U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–381 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–822 

HOME HEATING CRISIS 

FIELD HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING THE HOME HEATING CRISIS, FOCUSING ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO THE 

NEEDS OF FAMILIES THAT ARE FACING ENORMOUS PERSONAL CHALLENGES 

JANUARY 17, 2008 (BOSTON, MA) 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming, 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ILYSE SCHUMAN, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008 

Page 

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions, opening statement ........................................................... 1 

Coard, Robert, President of ABCD, Action for Boston Community Development, Boston, MA ................................................................................................ 3 

Gilliam, Margaret, Resident of Dorchester, MA ................................................... 5 

Colby, Diane, Resident of Lynn, MA ...................................................................... 6 

Strollo, Beth Ann, President, Massachusetts Association for Community Action, Quincy, MA .................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Wolfe, Mark, Executive Director, National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, Washington, DC. ..................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Sanders, Bernard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement ....................................................................................................... 27 

Collins, Susan, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine, prepared statement ............................................................................................................... 28 

(III) 

(1) 

HOME HEATING CRISIS 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, Boston, MA. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:30 a.m. in the Cass 

Room of Action for Boston Community Development, 178 Tremont 

Street, Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Kennedy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will come to order. 

I am the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of the U.S. Senate that is concerned about the 

challenges of working families, it’s concerned about education, concerned about health, concerned about our seniors. It does have responsibilities in other areas as well, research programs, pensions, 

and others, but most of all, it is the committee that carries the 

focus most about the quality of life of working families, and I am 

fortunate to be the chairman of it, and the information that we 

have today will be printed and shared with our colleagues as part 

of a continuing process of the listening to what is happening across 

America today, in Boston, in Quincy, and the Greater Boston area, 

the families that are facing what I consider to be a perfect storm 

of adversity. 

Today we are focused on fuel assistance and the failure of our 

Nation to respond to the needs of families that are facing enormous 

personal challenges, very real challenges in terms of their health, 

whether they can stay healthy, whether they have to make choices 

between prescription drugs for their children, whether they can 

purchase the food which is nutritious for their children. Working 

families across this Nation are facing a perfect storm, and the perfect storm is with the challenges of recession that we are facing 

here in Massachusetts, here in Boston, Quincy, all across the 

Greater Boston area, all across Massachusetts, New England, and 

the country, and the failure of our government, of this Administration to meet its responsibilities in terms of home heating oil. That 

is what we are basically facing. 

Yesterday, in the U.S. Senate, as a member of the Joint Economic Committee, we heard from economists that talked about the 

recession and the need to take action now to help working families, 

hardworking families all across our Nation, and we are committed 

to doing that; I am, and we are, in the U.S. Senate. That’s enorVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:46 May 28, 2009 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\40381.TXT DENISE
2 

mously important. It’s related to the subject matter that we’re talking about today. It’s a part of this whole challenge that families are 

facing, and it’s important that we are, as a country, going to recognize it. 

Today, we are focused on the failure of our national government, 

this Administration, to meet the responsibilities that we have toward families that are hard-pressed to provide one of the most 

basic necessities of life, and that is a warm home. We also recognize that for many of those that are trying to provide a warm home 

for their families, for their grandchildren, for their children, for 

senior citizens, many of them, after they scrape together enough resources to purchase some heating oil, are looking over their shoulder at their mortgage. Two hundred-thousand Americans are going 

to lose their home this month. With the escalation of the mortgages, families are faced with this double whammy, and they are 

also faced with the challenges of access to food, the food banks. 

Shelves, in many instances, are bare. They are failing to provide 

the kind of support and assistance that we have seen here in Boston. As one who has been a strong supporter of that program, we 

know the challenges that we are facing. 

So real people are hurting. Real people are hurting. Real people 

that are playing by the rules every day, who have worked hard, 

saved, tried to provide for their children are hurting, and we and 

Members of the Congress, we who are your representatives in the 

Senate of the United States have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to try and end a war that we never should have fought 

in, but we also have a responsibility and a budget that is $2.8 trillion, to be able to say that we ought to be able to find sufficient 

resources to help and assist people that are in critical need. That 

is part of the American dream. The budgeting for this country is 

a matter of priorities and it is what we think is important for people. This is one U.S. Senator, as well as my colleagues, John Kerry, 

and Bernie Sanders, my neighbor from Vermont, who hoped to 

have been here, would have been here yesterday, if the schedule 

had worked out, and I know I speak for all of my colleagues from 

New England. We are strongly committed to doing something about 

it. We made some progress yesterday. I think the Administration 

listened to Diane and Margaret and Beth Ann. I think they might 

have heard what they are going to say today and said, ‘‘Well, we’re 

going to start out a little process,’’ and provided some resources. 

That said, ‘‘Too little and too late,’’ but we’ll take it, and use it effectively. We’ll hear more about that. 

I am enormously grateful to welcome Robert Coard, who has 

been a long-time friend, and to thank him so much for opening up 

this facility here today and to welcome us. We are fortunate to 

have had his leadership over many, many years. I’ve enjoyed working with him. He’s been really the heart and soul of dealing with 

the challenges of many needy people. He’s not only in fuel assistance, he’s been out there in terms of educational opportunities for 

underserved communities. He’s been a valued and real friend. Bob, 

I want to thank you. If you have a word to say, we would be glad 

to hear from you. 

3 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT COARD, PRESIDENT OF ABCD, 

ACTION FOR BOSTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. COARD. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. 

We at ABCD, it is to us a great pleasure and an extremely great 

privilege to welcome our outstanding senior Senator from Massachusetts, U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, to Boston and to 

ABCD today. 

We consider Senator Kennedy the champion of the poor, the vulnerable, and the future of our citizens in the United States. We are 

extremely glad to see him, as usual, at any time. He does a fantastic job. I really would like us to give him a hand. Another round 

of applause. 

[Applause.] 

We very much appreciate his taking the time and the effort to 

hold this important Senate field hearing here in Boston to gather 

information and to draw attention to the critical issue of home 

heating capability for low-income and elderly and working poor 

families in Massachusetts and particularly across the cold mountain tier of the United States. 

As a result of just even announcing the hearing, the Administra- tion released not the full emergency contingent amount of $586 

million, but they released $450 million of it yesterday, just before 

the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. There’s a little more in there, too, Bob. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COARD. Right. 

We also welcome the other Senate hearing witnesses to ABCD 

itself, and we thank the members of the press for being here to 

carry this important story. 

I want to acknowledge the Chair of the ABCD Board. Will you 

stand so the folks can recognize you. 

[Applause.] 

A very important citizen of South Boston, and she has been involved in the ABCD program since she was 17 years old. Of course, 

that’s only 2 days ago. 

[Laughter.] 

I will make just a few brief points regarding the Fuel Assistance 

Program and its important role in the lives of struggling-to-survive 

persons in the cold New England winter. 

