Of course, none of this should come as a surprise given Garrett's record. Garrett recently expressed concern over rapidly increasing gas prices, yet he consistently rejects to reducinge the cost of gas by siding with "Texas Oilmen."

• Garrett then voted to give oil & gas industry billions in tax breaks and voted against helping move the United States toward renewable, clean energy which could lead to lower gas prices.
• Garrett voted against cracking down on gas price gouging.
• Garrett opposed reducing the amount of oil sent to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help reduce gas prices.
• Garrett accepted over $100,000 from the oil & gas and automotive industries.

GARRETT VOTED AGAINST INCREASED FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

Garrett Voted Against An Amendment To Raise CAFE Standards To 33 Miles Per Gallon: In April 2005, Garrett voted against an amendment that would require the Transportation Department to issue regulations by model year 2007 that would increase fuel efficiency standards to at least 33 miles per gallons by model year 2015. (House Vote 121, HR 6, 4/20/05)

Garrett Voted Against Energy Policy That Upped Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards To 35mpg: In December 2007, Garrett voted against the energy policy conference report. The bill would require new CAFE standards of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks and require 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used by 2022. It also would direct the Energy Department to set new energy efficiency standards. (House Vote 1177, HR 6, 12/18/07)

Even With Projected Inflation And The Increase In Fuel Prices, Savings Per Year Would Be Up To $1,000 With Higher Fuel Efficiency Vehicles: In 2007, the Associated Press reported that supporters of the 2007 energy bill stated that when the fuel-efficiency standards were completely implemented (an increase of 40% up to 35 mpg) and even with the increases expected in fuel prices, that consumers would see a yearly savings of up to $1,000. Therefore a family with 1.8 cars (the current yearly average) could expect to see savings of up to $1,800 a year. (Associated Press, 12/18/07)

Studies Show That Fuel Efficiency Standards Save Consumers Money Even With The Increased Cost Of Vehicles‚Äö And Will Help The Economy Overall: In 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a study that stated that "a fleet of cars and light trucks that reaches 35 mpg will cost about $1,000 to $2,000 extra per vehicle. This additional cost will be more than offset by the fuel savings consumers will enjoy over the life of the vehicle." Additionally the study stated, "consumer fuel savings along with automaker investment to produce a 35 mpg fleet by 2020 will help spur the creation of more than 170,800 new jobs in the year 2020." (Union of Concerned Scientists)

Union Of Concerned Scientists Study Showed Savings Of Over $2,600 Per Vehicle Even After Increased Cost At Purchase: The study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists stated that, "Over the life of these vehicles, savings at the pump would more than pay for the cost of the technologies, saving a net of $2,600 at $2.50 per gallon, essentially paying consumers to cut our oil dependence and global warming pollution." (Union of Concerned Scientists)

Detroit Times Reported That Savings Per Year For Consumers On Fuel Could Be As Much As $1,000 Per Vehicle: In December 2007, the Detroit Times stated that the authors of the bill estimated that Americans would save $2 billion on gas taxes as a result of the new fuel efficiency standards that begin in 2011, saving consumers as much as $1,000 a year on average in fuel costs. (Detroit Times, 12/7/07)

Energy Analysts Predict That Consumers Would Save $5,000 In Fuel Costs: In 2007, it was reported that energy analysts had projected that, although the tougher miles-per-gallon rules would increase the price of a vehicle by an estimated $1,500, consumers would save $5,000 in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle, once the new standards are fully implemented. (LA Times, 12/19/07)

Garrett Opposed Increasing Fuel Efficiency For SUVs To 30 Miles Per Gallon: In 2003, Garrett voted against requiring a five percent reduction in fuel used by motor vehicles, including SUVs and pickup trucks, within seven years. The proposal was the equivalent of raising fuel efficiency standards to 30 miles per gallon (mpg), up from the then-current level of about 24 mpg. U.S. drivers consumed 121 billion gallons of gasoline in 2000 at a total cost of $186 billion. Additionally, OPEC member nations in the politically unstable Middle East continue to be a primary source for U.S. oil, accounting for 25 percent of our imports. The fuel efficiency measure failed, 162-268. (Vote 132, 4/10/03; Associated Press, 4/11/03; Energy Daily, 4/11/03; Union of Concerned Scientists, June 2001)

GARRETT HAS VOTED CONSISTENTLY IN FAVOR OF HIGHER GAS PRICES

Garrett Voted Against Lowering Gas Prices: In May 2005, Garrett voted against an amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would have stopped sending oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to combat high gas prices. (Vote 209, 5/24/05; CQ Today, 5/24/05)

Garrett Voted Against Giving Consumers Relief At The Pump Despite Record Prices: In 2004, Garrett opposed an amendment to the Interior funding bill that would have forced the government to sell some oil from the strategic petroleum reserve in an effort to drive down spiking gasoline prices. The reserve, created in the mid-1970s, now holds about 660 million barrels. The amendment would have capped the amount at 647 million barrels. The amendment was rejected 152-267. (Vote 262, 6/17/04; Associated Press, 6/17/04; Reuters, 5/18/04

