Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Guam. It's probably appropriate that we're here saluting the American eagle because if there is anything that the American eagle represents, it's the spirit…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Guam.
It's probably appropriate that we're here saluting the American eagle because if there is anything that the American eagle represents, it's the spirit of American independence, American self-reliance, American strength.
In the debate we're having today about the resolution honoring the American eagle, I don't want to say the energy debate has hijacked it because in many ways, it's quite relevant. The fundamental question that this country must decide is whether we will pursue a path of energy independence or continue to go hat-in-hand to the oil-exporting countries to try to solve our problems.
Some of you may remember, which for me was the most vivid representation of the American energy policy, and that was a picture on the front page of the New York Times a couple of years ago, when the President of the United States went to Saudi Arabia, and hand-in-hand, as is the custom in many of the Middle East countries, President Bush and the Saudi prince walked in to have a private conversation about America's oil future. And what was going on there was not the spirit of American independence represented by the eagle. It was a spirit of capitulation where our President was imploring a foreign country to solve the problems that we face.
A confident country, an energetic country solves its own problems. It doesn't look to others to help solve those problems. It takes on the challenge. Energy is a big challenge. It takes on the challenge of solving those problems on its own.
And that's the question that this Congress faces: Will we have the self-confidence of a vigorous and strong Nation to chart a course of energy independence?
Now we're hearing arguments that the problem we face can be solved by drilling our way out of it, and of course, that's an argument that has been pursued vigorously since we discovered oil. But you know, there's enormous evidence that allows us to take a look at this proposition. Will more permits to drill, will more drilling reduce the cost of oil?
And I have here, Mr. Speaker, a chart. The first chart shows the number of wells. The number in red here, we've got the number of leases, and in this blue, we have the number of wells. Starting in 1994, there's been a steady increase of the number of leases and a steady increase in the wells drilled. And step by step by step, as leases and as drilling has increased, so has the price of a gallon of gas, from $1 up to about $4 a gallon today.
So reasonable people would step back and ponder the question, whether more drilling and more leases results in lower prices. History shows us, in nearly the past 20 years, that is simply not the case.
The other proposition is that the problem is the Federal Government is denying leases to the oil companies so that they can't do drilling, and the evidence is overwhelming that's simply not the case.
This chart, the second chart, shows on a pie chart, the whole circle there is the land that is available for leasing. And the green is all that's available, and the red here, or orange, is all that is open for leasing. Pardon me, I have it the opposite way around.
But of all of the land open and available for leasing, 79 percent is open and subject to exploitation and exploration by our oil companies. Only 21 percent is off limits. Yet, of this land where the oil companies have leases, 68 million acres where they can put metal to the ground is not under production, and there's no effort to put it under production.
My friends on the other side have argued that the oil companies have to go through certain environmental permits. I'm not sure you're right about that because much of that work has been done. Assuming that is the case, that's no different than what has been the requirement for the production of oil on federally-owned lands.
You know, there are many people who are asking the question as to whether the fix is in for the oil companies, and there's overwhelming evidence, in fact, that it is. Number one, the amount of speculation that now is core to the energy future trading markets is inflating the price at the pump, inflating the price of home heating fuel. How did that happen? Thanks to Congress.
In 2002, under the Tom DeLay Congress, the Enron loophole was passed at the request of that great company, Enron, that did so much for America's energy situation. Enron passed a loophole that took away any kind of regulatory oversight of the energy future trading market, and it led directly and immediately to an explosion in speculation. Hedge funds, private investors, folks who saw that they could make a lot of money on the misery of a lot of people rushed into the speculation in the oil energy markets. Now, that's wrong. There should be no speculative premium that comes at the expense of American consumers, folks trying to heat their home, small businesses trying to run a business.
This Congress has had an opportunity to get rid of that Enron loophole. House Democrats have passed legislation. It hasn't gotten through because of opposition on the other side, either
in the Senate or the consistent opposition of the President of the United States.
So what can we do if you want to be independent? One, we can get rid of the Enron loophole, wholly and completely. The second thing is that the energy companies, in fact, are hording leases, and that's a fact. There's an enormous push on this Congress to open up ANWR, and the argument is made and it has a surface appeal that if you open up ANWR, then it is going to mean a reduction in prices because the supply will go up and demand will go down.
A couple of problems with it. First and foremost, the oil companies have leases on 68 million acres. They're not exploiting them. Why? We don't know exactly why because they won't say. They will come in, raise their hand, take an oath, acknowledge that they're paying their executives 10s of millions of dollars, acknowledging that when one executive was retiring he was given a $400 million payday to say good- bye, but they won't tell us why they're not putting drill bits to earth to exploit the leases they have.
But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the motive may be. If they keep that lease and the oil or the natural gas sits in the ground and it goes from $28 to $48 to $68 to $134 a barrel, that's sound money for those companies, and it will fatten the already extraordinary profits, $125 billion in profits for the oil companies last year, the big five oil companies.
Second, oil companies push hard to bring online as much Federal land for leases as possible because the Big Oil companies have been extremely successful in crowding out some of our small, independent producers, and in fact, my view is that's a detriment and a reason why this 68 million acres aren't exploited. If you had smaller, more independent, hungry, energetic companies that had an opportunity to make good money at $134 a barrel, and they owned those leases, they'd be drilling.
So what you have is a situation where the oil companies are doing quite fine, they really are, and the status quo serves them very well. What may not serve them so well is the self-confident Congress, the self-confident President saying, you know what, we're not going to play that game anymore. There are other ways.
We're going to take away the tax breaks, about $13 billion that American taxpayers are turning over to our oil companies, and that, with all due respect, is just an astonishing public policy. Our folks are paying over $4 a gallon for gas. In my home State of Vermont, we're paying over $4.25, $4.40 for a gallon of home heating fuel, and taxpayers are paying the oil companies about $13 billion in tax breaks. That's your money and mine. It's hard to see how that's justified, but the oil companies are quite happy to take that taxpayer subsidy.
But what they won't like is what the House is pushing, and that's a policy of energy independence, where we take those tax breaks, we steer them, as America has frequently done when there's something important for the American people, and it's taken a push from our taxpayers to get us over that initial technological hump, and that's having those tax breaks go as incentives to alternative energy sources, wind and solar, biofuels.
You know, if we could step back a minute and take a look at some of our friends in Europe and the leadership they're taking because of self-interest, a recognition in Portugal that investing in alternative fuel is a way to strengthen the economy, or Germany, investing in solar, Germany has less sun than Vermont. And let me tell you, I'm here to tell you that Vermont doesn't have as much sun as we need and I want. They have less sun than we do, but they are leading in solar technology.
So, the bottom line question is really very simple. Do we want leadership, as best exemplified by President Bush when he was with the Saudi prince, imploring the Saudi prince to rescue us from ourselves, or do we want leadership where we say we will take care of our own future, that particularly in face of what I think are unfounded arguments, that we can drill our way out, that Congress or the American government is an impediment to drilling that is available immediately for our oil and natural gas companies, and that there isn't supply that we can achieve through efficiency and alternative energy.