First of all, this year is not like other years. In more than 35 

years of providing fuel assistance ABCD has been involved with, 

this is by far the worst winter we’ve seen for the poor, the elderly, 

disabled, and vulnerable and working families in Massachusetts. 

The reason is two-fold. First, heating oil has now gone up 50 percent to $3 per gallon from last year, and it’s at the highest price 

in history. Natural gas and electricity are not very far behind. 

Second, this is a very cold winter, based on the Degree-Day System which oil companies use to make deliveries. 

At this point, all of the 15,000 families served by the ABCD Fuel 

Assistance Program have used up their benefits and have nowhere 

to turn. We serve not only Boston but we serve Brookline and Newton with our program. Yesterday, President Bush released the $450 million of $586 mil- lion available, and Massachusetts will get $27.2 million, according 

4 

to the allegations worked out by the State. With that funding, we 

will make a 100-gallon delivery to our eligible oil customers. If we 

gave only what would amount to 65 gallons, the oil companies 

would refuse to do that. They want to deliver at least 100 gallons. 

That’s $300 these days. That 100 gallons will cost $300 and will 

provide a family with heat for about 2 to 3 weeks at the most. It 

is clear that more help is needed for them to get through this winter. 

In 2005, when the LIHEAP Program was reauthorized by Con- gress, $5.1 billion annually was promised and voted by the Congress and signed by the President. It was based on documented 

need. Despite that commitment, Federal funding nationwide has 

been less than $2 billion a year, and that amount has proved completely inadequate in the face of soaring fuel prices, which have 

gone up consistently every single year. We need this program to be 

funded at the full $5.1 billion level. 

Two-thirds of the families we serve in the ABCD Fuel Assistance 

Program have take-home salaries of $1,000 to $1,500 per month, 

and a full tank of oil cost almost $900 these days. You do the math. 

How can people pay high Boston rent, feed their families, pay for 

needed medication, and also put oil in their tank every single 

month? It’s impossible. It’s the reason why children in Head 

Start—according to the Boston Medical Center, a study recently— 

are losing weight in the winter months. It’s the reason why our 

older residents, who work all their lives, take their diabetes medicine every other day these days to stretch it out and to their very 

immediate error. It’s the reason we have tragic and avoidable fires 

from space heaters every single winter. It’s the reason working 

families fall behind in their rent, get evicted from their apartments 

and end up in homeless shelters or hotels where the cost to the taxpayer is far more than a tank of oil. A study by UMass showed that 

ending up in the shelters cost—if a person is in there for the whole 

year, which many are—$32,800 a year. That’s much more than a 

tank or so of oil. 

In this Nation in the 21st century, we should not have children, 

older residents, and working people cold and hungry in their homes 

in the bitter New England weather. 

Thank you so much. And thank you again, Senator Kennedy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bob. We’re always glad to hear from 

you and we are very grateful for your summation—enormously important. 

We are going to hear from some very special guests this morning. 

We will hear from two: Margaret Gilliam, senior citizen, fuel aid 

recipient from Dorchester, and then Diane Colby, a single parent, 

fuel aid recipient in Lynn, MA. 

I think the one part that we ought to understand at the outset, 

people will be watching and listening to these two extraordinary 

women and say, ‘‘Well, you’ve looked around and finally found two 

individuals.’’ I think both of them can tell you that they speak for 

their neighbors. They speak for their friends. They speak for their 

community. We could have had a room filled with people that could 

tell similar kinds of stories. We certainly have those letters in my 

office here in Boston and also in Washington, and we certainly 

know that they are really speaking for so many people in MassaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:46 May 28, 2009 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\40381.TXT DENISE
5 

chusetts and really throughout the country. We are very fortunate 

to welcome them. 

Why don’t we start with you, Margaret. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET GILLIAM, RESIDENT OF 

DORCHESTER, MA 

Ms. GILLIAM. Good morning, everyone. 

I consider Mr. Coard, a very dear friend, a savior. I have been 

involved with assistance from this organization since caring for six 

of my seven grandchildren. Fortunately, for the past 12 years, I 

was living in government housing, which included heat. These recent 12 years, I have been residing in a private family home. It’s 

a two-family home. I do have to supply my own heat. Again, 

through ABCD, I was qualified to receive the oil assistance. I received my first delivery the first week of December. The amount afforded me was $435. The first delivery came to $430. That lasted 

like 3 weeks, because it wasn’t really that cold at that particular 

time. 

The oilman doesn’t want to carry anyone, because he can’t afford 

to. It cost him to stay in line in Chelsea, or wherever he has to go 

and pick up his oil to deliver it to our home, so it’s like, ‘‘I’ll carry 

you for a week, please pay me the following week.’’ If you don’t 

have it, you don’t get a delivery. With what little moneys I can reserve from my once-a-month check, Social Security check, I offer to 

just have 50 gallons delivered for each delivery, and I pay him. 

That leaves me kind of short. I still have two grandchildren at 

home. I have to pay rent. They need some assistance as far as getting through school, and other resources. Our Christmas this year 

was very, very light, but they didn’t mind. They knew that we 

would be married to the oilman from now until April. 

Two weeks ago, I was really kind of desperate and I really needed to call someone. I called ABCD and I told them what my dilemma was—I didn’t have money to call my oilman—and she redirected me to another source, and they came and delivered 200 

gallons of oil. They left a slip in my door, and when I saw the slip, 

I almost fainted. For 200 gallons of oil the cost was $630. Right 

now, I probably have about 100 gallons of oil left in my tank, and 

I am really nursing it like there is going to be another tomorrow. 

Where do I go after next week? I will call ABCD, hoping that they 

will be able to give me at least 100 gallons. I probably will be 

counting on that, because there’s no other resources that I can go 

to, because everyone is, you know, handing out moneys for other 

people. I’m not the only one. You know, I’m not ready for a senior 

citizen building, because they do supply your heat. I love my comfort of a two-family home. It is quite private. My children are 

happy. I just don’t need to have this kind of concern, because it is 

mind-boggling after a while, and I can feel myself getting very anxious. And there’s a long ways to go yet from January until April. 

The CHAIRMAN. This anxiety—you know, often we find a society 

that knows the cost of everything but fails to realize the cost of 

anxiety, fear, and frustration, the lost sleep that you’ve had, the 

fact—and we’re going to hear from Diane, who was talking to us 

earlier about that, you know, the chill in the air in the early morning, you know, when you’re trying to get those children up and getVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:46 May 28, 2009 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\40381.TXT DENISE
6 

ting them dressed so they can get out to school, wondering whether 

that room was warm enough for those children or whether they’re 

going to catch cold. All of that is a wearing factor on people. We 

don’t see it measured in terms of the cost of the heating oil or the 

oil itself, but it is something that’s very real, and it’s happening to 

people. We have to ask ourselves whether that is necessary when 

they’re having these record profits of the oil companies, when 

they’re all having this—I mean, they ought to be able to make a 

fair profit, but these record profits, and no—very little voice to try 

and do anything about it. Who ends up paying for it? We just heard 

from Margaret. 

