Republican Whip Roy Blunt

In an interview yesterday on CNBC, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said, "I think have you to have a blend of obviously more production but also start to invest which has not happened in alternatives as well." 

    But a look at Cong. Emanuel’s voting record in the 109th Congress tells an entirely different story – a story of a Democratic Leader who has constantly opposed opening up American energy sources. He voted against every key energy bill in the 109th Congress:*

• Deep Ocean Energy Exploration: This measure would have provided incentives to coastal states to permit offshore oil and natural gas exploration under strict environmental protection. The pro-energy vote was yes. Rahm voted NO
• ANWR: This measure would have directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes. The pro-energy vote was yes. Rahm was a NO
• Gasoline for America (GAS) Act: The bill was crafted to increase refinery capacity for gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. To accomplish this goal, the bill sought to reduce red-tape that prevented refinery expansion. The pro-energy vote was yes. Rahm was a NO
• Refinery Regulatory Reform: This measure sought to lower gas prices by expediting the permitting process and judicial review for expansion of refineries. No new refinery has been built in the U.S. since the 1970s, and even expansions of existing refineries have not kept pace with growing demand for gasoline in recent years. Consequently, the price consumers pay at the pump reflects not only high oil prices due to tight supplies, but also high refining costs due to tight refining capacity. The pro-energy vote was yes. Rahm was a NO
• Energy Policy Act of 2005: A comprehensive pro-American energy bill that promoted increased oil and gas production, renewable and alternative energies, as well as conservation and efficiencies, and energy technologies. The pro-energy vote was yes. Rahm was a NO
• Siting of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals. An amendment to energy bill H.R. 6 that would have allowed states to block Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decisions for siting liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. To keep pace with growing demand, new gas supply options from multiple sources are needed, including the importation of LNG. The pro-energy vote was no. Rahm was a yes.

*Note: this is not every energy vote of the 109th Congress.