Washington, D.C.- Polluting industries gave millions of dollars more in campaign contributions to House members who voted in committee to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, subsidize the profitable and polluting coal, oil and nuclear power industries, and defeat efforts to increase fuel efficiency than those voting against these provisions, according to Special Deals For Special Interests, a new study released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

"The House energy bill is dirty, dangerous and doesn't deliver for consumers," said Anna Aurilio, U.S. PIRG Legislative Director. "Rather than reducing our dependence on dirty fossil fuels and investing more in clean alternatives and energy efficiency, polluters and the proponents of this legislation have created a recipe for more drilling, more spilling, more asthma attacks and more global warming," continued Aurilio.

The report analyzes campaign contributions given by polluters to members of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, Resources Committee and Ways and Means Committee during the 1999-2000 election cycle. The report compares these contributions and proposed House energy legislation, packaging the Bush energy plan, crafted by these committees and sent to the full House of Representatives for a vote later this week.

During the 1999-2000 election cycle (January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000), the oil/gas industry, electric utilities, mining industry, and automotive industry contributed a staggering $18.4 million to all members of the House of Representatives.

Other key findings of the report include:

· In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, members who opposed the Markey (D-MA) amendment to toughen fuel economy standards received, on average, contributions four times higher ($16,416) than those who supported ($4,155) the amendment.

· In the House Resources Committee, members opposing the Energy Security Act and its provisions to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on other public lands received no contributions from ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP Amoco and Phillips Petroleum-the "Dirty Four" companies lobbying to drill in the Refuge-as opposed to the bill's supporters, who received $92,038 in total contributions from these four companies.

· In the House Ways and Means Committee, members voting with industry to provide $27.7 billion in subsidies to fossil fuels, nuclear power and the auto industry received, on average, more than 2 ½ times ($80,666) the contributions received by members voting against ($31,963) these subsidies to profitable polluters.

· The oil/gas industry, electric utilities, mining industry, auto industry and railroads gave $2,479,358 in contributions between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000 to members of the House Ways and Means Committee. In return, the committee included in its bill $27.7 billion in subsidies at taxpayers' expense for the oil, gas, nuclear, coal, auto and railroad industries over the next 10 years. Assuming an average annual subsidy of $2,766,800,000, in the first two years the polluting industries will enjoy a return on their investment of 2,232 to 1.

· In a giveaway to the Houston-based Anadarko corporation, which reported cash flow from operations during the first quarter of 2001 of $1.1 billion, up from $135 million in the first quarter of 2000, the House Resources Committee bill allows the Interior Secretary to indefinitely suspend the term of existing subsalt leases so that Anadarko would not have to pay to drill a well in order to keep its subsalt lease. Taxpayers are in effect subsidizing a corporation that enjoyed first quarter earnings nearing its total earnings for all of 2000. Anadarko Corporation gave $15,767 in PAC contributions to the House Resources Committee members in the 1999-2000 election cycle, including a total of $11,500 to the Energy Security Act's co-sponsors.

· In a nod to the dozens of oil and gas companies already drilling or looking to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, the House Resources Committee bill provides "royalty relief" to the tune of an estimated $7.4 billion to those seeking new leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. (Note: The House of Representatives has indicated that it may redefine which leases qualify for this subsidy in the final bill language; as such, the final subsidy may be substantially lower than that passed out of committee.) The oil industry, including Texaco, Chevron and others with interests in the Gulf, gave $1,055,394 in PAC contributions, soft money, and individual campaign contributions overall to Resources Committee members during the 1999-2000 election cycle. El Paso Corporation, the largest leaseholder in the shallow-water area of the Gulf of Mexico with 365 blocks comprising 1.3 million net acres, gave $33,250 in PAC contributions to the House Resources Committee members and $1,116,495 in PAC contributions, soft money and individual contributions overall in the 1999-2000 election cycle.

Later this week, the House of Representatives will vote on Bush's energy plan. Key votes are expected on protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other public lands from oil and gas drilling, raising fuel economy standards for light trucks, and ending subsidies for dirty energy sources such as oil, coal and nuclear.

"Dirty money translates into dirty policy," said Aurilio. "We call on House members who voted the wrong way in committee to protect the environment by rejecting President Bush's dirty and dangerous energy plan when it comes time to vote in the House this week."

U.S. PIRG is the national lobbying office for state-based Public Interest Research Groups across the country. The State PIRGs are independent, non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations. The full text of this report is available at http://www.newenergyfuture.com/.