Thank you, Margaret. We’ll come back. 

Diane, can you tell us a little. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE COLBY, RESIDENT OF LYNN, MA 

Ms. COLBY. I am Diane Colby from Lynn, MA, and I am a single 

mother raising two daughters, elementary school age and junior 

high. Just that the fuel assistance hasn’t gone as far as it used to 

go because of the price of oil. One hundred gallons, like you said, 

is $300. It goes about 2 weeks. And that’s keeping it at a very conservative 62 degrees. Just like I said, getting up in the morning—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Sixty-two degrees is pretty cold. 

Ms. COLBY. Yes, we keep it down. I keep it down. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which is pretty cold. 

Ms. COLBY. Isn’t that the truth. We keep it down to 62 to 63 degrees, and that’s the normal, keeping it down. Just worrying, when 

you do run out, where will you get more oil, and the fuel assistance 

is gone; it just goes really fast now because of the prices. It’s just 

like you said, getting up in the mornings, my biggest worry with 

my kids, you know, having oil. Even at night, just being home 

watching TV and it’s cold when you get up. 

That’s my concern. You may have to go not paying a bill, another 

bill, to save. You might skip another bill when you pay that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us a little bit that. You were mentioning 

that earlier, that sometimes you feel that you have to pay that 

heating oil bill and you pass up on some of these other—— 

Ms. COLBY. Yes, I’ll skip a phone bill or an electric bill a month 

or so just to get through the winter, if you do run out of fuel assistance, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have to ask ourselves, as a country and as 

a society, is this acceptable, and it isn’t. Clearly, it’s not. These are 

people that are looking after children, grandchildren, have worked, 

and continue to work hard, and they are faced with that kind of 

dilemma in this country. 

Let me just put up the chart. This is the temperatures drop, the 

home heating oil prices soar. This has gone up 47 percent since last 

year. I mean, people will wonder why are we having this hearing 

and what’s so different this year than even last year. We find out 

there’s an increase and the cost has gone up 47 percent. I think 

it’s at 175 percent over the last 5 years, 180, 186, in the last decade. But this gives you—this is the real input. 

The next chart, if you would please. 

7 

This gives you—it may be difficult in the back to see, but it 

shows on the one hand what Bob had mentioned and that is that 

the Congress has said that there needs to be the $5.1 billion, and 

that, to be very honest about it, is really a bare minimum. It’s really a bare minimum. I mean, I think even now, where we are at 

double, you find out that we are fortunate. We’ve got very good associations here—we’re going to hear from some—where we take 

care of a much higher percent here in Massachusetts than many 

other States in the country. The national average is about one in 

seven. We do much, much better, and we’ll hear about that this 

morning. It’s great credit to those organizations that do it, but 

there are still people that are eligible that are missing out on this 

program. 

On the one hand, if you look at the item on the left, it’s the request from the Administration, then what has been appropriated, 

and then the difference. You’ll see over on the right column the increases that each year actually the Congress has added to the program, the largest one being in this last year, 2008, by a billion dollars. That’s not insignificant, and it does have something to do, 

quite frankly—we’re not here trying to make partisan points, but 

the fact is, it was democrats that voted, with the change of leadership in the House and Senate, to get that up to a billion dollars. 

It’s the appropriated 2.57, and we’re the ones now that are trying 

to increase that in the budget when we come back in January, and 

we’re going to fight on the stimulus program. There’ll be a stimulus 

program and we ought to have increased fuel assistance. I’m going 

to work on that. I know my colleagues are going to work on that 

as well. So, Bob, that’s what we’re going to try and do as a followalong. People wonder when we have these hearings, and we’ll be 

glad to keep in touch with you and the organizations here, and 

Margaret and Diane, they’ll let you know how that’s going. But this 

gives you some of the overall kind of facts here. 

We have another chart. It’s just the point that has been made 

earlier, and that is the fact that it’s a noticeable and factual situation that children lose a good deal of weight during the course of 

the winter because they’re getting less nutrition because the bills 

the parents are paying are fuel-assistance bills. I mean, that is 

something that is generally—when you hear that, you really wonder about it. It’s happening, it’s real, and it’s wrong. And that, 

we’re going to battle as well. 

I’m going to ask Beth Ann Strollo, who is the President of the 

Massachusetts Association for the Community Action and Executive Director, Quincy Community Action Program, if she would be 

good enough to say a word. 

STATEMENT OF BETH ANN STROLLO, PRESIDENT, MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, QUINCY, MA 

Ms. STROLLO. Thank you, Senator. 

On behalf of my colleagues, many of whom are here today, from 

the Massachusetts Association for Community Action, and our 

friends in Washington at the National Community Action Foundation, I want to thank you for the hard work that you have done 

throughout your career in the Senate on behalf of the families and 

individuals that we serve, not just programs like Fuel Assistance, 

8 

but Head Start, some wonderful work that you did last year in 

Head Start and for many years. We’ve very appreciative of that. 

We also just want to thank you for the opportunity to talk about 

this issue today and draw attention to this issue that we’ve been 

concerned about since the beginning of the heating season, really 

for a number of years now, and as my friend, Mr. Coard said, we 

will give you credit for that emergency release of funds. So I am 

happy to do that. 

You just illustrated the problem, and it’s really very clear and 

simple. The fuel assistance benefits have never, in my recollection, 

been indexed for the increase in the cost. So we have now this huge 

gap, as you just showed us, between the cost to heat your home in 

a year and the benefit level. This cost is not just a cost for lowincome people, it’s a problem for everybody, to some extent. But 

when you are poor and you don’t have any increase in your fixed 

income for a year or your wages are going up, if at all, they’re 

going up a very small amount while many of your other living costs 

are increasing, your housing cost is increasing. Here in Massachusetts, we have some of the highest housing costs in the country. 

That puts an incredible burden on low-income households, many of 

whom receive no public assistance of any sort for housing. When 

they have a spike in their heating cost like this, there is no margin 

for people to cover that cost. That is real economic insecurity that 

has now turned into heat insecurity, it turns into food insecurity, 

it turns into medicine insecurity and housing insecurity. We see a 

direct correlation between this problem and the rise in family 

homelessness this past year in Massachusetts, which is a problem 

that we’re very concerned about. When people are insecure, it is 

human nature that we sometimes do things that don’t make a lot 

of sense and that maybe we wouldn’t do otherwise. This is a problem that concerns us and has for a long time. But many of our clients have to resort to space heaters or opening their ovens, turning 

their ovens on and opening them as a source of heat. This is done 

in desperation. 

