A leader in Congress sees a need for "obviously more production" from America's abundant energy reserves. Is Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, joining the "drill here, drill now" bandwagon?

The Illinois Democrat made those remarks when asked by CNBC's Erin Burnett what the Democratic energy agenda would be. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip, but it just happens to be the truth — something 57% of the American people agree with, according to a new Gallup poll.

While attacking GOP presidential nominee John McCain for "trying to drill our way out of the situation," Emanuel told CNBC: "I think you have to have both — obviously more production — but also to start to invest, which has not happened, in (energy) alternatives as well."

So do we. This is pretty much what congressional Republicans and President Bush have been saying all along.

We need to develop all of our domestic energy resources, none to the exclusion of any other source — nuclear, clean coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, heck, maybe even switch grass.

And while it is true that we can't get all of our energy needs from domestic sources, it doesn't mean we shouldn't get any of it here.

We've got a lot — in ANWR, in the Outer Continental Shelf, and in the oil shale out West.

How about subsidizing shale oil extraction with the billions we currently subsidize ethanol and other biofuels with?

The Department of the Interior estimates that there are 112 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil beneath U.S. federal lands and coastal waters. That's enough oil to power 60 million cars for 60 years. That's not counting the trillion barrels locked up in shale rock — three times the total oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Rep. Emanuel is not being truthful when he says we need to "start" funding alternative energy.

According to the Energy Information Administration, solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind energy by $23.37.

By contrast, natural gas gets a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59. Wind and solar, despite all their subsidies, contribute less than 1% of our total electricity generation.

Barack Obama wants to increase gas prices through a windfall profits tax that consumers will wind up paying and, as it did in the Carter era, decrease supply and increase our dependence on foreign oil.

In his latest gaffe, Obama told CNBC he didn't really object to $4 gas, just that it occurred too quickly. Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment."

Rather than a slower increase in gas prices, as Obama prefers, Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., prefers a rapid increase in domestic oil supply.

He says he will push for an amendment to an upcoming spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles offshore. Fifty miles is how far off the Florida coast China and Cuba are drilling for oil.

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep-ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on energy prices," says Greg Schnacke, president of the aptly named Americans for American Energy. "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) should be developed."

Data show global demand for oil and natural gas will likely grow 45% by 2030 compared with 2006.

America's oil and natural gas energy needs will grow and need to compete with that demand. Obviously, as Emanuel put it, we'll need more production — domestic production. All Rep. Emanuel has to do is reach across the aisle and endorse Rep. Peterson's amendment.

We suggest that we drill here and drill now, and show the world that the America that split the atom and put men on the moon can fuel its own cars and power its own factories.

We suggest that the GOP and John McCain shout from the rooftops a new, and winning, campaign slogan: "It's domestic energy, stupid!"

Barack Obama's Fuzzy Gas-Tax Math

Energy Policy: Barack Obama thinks a federal gas-tax holiday is a political ploy. But when he was in the Illinois Senate, he voted for a state holiday three times. These days, he prefers a holiday on gasoline production.

In an ad that aired before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, candidate Obama said: "I'm here to tell you the truth. We could suspend the gas tax for six months, but that's not going to bring down gas prices long-term. You're gonna save about 25, 30 dollars, or half a tank of gas."

Speaking in Indianapolis before the ad was aired, Obama threw different numbers to a swooning crowd. "I know it polls well," he said, "but here's the truth: It would save the average family 30 bucks over the course of three months — $28, or more precisely, 30 cents a day — which is less than (a) cup of coffee at the 7-Eleven."

If that's his idea of math, we don't want him in charge of the federal budget or U.S. energy policy. So which is it — $30 over three months or over six? And he must think we don't drive very much.

The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon, so accepting his 30 cents a day figure, he must think we use a little more than a gallon and a half a day, including weekends, driving to our jobs, to the mall, to our kid's soccer games, even to the 7-Eleven.

If he's talking $30 over six months or 180 days, he's talking about 16 or 17 cents a day, which means he thinks the average American family uses less than a gallon a day.

Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5% sales tax on gasoline. The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago. Seems he was for a gas-tax moratorium before he was against it.

Today he opposes it because he thinks those evil oil companies will simply raise prices and pocket the 18.4 cents themselves. Apparently it's better for American consumers to outsource their money by paying Hugo Chavez $120 a barrel while we leave oil in the ground. That's a tax on consumers Obama doesn't itemize.

At least the oil companies would take that 18.4 cents and use it to find more oil in the few places Obama and his ilk have not placed off-limits. As we've noted, according to Ernst & Young, from 1992 to 2006 the U.S. oil industry spent $1.25 trillion on long-term investment vs. profits of $900 billion.

The man who had a Che Guevara poster in one of his campaign offices doesn't mind if Cuba, with Chinese assistance, explores for oil 45 miles off Florida while U.S companies are blocked from further Gulf of Mexico production.

Congress has also put off-limits vast areas in the Gulf, Alaska, the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge contains more than 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Its output would equal 5% of current U.S. oil use, or enough to replace 15 years of imports from Saudi Arabia.

The Chukchi Sea, a vast area off northwestern Alaska, is estimated to contain 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota and Montana is conservatively estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to contain 3.65 billion barrels of oil.