Garrett Voted Against Gas Price Gouging Bill: In May 2006, Garrett was one of only 34 Representatives to vote against a bill that would require the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging and make gasoline price gouging a federal crime punishable by up to two years in prison and fines up to $150 million. (House Vote 115, 5/3/06)

Garrett Voted Against Cracking Down On Fuel Price Gouging: In May 2007, Garrett voted against a bill that would prohibit and set penalties for price gouging for fuels in areas experiencing an energy emergency. It would also permit states to bring lawsuits against retailers for price gouging. (House Vote 404, 5/23/07)

Garrett Voted Against Giving The Justice Department Authority To Prosecute Price Gouging: In September 2005, Garrett voted against an amendment that would give the Justice Department the authority to prosecute oil companies who engaged in price gouging activities. The amendment also included stiff fines of up to $100 million on corporations, and up to $1 million in fines or 10 years in prison for individuals, as penalties for engaging in price gouging. The amendment failed. (House Vote 500, HR 3402, 9/28/05)

Garrett Again Voted Against Penalizing Those Engaged In Price Gouging: In October 2005, Garrett again voted against stiff penalties for those who engaged in price gouging. The amendment would have allowed the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the ban on price gouging and set penalty fines of up to three times the profits gained through price gouging, or up to $3 million. (House Vote 517, HR 3893, 10/7/05)

GARRETT RECEIVED MONEY FROM OIL & GAS INDUSTRY AND AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Garrett Accepted $69,000 From Oil & Gas Industry: During the course of his Congressional career, Garrett has accepted $69,000 from the oil & gas industry. (www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/7/2008)

Garrett Accepted $41,650 From The Automotive Industry: During the course of his Congressional career, Garrett has accepted $41,650 from the automotive industry. (www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/7/2008)

MEANWHILE, GARRETT SUPPORTED ENERGY BILLS THAT REWARDED OIL & GAS INDUSTRY...

2003: Garrett Voted For Energy Plan That Provided $11.9 Billion In Tax Breaks For Oil & Gas Industry: On April 11, 2003, Garrett voted for a comprehensive energy plan that would provide $18.7 billion in tax breaks for 11 years for energy producers. The bill passed the House by a vote of 247-175. (House Vote 145, HR 6, 4/11/03; CQ House Vote 630, HR 6, 11/18/03)

2005: Garrett Voted For The 2005 Energy Bill That Contained $2.6 Billion In Tax Breaks For Oil & Gas Companies: Garrett voted for the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.5 billion in tax breaks for energy companies. This included $2.6 billion of tax breaks specifically designated for oil & gas. (HR 6 Roll Call Vote 445, July 28, 2005; Congressional Research Service; CQ House Vote 132, HR 6, 4/21/05; Committee on Ways and Means, 7/27/05)

The 2005 Energy Policy That Garrett Supported Included A Provision That Reduced Royalty Payments And Saved Oil & Gas Companies By $7 Billion: According to the New York Times the Bush administration admitted in February 2006 that the 2005 passed energy policy had included a provision for a program allowing companies to avoid paying the government royalties on oil and gas produced in publicly owned waters in the Gulf. (New York Times, 3/27/06)

2005 Energy Policy Gave Away Billions To Oil & Gas In The Form Of Tax Breaks Or Subsidies: The 2005 Energy Policy included the following tax breaks and subsidies to the oil & gas industry:

• Allowing "geological and geophysical" costs associate with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law. This change would cost taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015.
• Allowing oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery's capacity by at least 5%. The change was projected to cost taxpayers $842 million from 2006-2001.
• Allowing natural gas companies to depreciate their property at a much faster rate, allowing gas companies to save $1.035 billion.

(Public Citizen and Taxpayers for Common Sense)

Oil & Gas Companies Petitioned IRS To Take Advantage Of Tax Incentives In 2005 Energy Bill Meant For Renewable Energy: In April 2007, the IRS ruled in favor of Conoco Phillips to allow them (and other big oil companies) to be able to take advantage of the green diesel credit (bio-diesel). The credit was passed in the 2005 Energy Policy. ConocoPhillips formed a partnership with Tyson, Inc to produce 175 million gallons of biofuels. When the IRS approved their ability to take advantage of the renewable energy $1 per gallon tax credit, it would allow Conoco Phillips and Tyson Inc to receive $175 million in tax credits annually. In 2008, Conoco Phillips was the 5^th largest corporation in America and Tyson was the 88^th largest corporation in America. (Business Week, 4/30/07; National BioDiesel Board Press Release, 4/16/07; Houston Chronicle, 4/21/07; Fortune Magazine, 2008 Fortune 500 rating; Cnnmoney.com)

2006: Garrett Voted To Extend The Bush Tax Cuts That Included $5 Billion In Tax Breaks To Big Oil: In May 2006, Garrett voted to extend about $70 billion in tax cuts over a five-year period. Tax loopholes that saved the oil industry $5 billion were removed from the original Senate version of the bill but after heavy lobbying by the oil industry the tax breaks were reinserted into the final bill and passed. (House Vote 135, HR 4297, 5/10/2006, CQ Floor Votes; Republican Policy Committee, 2/7/2006; Washington Post, 4/26/2006; Joint Tax Committee, 5/9/2006)