Yesterday, we had a briefing at the State house where we had 

a fire chief and a fire captain talk to us about this problem and 

what they see happening and one of the things that they are seeing 

happening this year is that we have low-income people taking their 

gasoline cans and filling them with heating oil and then putting 

that into their heating system. They have a real fear that it’s going 

to be an explosion in the house. I haven’t heard of this problem before, but they spoke about it yesterday when we met with them 

about their concerns as the safety officials in all of our communities. 

Those are the kinds of things that people are doing because they 

are fearful, they are anxious, and they are desperate. 

Other things that we see happening that maybe aren’t as dangerous but are very troubling is that many of our clients are using 

their credit cards to pay their basic living costs, food, heat, medicine, and there is not enough income in their household to pay 

their credit card bills, so they are left with now a very serious credit card and debt problem. Their credit is ruined. Last year, as we 

closed out the fuel year and we looked at so many households who 

had huge utility arrearage bills, that their gas and electric stayed 

9 

on all winter, but when spring and summer came around, it had 

to be turned off because the bills were so high. We have seen clients now put their utility bills in their child’s name. There are 

teenagers now whose credit will be bad, because they really have 

no other alternative. They are doing it because they feel like they 

have no other choice but to do that to keep their utility on. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me mention this issue on the credit cards. 

We’ve had a big increase in the last few years of bankruptcies, and 

these are directly attributed to this follow-along. The way that the 

bankruptcy law works now, used to be people went into bankruptcy 

and you got a clean slate. You went back on—they had to have a 

workout in terms of paying whatever they could, but people were 

given a chance to get back on their feet. Do you think that’s it now? 

Absolutely not. Those credit card companies have got their jaws 

into you for the rest of your life, just as Beth Ann has mentioned. 

You will find out in a bankruptcy the people that are going bankrupt, they work as hard as anyone else does. I mean, there’s a normal sense, ‘‘Well, they’ve gone into bankruptcy because they’re 

goofing off.’’ If you look at what’s happening now at the people who 

are going into bankruptcy, they are working as hard as anybody 

else who caused it, and a lot of it is the fact that they can’t pay 

their health bill because of the expense of health and what Beth 

Ann has mentioned here in terms of these other necessities. Once 

their credit, then, is adversely impacted, it is a continuing kind of 

a spiral that is going to affect these families, and that is going to 

cause them this kind of anxiety in the future. This is all adding 

to this all-insecurity that you talked about, and it is really the new 

phenomenon that’s taking place for families, and they are battling 

this thing, by and large, themselves or with their children or their 

grandchildren in trying to do this and they’ve got these forces that 

are out there, and this is really very unacceptable. 

Continue. 

Ms. STROLLO. Thank you. Yes, we could have a whole other discussion on what the credit card problem is sometime. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I know. 

Ms. STROLLO. I think on maybe an encouraging note, here in 

Massachusetts, the community action and fuel agencies have 

worked closely with our partners, and there are a lot of them. A 

lot of people step up to the plate to help make this program stretch 

the dollars as far as we possibly can. Our friends over at the Department of Housing and Community Development administer this 

program. We work with them and the utility companies and the oil 

vendors. We are doing things that are not necessarily unique 

around the country, but they are certainly something for us to be 

proud of because we’ve been able to take the Federal money and 

leverage it with the utility companies and the oil vendors to get 

them to—particularly the oil vendors, who only get paid what’s 

called a margin-over-rack price here in Massachusetts. Their profit 

is capped and it stretches the dollar. In Quincy, where I deliver this service, we saved about $100,000 

a year by doing this, so that we can use that money to go back into 

benefits for clients. That is true all over the State. In all of the fuel 

assistance agencies, that number just gets blown up to get much 

bigger. 

10 

The utility companies work to provide weatherization and heating system programs. We combine our resources, and, again, can 

help do more work for many families to make their homes more energy efficient. 

We are also blessed here, as you know, to work with many renowned physicians and medical institutions. You mentioned the 

impact on children. There’s been some wonderful research done and 

our friends in the medical community have spoken publicly about 

that in recent years about the impact of cold on children. Yesterday, we heard again from another physician who spoke about what 

a child’s body has to do to counter the cold that it feels and that 

that has a very negative impact on that child’s health—it can have. 

It’s another one of many reasons why this program needs to be 

fully funded. 

Locally, every community in Massachusetts can tell you stories 

about how local organizations, churches, foundations, and municipal governments come to help this program. In Quincy, where I 

am, the mayor and the city council appropriated $50,000 this year 

for fuel assistance. This will help about 115 households. Not very 

many. We have at least 2,000 households that we help with fuel 

assistance in Quincy. So it won’t go very far, and you can see that’s 

not the answer and that they can’t be expected to solve this problem. So while we’re very grateful for their help and they are very 

concerned about it, this does need to be a national Federal solution. 

So we urge you to—not you. We know you believe in—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You can urge me. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. STROLLO [continuing]. To continue fighting, I guess, for $5 

billion, because that is what we need. 

Right now, this is a crisis management program. You’ve heard 

Margaret and Diane talk about the state of high anxiety. We see 

it with so many of the families and individuals that we help. We 

really want to be working with them to help them become economically self-sufficient, but when you are anxious, and you are fearful 

that you’re going to be cold that night and all day, then you can’t 

really think about how to get out, get better education, get a new 

job, or work to survive a little better on your limited income. 

So we hope that someday we can get this back to being an assistance program, not a crisis program, so we can really work with 

folks to help them move forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Strollo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETH ANN STROLLO

Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Enzi and members of the committee, I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. On behalf of all of the Massachusetts 

Association for Community Action Agencies (MASSCAP) and our advocacy colleagues at the National Community Action Foundation (NCAF) I want to express 

our gratitude to Chairman Kennedy for your tremendous leadership on LIHEAP 

and other initiatives that help low-income residents in Massachusetts and throughout the Nation. In particular, I want to thank you for your recent and successful 

efforts to encourage the President to release the LIHEAP Emergency funds yesterday. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share the concerns of the Massachusetts fuel assistance providers. Last year Massachusetts fuel assistance agencies served over 

140,000 low-income households. Approximately 40,000 of those households heat 

their homes with oil. In fiscal year 2007 Massachusetts had $90 million in fuel asVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:46 May 28, 2009 Jkt 035165 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\40381.TXT DENISE
11 

sistance funds. This year MASSCAP expects to serve at least that many households 

if not more. Prior to the release of the LIHEAP emergency funds Massachusetts had 

$106 million available to distribute to low-income residents this year. However, the 

record breaking cost of heating fuels without a commensurate increase in LIHEAP 

has created the most serious problem we have seen in years. Low-income households 

simply cannot bridge the gap between the rising costs of heat and their household 

income. As heating costs consistently rose over the past 7 years the purchasing 

power of the LIHEAP program has been greatly diminished. 

