves any other purpose. It doesn't serve the interest of the shipper. It certainly doesn't serve the interest of the consumer. It doesn't serve the interest of the trucker because he is discriminated against or disadvantaged by it. It simply serves the interest of the broker. Looking beyond this, we have heard the specter of litigation and lawsuits and things like that raised by this issue. I am fully aware right now that at least 40 LTL shippers are suing trucking companies over overcharging and over- collecting on fuel surcharges. I mean this appears to me that this is not a system that the market is handling very well at all. It is disadvantaging shippers. It is disadvantaging some big carriers. It is certainly shortchanging the small guys. So we ought to be looking into this issue and, again, transparency benefits everyone. Ms. Hirono. You would agree with the statement that for a lot of trucking companies, which are really smaller companies, their bargaining position vis-a-vis the brokers is really that they have limited ability to say to heck with you, I am not going to enter into a contract with you? Mr. Spencer. They don't really have any bargaining position. Ms. Hirono. I guess that is a loaded question, but you agree with that. Mr. Spencer. About like somebody at a payday loan shop has bargaining. Ms. Hirono. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Ms. Hirono. I just want to follow up on the issue which was just raised again about fuel surcharges. As Ms. Hirono, I believe, said or I think it was actually Mr. Spencer said if there is a surcharge, it would have to be passed on to the actual provider of the transportation service. Now, Mr. Voltmann says they are passing on the fuel surcharges, but we can't know that because it is proprietary. I guess my question would be if they are passing the fuel charges, how come 42,000 truckers or trucks? What was the total number of trucks? It was 42,000 larger than 5? Mr. Spencer. It was 985 motor carriers that operate in excess of 42,000 trucks. Now that is a number that can be documented, looking at government data. There would be additional numbers in that. Those in the fire below five, no one will know about those. Mr. DeFazio. So I haven't noticed that labor costs have gone up. I haven't noticed. I don't know what the other factors might be. Is this a larger than normal number for that time period? Mr. Spencer. Oh, certainly. These numbers actually parallel what we saw in 2000 when there were ultimately a quarter of a million large trucks repossessed. Mr. DeFazio. So, if all the fuel surcharges are being passed on, why would so many people be going broke? I guess, Mr. Voltmann, you would just say they are bad business people? Mr. Voltmann. No, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I have that slide if you will permit it to be put up: Trucking Failures to Fuel Price. Mr. DeFazio. Maybe the brokers aren't extracting enough out of the shippers, is that what you are saying, or there is resistance or they are not capable of getting a fuel charge that really reflects the market? Mr. Voltmann. Mr. Chairman, shippers negotiate in an open market. The shippers are negotiating a rate that they believe with which they can make money selling their product. The brokers are buying that freight and reselling it and making a profit, and the carriers are accepting it with the hopes or to make a profit. The point of this fuel surcharge or of this chart, if you look, is in the 2000 to 2003 period that Mr. Spencer is talking about, when fuel was a $1.50 a gallon. Who wouldn't want to go back to a $1.50 right now? Trucking failures were at their highest. When we moved to the period of 2003 to 2006, fuel is increasing at a much more precipitous rate, yet trucking failures are at their lowest point in history because freight. We were not in a freight recession at that time, and there were 11 brokered loads per truck posted on the public exchanges. So what you have, even today, look at the price of fuel. Yes, trucking failures are beginning to increase but not nearly to the rate they did in 2000 to 2002, when fuel is now three times what it was in that time period. That is the reason. There is not a one-to-one ratio of fuel pricing to trucking failures. The ratio is between the amount of freight being offered and the amount of trucks in the marketplace. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. This is all sort of like talking to the first panel, the oil industry, because Exxon Mobil is complaining. The shippers have a lot of leverage here. You are not exacting full costs, the additional cost for fuel surcharges. There is sort of freight recession, the way you are describing it. Mr. Voltmann. There is a freight recession. Mr. DeFazio. There is a freight recession. Then how does C.H. Robinson see all of their factors, first quarter, up, earnings up, gross revenues up, gross profits up, net income up, gross margin up? I mean if there is such a squeeze on here, they just must be astounding business people, and I guess everybody else is not very good or something. Mr. Voltmann. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is a huge company in economics. Mr. DeFazio. Well, how big is huge, because I thought you said no one controls more than 5 percent of the market? Mr. Voltmann. They don't. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Mr. Voltmann. They are a $7.3 billion publicly traded company, and that is less than 5 percent of the market. Mr. DeFazio. Five percent of the loads? Mr. Voltmann. No. Five percent of the value of the market. Mr. DeFazio. No, I am not talking about value. What percent of the loads do they control? You don't know? Mr. Voltmann. I don't know. Mr. DeFazio. All right. Mr. Spencer, you seem anxious to say something. Mr. Spencer. Well, I think it is kind of interesting because the economic reality that Mr. Voltmann points out is kind of this boom-bust cycle frenzy that, to a large extent, they contribute to. In essence, they help wipe truckers out, and then they come back even when fuel prices are high, and they can prosper. They feed right into this boom-bust mentality. But I can tell you I know the experience of our members dealing with shippers is 70 percent don't say we don't want a surcharge, we want a flat rate. They virtually all say we would like to have a surcharge. Our experience in dealing with shippers is that they generally do believe surcharges are fair, and they are fully in the camp right now of remembering those figures he looks at. They don't want to be gooned to death two years, three years from now when the economy starts moving back again, and all of these 20-year veteran small business people have been wiped out. They don't want to be gooned. So they are much more sympathetic to the truckers' dilemma. Not so with the people that Mr. Voltmann represents. They basically profit whether times are good, whether times are bad. I mean the data shows that. We are not against them profiting, not at all. Again, what we are talking about is the need for a mandatory pass-through and simple disclosure. That will go a long way to resolving the problem. Mr. DeFazio. Only mandatory if it was charged as fuel surcharge? Only mandatory if it was charged or represented as a fuel surcharge? Mr. Spencer. Absolutely. Mr. DeFazio. Yes, okay. I guess then back to Mr. Voltmann. We have this disconnect because we have no information, and you would say that is a free market functioning. I would say it is not, but we can disagree over that. But you are saying for the most part or almost universally the fuel surcharges are being passed on except perhaps in the instance of the government contract we heard about. Is there anything illegal about not passing on the fuel surcharge in its entirety? Say you were going to charge $1,000 for a load, but you add on a $300 surcharge. You just keep the whole surcharge, and you were going to pay the trucker out of the $1,000, say the $600, kind of the example we heard about. Anything illegal about that? Mr. Voltmann. It doesn't happen. Mr. DeFazio. It doesn't happen. Okay, well, then I guess it would be wonderful if we could open up the books here and see if it really doesn't happen because this is kind of like Rashomon. I mean profits are up for the largest broker, but they are being squeezed, and they are passing on all the fuel surcharge to the truckers. We have a huge and growing number of truckers going broke, but nothing is going on here except pure market forces in a totally opaque market. Mr. Voltmann. Mr. Chairman, let me because we started having this discussion before votes. In your State, in Oregon, the first exchange was created by Al Jubitz at the Jubitz Truck Stop. It operates much the same way as the New York Stock Exchange operates. Brokers put in their buy truck rates. Mr. DeFazio. That scares me if that is the way it works. Mr. Voltmann. Carriers put in their sell truck rates. Mr. DeFazio. Right. We have a well-organized casino like on Wall Street. Mr. Voltmann. Well, I disagree with your characterization of it. DAT and the others, there are several of these. Hundreds of thousands of loads are posted on these systems every day. You can see the buy rate. You can see the sell rate. This is how you get transparency in an open market. I can see what a company is offering to sell their stock for, I can see what people are willing to buy stock for, but I don't get to see what you actually buy your stock for. Mr. DeFazio. The key point is the representation to the shippers and the opacity, but