... AND THE OIL & GAS INDUSTRY IS RAKING IN RECORD PROFITS:

Profits Of Largest Oil Companies Tripled Between 2002 And 2007: In 2008, the Washington Post reported that the profits of the five largest oil companies, including Chevron and Exxon Mobil, had tripled since 2002 - 2007. (Washington Post, 2/2/2008)

Exxon Mobil Posted Record Profits For A United States Company In 2007 – Breaking Their Own Record: In 2008, Exxon Mobil reported a profit of $40.6 billion for 2007. The amount was the highest ever reported for a United States corporation and broke the previous record profit amount also held by Exxon Mobil. (Washington Post, 2/2/2008)

Chevron Texaco Posted Profit Of $18.7 Billion In 2007: Record high oil prices helped push Chevron Texaco's profit in 2007 to $18.7 billion. (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/28/2008)

BP Reported A 53% Increase In Income In 4^th Quarter 2007 To Help Post A $20.8 Billion Annual Profit: In 2008, BP (British Petroleum) reported that it had a 53% increase in income in the 4^th quarter of 2007 which helped increase their annual profit for 2007 to $20.8 billion. (Charleston Post Courier, 2/6/2008; Forbes.com)

GARRETT SUPPORTS RELYING ON OIL & GAS AND OPPOSED REDUCING DEPENDENCE ON OIL

Garrett Voted Against Energy Policy That Limited Tax Breaks For Oil & Gas Companies To Help Develop Additional Alternative Energy Sources: In January 2007, Garrett voted against a comprehensive energy policy bill that would have limited tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. The resulting revenue would have been deposited into a new renewable energy account that could be use used to offset the cost of research into alternative energy sources. (House Vote 40, 1/18/07)

Garrett Voted Against Solar Energy And Renewable Energy Tax Breaks: In May 2008, Garrett voted against a bill that would have extended and provided tax credits for wind and renewable energy production and for investment in solar and fuel cell power plants. The bill passed. (House Vote 344, 5/21/08)

One Month Later Garret Supported His Version Of Renewable Energy Tax Breaks: On June 23, Garret signed a letter asking Speaker Pelosi to bring HR 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, to the floor for consideration. A Garrett press release stated, "Without these tax credits for wind and solar industries and investment, thousands of job are at risk." Please note, this bill was written and introduced by Republicans. As of June 2008, no action had been taken on the bill. (Garrett Press Release, 6/23/2008, Thomas.gov, cq.com)

Garrett Again Voted To Protect Oil & Gas Companies At The Expense Of Renewable Energy: In February 2008, Garrett voted against a bill that would extend and create several tax incentives for energy conservation and renewable energy production, including a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles. It would extend expiring tax credits for wind and solar energy and authorize $5.6 billion in tax-credit bonds to finance renewable energy and energy conservation efforts. To offset the costs, the bill would have eliminated or reduced the manufacturing tax deduction for oil and gas companies. It also would change the way oil and gas companies calculate foreign oil and gas income. The bill passed. (House Vote 84, HR 5351, 2/27/08)

Garrett Voted Against Reducing Our Dependence On Non-renewable Energy: In April 2005, Garrett voted against an amendment that would require electric utility companies to reduce dependence on non-renewable energy sources and authorize $50 million over 10 years for the development of new electricity reliability standards for bulk-power. It would provide tax credits for energy-efficient homes and tax deductions for other energy-efficient building. (House Vote 118, HR 6, 4/20/05)

Garrett Voted Against Helping Makers Of Renewable Fuels: In April 2005, Garrett voted against an amendment that would make all renewable fuels producers, approved by the Energy Department, eligible for grants to build renewable fuel production facilities. The amendment was adopted. (House Vote 125, HR 6, 4/21/05)

Garrett Voted Against Bill That Would Set New Efficiency Standards And Delivery Of Alternative Fuels: In August 2007, Garrett voted against a bill that would set new efficiency standards for appliances lighting and buildings, and create new programs to research infrastructure and delivery of alternative fuels. The bill would also require oil and gas producers to pay a fee for use of federal lands. The bill would expand an existing federal program to promote the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. The bill also would require utilities, starting in 2010, to produce at least 2.75 percent of electricity from renewable sources with percentages rising each year to 15 percent by 2020. (House Vote 832, 8/4/2007)

Garrett Voted Against An Energy Conservation Tax: In August 2007, Garrett voted against a bill that would authorize $16.1 billion in energy-related tax provisions, including new tax credit bonds to encourage energy efficiency in residential property and more production of "clean" energy. It also would authorize $3.6 billion in bonds for state and local governments to fund energy conservation efforts. The funds would be offset through reducing tax breaks to oil and gas companies. The bill passed. (House Vote 835, HR 2776, 8/4/2007)