Based upon the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) data and the current cold temperatures we project the cost of heat for the Northeast to be between $1,600 

and $3,000 depending on your heating source. Combining the current Federal 

LIHEAP funds with $15 million of State fuel assistance funds Massachusetts lowincome residents will have a fuel assistance benefit of between $590 and $865 for 

the heating season. If you are at 100 percent of poverty and heat with oil that benefit will buy you a little over a tank of oil. Based on these benefit levels, essentially 

all of the Commonwealth’s residents are now out of fuel assistance and we are right 

in the middle of a very cold winter. Once we receive the recently released emergency 

funds we will distribute them as quickly as we can, however, it is already too late. 

Historically, we have seen it take almost 2 months from the President’s release before we can actually distribute those resources. When LIHEAP funds get released 

in this fashion it begs the question why wouldn’t the full appropriation be distributed at the beginning of the heating season. Especially in the rising cost environment seen over the past 7 years. 

Quincy Community Action Programs (QCAP) is the community action agency that 

administers the LIHEAP for Quincy, Weymouth, Braintree and Milton. We provide 

fuel assistance to approximately 3,000 households in those communities. This year 

we have seen a 20 percent increase in the number of low-income residents coming 

to us with less than 1⁄8 of a tank of oil. This trend began by the end of November 

and continues. Our oil clients are telling us that they used to be able to pay for 

at least half of a tank to get them by until they received their fuel assistance benefit. Now they cannot afford the minimum cost necessary to get their first oil delivery. They arrive in our offices fearful and desperate. This trend is seen throughout 

the Commonwealth. The fear that faces a family when they cannot keep their children warm or an elderly woman who decides not to eat that day or take her necessary medicines so that she can pay for heat is real and should outrage us all. 

Low-income families and individuals cannot bridge this income/expense gap. This 

economic insecurity now becomes heat insecurity—food insecurity—medicine insecurity—and housing insecurity. The number of homeless families is on the rise in Massachusetts. There are many reasons why but one of them is the high cost of heat 

and the significant utility arrearages from last winter. When we are insecure we 

do things that we may not otherwise do—things that don’t always make sense. 

Many families and individuals facing this heat insecurity resort to using space heaters and turning their ovens on and open to heat their home. They run the risk of 

fire and loss of lives but they feel they have no alternative. Less dangerous but very 

troubling is the on going pattern we see of low-income households using credit cards 

to pay their daily living costs including food and heat. The concern lies in the fact 

that when you only have income of $20,000 a year you do not have enough money 

to pay those credit card bills. The result is that credit card bad debt strangles them 

from moving forward in their lives. A disturbing trend seen last year was that more 

and more of our utility clients are putting their utility bills in their child’s name. 

When they cannot pay that bill the teenager is left with the bad credit. These stories are not provided with blame made, but merely to illustrate the means of survival for many low-income families. 

On a positive note here in Massachusetts we have many partners in the effort 

to provide fuel and energy assistance. We are proud of our partnerships with the 

utility companies, the oil vendors, municipal government and the many local foundations, churches and community agencies that help low-income residents get 

through the winter. In the city of Quincy for example, the Mayor and the city council appropriated $50,000 this year to help our LIHEAP clients. We expect to help 

about 150 households with those funds. We serve almost 2,000 households in the 

city so you can see how difficult it is for a local government to handle the scope 

of the need. 

On a statewide level MASSCAP, the State Department of Housing & Community 

Development (DHCD) and the oil vendors have joined in partnership to stretch the 

LIHEAP dollars as far as possible by paying a margin over rack (MOR) price to the 

oil vendors. The vendors have agreed to capping their profit margin. At QCAP that 

effort has allowed us to provide almost another $100,000 in benefits to our clients. 

In addition, the utility companies have worked hand-in-hand with MASSCAP and 

12 

DHCD to create a variety of energy efficiency initiatives funded by the utility companies and leveraged with Federal weatherization and heating system funds. In 

Massachusetts we are fortunate to have renowned physicians and medical centers 

conducting cutting edge and compelling research on the impact of cold on child development and health. We are grateful to all of our partners who work towards addressing this serious problem. 

In closing I want to emphasize that this program has moved from an assistance 

program to a crisis management program. Our clients come to us anxious and fearful that they will not get through the winter. Working with our clients when they 

are in a state of high anxiety prevents them and us from helping them work towards real economic self sufficiency. 

We urge the President and Congress to fully fund LIHEAP at $5 billion and to 

assure those appropriations are authorized by the beginning of the heating season. 

All of us have an obligation to help our neediest residents stay warm and avoid the 

pain of living in the cold and in fear. Addressing their heating needs now will be 

the first step towards moving low-income families and individuals towards a brighter future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information to you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. 

Ten days of our involvement in Iraq would fund that whole program. You don’t want to get me going on this one. 

We’ll hear from Mark Wolfe, who is the Executive Director of the 

National Energy Assistance Association. We are grateful for your 

presence here. 

STATEMENT OF MARK WOLFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE DIRECTORS’ ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

Mr. WOLFE. Thank you, Senator. 

As you said, I am Executive Director of the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association. I represent the State directors of 

the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Of course, we’d 

like to thank you and your committee members for supporting 

LIHEAP. 

I would like to mention that I view States across the country on 

LIHEAP, and it’s a checkerboard. This is not entitlement, and 

some States contribute to the program, others don’t. Massachusetts, I believe, is among the top small group of States where you 

have comprehensive State support. 

Massachusetts, for example, is the only State so far, to my 

knowledge, that’s put any direct appropriations in this year towards LIHEAP, and I think that the State should really be applauded for that. 

I’d like to talk a little bit about the program and our concerns 

about where it’s going. 

As you were showing in the table before, it’s been a struggle with 

the Administration for the last 8 years. Each year they come with 

very low recommendations for LIHEAP and then it’s a struggle 

throughout the year, along with the very tight budgets we’ve been 

working with. 

For fiscal year 2008, the current year, for example, the appropriation levels are the same level of block grant funding of $1.98 

billion for the program, but increased the contingency fund, the 

emergency part of the program, by $408.6 million to $590.3 million. 

I believe that, frankly, is one of the bright spots in the Omnibus 

Appropriations Bill. 

13 

Looking across programs, all the important social service programs that are funded, LIHEAP received one of the larger increases, and I think that’s part of what’s making a difference right 

now. 

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2008 would have reduced 

LIHEAP, the basic grant, to $1.5 billion. That would have been 

drastic. We would have had to eliminate about 1.1 million households from the program. 

For Massachusetts, just to give you an example of what happened, under the basic grant in the President’s budget, the State 

would have received $61 million. Under the funding that was provided, the core funding, the State received $81 million. If the program was fully funded at the authorized level, Massachusetts 

would receive $157 million. So that’s to just give a sense of the 

numbers of where we are and what would have happened if the 

President’s budget had gone through. 