in any case we are going to disagree over that. Just one last question: You say that the TRUCC Act would subject your members to more lawsuits. I am puzzled by that because there is no new rights of action in here. In fact, there are contract disputes that are settled through litigation now. So that would continue. This, in my opinion, if your members actually followed the new requirements, that would give them more defense for following the regulations against this flood. How many lawsuits have been filed? All I know it was flood, we heard. Twenty-seven, was that the flood? Mr. Spencer. Oh, I don't know, maybe 20, 22 over a span. Mr. DeFazio. Against the flood of lawsuits that are out there and/or would result from this. I am just curious. If there is no new right of action, why do you come to that conclusion? Mr. Voltmann. Except, Mr. Chairman, it is a right. It is a new right of private action. It is a new right. Mr. DeFazio. Because the pass-through? Is that the concern about passing through the fuel surcharge which is done routinely anyway? Mr. Voltmann. No. Mr. DeFazio. Is that the concern? Mr. Voltmann. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Which part of it then, the billing and collection practices? Mr. Voltmann. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. The false, misleading information? I mean those are the two major parts of the bill: disclosure pass-through and false and misleading information. So which of those two is going to trigger a flood of lawsuits? Mr. Voltmann. First of all, Mr. Chairman, this is not a new right. The Interstate Commerce Commission from the 1960s allowed this between the parties. Mr. DeFazio. You are criticizing this very brief piece of legislation. I am asking which of those two provisions is it that would bring about the flood of lawsuits, a disclosure and a pass- through. Mr. Voltmann. I was trying. Mr. DeFazio. Well, it is a simple question. Is it because fuel surcharges would be required to be passed through or is it because of the amending the false and misleading information section? Which one of those two are you particularly concerned about? Mr. Voltmann. It is the other provision, Mr. Chairman, in which all margins must be posted by both the broker and the motor carrier. Mr. DeFazio. So, if we took out all margins, you would support the legislation? Mr. Voltmann. No. We don't believe that the government. Mr. DeFazio. Oh, you would still oppose the legislation. Mr. Voltmann. We would still oppose it because we don't. Mr. DeFazio. Well, I thought maybe we could get to agreement there for a second. Thank you. I want to say in response to the testimony of the ATA. The APU thing, I mean we ended up with a discretionary word in SAFETEA-LU instead of a mandatory word. That should be dealt with. You have several other provisions in there. One, in particular, I will ask everybody if they would agree with this. You said, in agreement with a point raised during the first panel, that there should be some re-regulation of energy commodities in your testimony, Mr. Card. That was point six in your testimony. Mr. Spencer, would you agree with that? Mr. Spencer. We think the opportunities that currently exist for manipulating the petroleum markets are extreme. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. So you answer is yes? Mr. Spencer. Yes. Mr. DeFazio. All right. Mr. Voltmann, your folks ought to be concerned about fuel costs. Would you agree with that? Mr. Voltmann. Not our issue, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. What? Mr. Voltmann. Not our issue, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. You would say no opinion? Mr. Voltmann. No opinion. Mr. DeFazio. No opinion, okay. Mr. Johnson, as representing shippers? Mr. Johnson. As a shipper, we like capitalism the way it stands, and the open market is fine. So we have pretty much no objection to it. Mr. DeFazio. I couldn't quite follow. You have no objection to regulating or you think everything is just fine the way it is? Mr. Johnson. Keep the open market the way it is. Mr. DeFazio. Okay. Well, it is an interesting response from the shipper point of view. Oh, Mr. Platts, do you have questions? Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No question, just want to thank the witnesses in the prior panel. I could make it but for the written testimony to give the Committee and all of us Members, great insights to the issue and the challenges the industry is facing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for coming, Mr. Platts. I appreciate it. Ms. Hirono, do you have any further questions? Okay, with that, the Committee will stand adjourned. Thank you very much for your testimony. [Whereupon, at 2:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2306.128