The number of households receiving assistance has been rapidly 

rising. This reflects a significant rise in home energy prices and the 

number of low-income households. 

Since 2002, the number of households receiving LIHEAP heating 

assistance has increased from 4.2 million to an estimated 5.8 million for the current year. Even at this level, the program serves 

only 15.6 percent of eligible households. The majority of households 

have at least one member that’s elderly, disabled, or a child under 

the age of five. Families receiving LIHEAP assistance carry a much 

higher energy burden than most Americans, spending, on average, 

about 15 percent of their income on home energy bills, as compared 

to 3.4 percent for eligible households—households with at least one 

member who is disabled or elderly. 

LIHEAP is not an entitlement program like Medicaid, unfortunately, providing a minimum benefit level of health care coverage 

for eligible households. When the number of households receiving 

Medicaid increases, the appropriation increases. In the case of 

LIHEAP, however, when the number of households increases, the 

average grant goes down, but if energy prices increase, the purchasing power goes down. 

We’ve been tracking the purchasing power issue for a couple of 

years and we are very alarmed by it. Between 2003 and 2007, the 

number of households receiving LIHEAP increased by 26 percent, 

from 4.6 million to 5.8 million. In the same period, the Federal 

LIHEAP appropriation increased by about 10 percent. The resulting average annual grant decreasing from $349 to $345. The increase provided by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, assuming the 

Administration releases all the emergency funds, will increase the 

average benefit to $359 per household, about the same level provided in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2005. This would not be 

a problem if energy prices were decreasing or remaining stable. 

Unfortunately, as everyone knows in this room, energy prices are 

soaring. Home heating bills are projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration to average about $1,000 per year for the 

typical family, an increase of almost 80 percent more than the average cost of home heating during the winter of 2001–2002, and 47 

percent higher than 2002–2003. 

14 

Between 2003 and 2008, the average LIHEAP grant percent of 

total home heating costs declined from 36 percent of the average 

cost to 17.8 percent for heating oil, from 58.2 percent to 40.6 percent for natural gas, 37 percent to 21 percent for propane, and 50 

percent to 43 percent for electricity. The increase provided for fiscal 

year 2008 is to offset this, but certainly only on the margin. 

Increase in the price of heating oil, however, is a special concern 

for the northeast States and to the LIHEAP directors because 75 

percent of heating oil is used in this region. Local market conditions are driving the cost of home heating oil to record levels, products, and the price of other fuels. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected the price of home heating oil will increase from last year by $551 this year to $2,019. These prices, 

however, assume the typical family only uses 610 gallons of fuel. 

In fact, in some of the colder places in the northeast, like Massachusetts, for example, we’re hearing about families who need 1,000 

gallons that would cost about $3,200. The fact that heating oil now 

cost about $900, more than half the total monthly Social Security 

payment for the average-aged couple, almost the entire monthly income for an aged widow woman who lives alone. The 2008 average 

increase in Social Security is only about $24 a month, less the 

amount needed to pay the increase in home heating this year. 

I think that one thing that’s not understood outside of New England, you know, if you talk to people in Ohio and the south, they 

really can’t comprehend spending $3,000 for home heating. I think 

that when you look at the average, which that’s such a problem for 

Social Security, the average works in some States, because if you’re 

using natural gas, you might not see that much of an increase. If 

you’re using heating oil in the northeast or in New England, this 

average is pretty useless, so that an elderly family might be seeing 

an increase of five to $600; this year their Social Security is only 

going up by $240. That’s the problem. There’s a real disconnect. I 

think that heating oil, because it’s really in this region, we’re concerned about the public health implications of families not having 

adequate funds to pay for heating oil, and I just don’t think this 

is understood outside of this part of the country. 

A few more points I would like to raise. One of our concerns 

about the rising need for energy assistance is the increase—is in 

arrearages and the shutoffs that we’re starting to see. The National 

Regulatory Research Institution came out with a recent report of 

[inaudible] percent between 2001 and 2006. Last spring, we did a 

survey where States reported about 1.2 million households that 

were cut off from natural gas and electric service due to nonpayment of energy bills. 

What we’re finding and bringing back from utilities is that the 

basic structure of energy assistance worked up to recently. Five or 

six years ago, you could heat a home for $600, and many families 

could afford that. There are also many elderly families that didn’t 

want to ask for help and they could make do with prices at that 

level. But we are looking at $2,000, $2500 to heat your home. That 

doesn’t include the rest of the electric bill. They just don’t have the 

money. So what utilities are starting to see is rapidly increasing arrearages and that the tools they have aren’t working that well, and 

especially for the elderly with the threat of shutoff. I mean, these 

15 

families can’t go to work at Wal-Mart to make extra money. We 

need to begin to acknowledge that threats of shutoff just doesn’t 

work in many cases and you have to start having broader-based 

protections. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mark, talk about that for a minute about what 

the dangers of shutoff are and how it is different for utilities, if you 

could explain that to everyone here. 

Mr. WOLFE. Again, it’s a checkerboard situation. Some utilities 

are extremely aggressive. Part of what’s going on is that, not to be 

Pollyannaish about this, but 20 years ago, the local head of the 

utility was often a local community leader and there were a lot of 

concerns. They would work closely with the State to work out the 

end plans to work out long-term agreements and often they just 

wouldn’t shut people off. There were very low instances of shutoff. 

What we’re finding now is that utilities are becoming more bottomline oriented and becoming much more aggressive in their shutoff 

procedures. 

Massachusetts, again, is a bright spot in the national picture. In 

Massachusetts, if an elderly person has a doctor’s note, they are 

permanently protected during the period. Many States require 

notes to be recertified every 30 days. It’s just not practical. 

The other thing that’s going on is that the Federal Government 

is pushing very hard to help elderly people stay in their homes 

through these new home health care programs. Well, that’s wonderful, except what happens with the energy bill. 

So we’re starting to have this disconnect between more and more 

elderly people, more of the people can stay at home, but not have 

adequate funding for energy assistance. With the bill getting larger, it’s really starting to hit—you know, about that horrible phrase 

‘‘a perfect storm.’’ Utilities are becoming more aggressive about collections, much higher prices, but energy assistance is not keeping 

up with it. Then you have about 10 States in the country that have 

clearly stepped up to the plate, put a lot of their own resources into 

the program, and even those States are struggling, like in Massachusetts. You know, frankly, if you went to Virginia, for example, 

they don’t put anything into this. It’s a totally different discussion. 

And it’s sad. 

In the State of Massachusetts, you’re talking about a State putting significant resources into this, very strong shutoff protections 

and still it is a struggle. So I think that is where your own country, 

unfortunately, becomes two countries for energy assistance, one 

where the States are trying very hard to provide minimum protections and others where they basically supply heat to basically fill 

the full bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolfe follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK WOLFE

Good morning, I am pleased to testify on behalf of the National Energy Assistance 

Directors’ Association (NEADA) on the importance of the Low Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in meeting the heating and cooling needs of some of 

the Nation’s poorest families. NEADA represents the State LIHEAP directors. The 

members of NEADA would like to first take this opportunity to thank the members 

of the committee for its continued program support in working to increase funding 

for LIHEAP. 

By way of background, there are four components to the LIHEAP program: 

16 

• Block grant providing formula grants to States to help low-income families pay 

their heating and cooling bills. 

• Emergency contingency funds that can be released by the Administration for a 

number of reasons including natural disasters, rapid increases in home energy 

prices, high unemployment rates, and other economic conditions. 

• Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) grant providing competitive 

discretionary grants to States to develop new strategies to assist households in reducing their home energy burden. 

• Leveraging grants providing States with additional incentives to raise nonFederal funds for energy assistance. 

In addition, the law authorizes the appropriation of advance funds 1 year before 

the start of the program year in order to allow States to plan for the design of their 

programs. This is especially important in years when the appropriation for the Federal fiscal year is delayed and States in cold weather have to start their programs 

without knowing the final appropriation level. As a result, States sometimes have 

to revise their program benefit and eligibility levels several times during the course 

of the program year, until a final appropriation level is reached. This can cause considerable delay and confusion in the delivery of program services. 

AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS LEVELS

The LIHEAP appropriation level for fiscal year 2007 was $2.1 billion of which 

$1.98 billion was for the block grant and $181 million was allocated for emergency 

contingency funding. Of the amount provided for the block grant , $27.3 million was 

set-aside for REACH and leveraging. No advance funding was appropriated. 

For fiscal year 2008, the appropriation level provides the same level for the block 

grant and increases the emergency contingency funding level by $408.6 million from 

$181.5 million to $590.3 million. As in fiscal year 2007, no advance funding was appropriated. 

The President’s Budget for fiscal year 2008 would have reduced the LIHEAP basic 

grant appropriation to $1.5 billion and provided $282 million in emergency contingency funds. If the President’s Budget had been approved, the number of households 

served would have been reduced from about 5.8 million to 4.7 million. 

The authorization level for LIHEAP was increased from $2 billion to $5.1 billion 

by the Energy Policy Act in fiscal year 2005. The act also continued the authorization level for emergency funds at $600 million. The program’s authorization expired 

at the end of fiscal year 2007. The following table compares the current block grant 

funding level by State with the authorized funding level of $5.1 billion. 

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

LIHEAP allows States to set eligibility at the greater of 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, or 60 percent of State median income. In fiscal year 2007, 150 

percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of four was $30,975. In practice, 

most States target funds to lower income families. 

More than 70 percent of families receiving LIHEAP have incomes of less than 100 

percent of the Federal poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) and 44 percent 

have incomes of less than 75 percent of the poverty level ($15,488 for a family of 

four). 

State agencies generally contract with non-profit agencies to conduct outreach and 

sign-up activities. The application process is relatively straightforward. Most States 

require only proof of income and a copy of an applicant’s most recent utility bills. 

Generally, asset tests are not required and some States now allow applications by 

mail. 

HOUSEHOLDS SERVED

The number of households receiving assistance has been rising rapidly. This reflects a significant rise in home energy prices and in the numbers of low-income 

households. Since 2002, the number of households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance has increased from 4.2 million to an estimated 5.8 million in fiscal year 2007. 

Even at this level, the program serves only 15.6 percent of eligible households. The 

majority of households have at least one member who is elderly, disabled or a child 

under the age of 5. 

Families receiving LIHEAP assistance carry a higher energy burden than most 

Americans—spending on average about 15 percent of their income on home energy 

bills, as compared to 3.4 percent for all other households. Many of these households 

also have at least one member who is disabled (43 percent) or elderly (41 percent). 

17 

USES OF FORMULA GRANT FUNDS

LIHEAP is a block grant providing grantees with considerable flexibility delivering program services. In designing their programs, States are allowed to set-aside 

up to 10 percent of their allotment to cover administrative costs, up to 15 percent 

of program funds (25 percent with a waiver from the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services) to support weatherization activities and up to 5 percent to 

support activities that enable households to reduce their home energy needs, including needs assessments, counseling, and assistance with energy vendors to reduce 

the price of energy. 

On average, States set-aside 10 percent of their block grant to support weatherization activities. These funds complement program support provided by the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). Weatherization assistance can include insulation, appliance and furnace repair and replacement and related health and safety 

measures. A weatherized home can use up to 30 percent less energy than a comparable home. 

States are also required to set-aside ‘‘a reasonable amount’’ of funds to be used 

until March 15 of the program year for energy crisis intervention. These interventions are defined to include households that need additional assistance to address 

life-threatening situations including shut-offs due to non-payment. 

LIHEAP: FY 08 Basic Grant Appropriations Status ($’000) 

State FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 08 President FY 08 Enacted Energy Policy Act 

Alabama ........................................... $31,310 $16,770 $12,645 $16,770 $87,205 

Alaska .............................................. 16,475 10,704 8,071 10,704 26,002 

Arizona ............................................. 15,142 8,110 6,115 8,110 42,233 

Arkansas .......................................... 22,765 12,796 9,648 12,796 47,082 

California ......................................... 153,182 89,963 67,835 89,963 316,814 

Colorado ........................................... 43,165 31,367 23,652 31,367 58,158 

Connecticut ...................................... 62,727 40,920 30,855 40,920 98,878 

Delaware .......................................... 10,140 5,431 4,095 5,431 21,871 

District of Columbia ........................ 7,851 6,355 4,792 6,355 16,239 

Florida .............................................. 49,541 26,534 20,007 26,534 138,181 

Georgia ............................................. 39,170 20,979 15,818 20,979 109,253 

Hawaii .............................................. 2,555 2,113 1,593 2,113 5,284 

Idaho ................................................ 14,370 12,235 9,226 12,235 29,721 

Illinois .............................................. 187,251 113,259 85,401 113,259 301,871 

Indiana ............................................. 72,682 51,280 38,666 51,280 111,654 

Iowa ................................................. 50,013 36,343 27,404 36,343 60,776 

Kansas ............................................. 26,798 16,690 12,585 16,690 55,424 

Kentucky ........................................... 44,346 26,686 20,122 26,686 91,718 

Louisiana ......................................... 32,009 17,144 12,927 17,144 85,072 

Maine ............................................... 36,480 26,509 19,989 26,509 47,034 

Maryland .......................................... 58,499 31,332 23,625 31,332 136,730 

Massachusetts ................................. 112,639 81,853 61,720 81,853 157,890 

Michigan .......................................... 147,974 107,529 81,080 107,529 199,566 

Minnesota ........................................ 106,606 77,469 58,414 77,469 90,280 

Mississippi ....................................... 26,843 14,377 10,841 14,377 74,871 

Missouri ........................................... 76,035 45,240 34,112 45,240 123,142 

Montana ........................................... 22,088 14,351 10,821 14,351 34,861 

Nebraska .......................................... 27,661 17,973 13,552 17,973 43,658 

Nevada ............................................. 7,112 3,809 2,872 3,809 19,836 

New Hampshire ................................ 23,846 15,493 11,683 15,493 37,634 

New Jersey ....................................... 105,244 75,986 57,296 75,986 160,368 

New Mexico ...................................... 11,925 10,153 7,656 10,153 24,663 

New York .......................................... 341,432 248,112 187,084 248,112 471,752 

North Carolina ................................. 69,037 36,976 27,881 36,976 164,462 

North Dakota .................................... 23,995 15,590 11,755 15,590 37,869 

Ohio .................................................. 158,789 100,194 75,549 100,194 252,854 

Oklahoma ......................................... 28,780 15,415 11,623 15,415 64,604 

Oregon .............................................. 24,591 24,311 18,331 24,311 42,504 

Pennsylvania .................................... 183,399 133,273 100,492 133,273 272,515 

Rhode Island .................................... 20,737 13,473 10,159 13,473 32,728 

South Carolina ................................. 24,866 13,318 10,042 13,318 69,357 

South Dakota ................................... 19,488 12,662 9,548 12,662 30,756 

Tennessee ........................................ 46,362 27,033 20,384 27,033 95,888 

18 

LIHEAP: FY 08 Basic Grant Appropriations Status ($’000)—Continued 

State FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 08 President FY 08 Enacted Energy Policy Act 

Texas ................................................ 82,421 44,144 33,286 44,144 229,887 

Utah ................................................. 22,434 14,576 10,991 14,576 35,407 

Vermont ............................................ 17,872 11,613 8,757 11,613 28,208 

Virginia ............................................ 71,258 38,166 28,778 38,166 149,727 

Washington ...................................... 40,449 39,988 30,152 39,988 64,001 

West Virginia ................................... 23,818 17,660 13,317 17,660 49,261 

Wisconsin ......................................... 95,961 69,733 52,581 69,733 105,404 

Wyoming ........................................... 8,983 5,836 4,401 5,836 14,176 

Territories/HHS Training ................... 3,658 2,951 2,294 2,951 7,171 

Leveraging ....................................... 27,225 27,225 27,500 27,225 27,500 

TOTAL ...................................... $2,980,000 $1,980,000 $1,500,023 $1,980,000 $5,100,000 

1 FY 06 included $1 billion in supplemental funding. 2 FY 07 included $181 million in emergency contingency funding. 3 Adm. FY 08 Budget included $282 million in contingency funds. 4 FY 08 Appropriations, as passed, included $590.3 million in contingency. 

PROGRAM APPROPRIATIONS

The distribution of formula grant funds is based on a complex formula that provides that no State beginning in fiscal year 1986 will receive less than the amount 

of funds it would have received in fiscal year 1984 if appropriations for this part 

for fiscal year 1984 had been $1.975 billion. Fiscal year 1984 funds were distributed 

to States on the same share of funds they received in fiscal year 1981 under the 

predecessor program to LIHEAP, the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program 

(LIEAP). The fiscal year 1981 allotment percentages that were derived from an extremely complex formula included such factors as heating degree days squared, 

home heating expenditures, total residential energy expenditures, and the population with income equal to or less than 125 percent of the poverty income guidelines. 

The law also provides that when LIHEAP block grant appropriation exceeds 

$1.975 billion (only in fiscal year 1985, fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 2006), not 

including $27.5 million in other program set-asides, funds are allocated under a 

complex formula that includes cooling as well as heating degree days and a small 

State minimum allocation. 

LIHEAP is not an entitlement program like Medicaid providing a minimum benefit level of health care coverage for eligible households. When the number of households receiving Medicaid increases, for example, the appropriation is automatically 

increased to guarantee the same benefit level for all recipient households. In the 

case of LIHEAP, however, when energy prices increase, the purchasing power is reduced; when the number of households receiving assistance is increased, the average benefit is reduced. This is the situation the program is currently facing. 

DECLINING PURCHASING POWER

Between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2007, the number of households receiving 

LIHEAP increased by 26 percent from 4.6 million to about 5.8 million or about 15.6 

percent of the eligible population. During this same period, the Federal LIHEAP appropriation increased by about 10 percent with the resulting average annual grant 

decreasing from $349 to $345. The increase provided by the Omnibus Appropriations Act will allow the States to increase the average annual grant to $359 per 

household, about the same level as provided in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2005. 

This would not be a problem if energy prices were decreasing proportionally or remaining stable. 

Est. Change in Households Served & Average Grant (FY 03–FY 08) 

Fiscal Year Appropriation 

(in thousands) 

# ofHouseholds 

(in thousands) Average Grant 

2003 ......................................................................................... $1,988,300 4,610 $349 

2004 ......................................................................................... $1,888,790 4,828 $317 

2005 ......................................................................................... $2,186,000 5,083 $348 

2006 ......................................................................................... $3,162,000 5,717 $448 

2007 ......................................................................................... $2,186,000 5,800 $305 

19 

Est. Change in Households Served & Average Grant (FY 03–FY 08)—Continued 

Fiscal Year Appropriation 

(in thousands) 

# ofHouseholds 

(in thousands) Average Grant 

2008 ......................................................................................... $2,570,000 5,800 $359 

Unfortunately, energy prices are soaring. Home heating prices are projected by 

the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to reach almost $1,000 this year 

for the typical family, an increase of almost 80 percent more than the average cost 

of home heating during the winter of 2001–2002 and 47 percent higher than in 

2002–2003. As a result, there has been a significant decrease in the program’s purchasing power. 

Between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2008, the average LIHEAP grant as a 

percentage of total home heating costs declined from 36.7 percent to 17.8 percent 

for heating oil, 58.2 percent to 40.6 percent for natural gas, 37.7 percent to 21.2 percent for propane and 50.1 percent to 43.1 percent for electricity. The increase provided for fiscal year 2008 has helped to offset the decline, however, the share of expenditures covered continues to be inadequate to meet the need. 


40381-3.eps
20 

The increase in the price of heating oil is of special concern to the Northeast 

States because 75 percent of heating oil is used in this region. Global market conditions are driving the cost of home heating oil to record levels, far exceeding the price 

of other fuels. 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected that the price of home 

heating oil will increase from the 2006–2007 heating season by $551 (37.6 percent) 

to $2,019. These prices assume that the typical family will only need about 610 gallons of fuel. In fact in some of the colder parts of the Northeast the total is expected 

to be closer to 1,000 gallons for a cost of about $3,200. 

A tank of heating oil now costs about $900, more than half of total monthly Social 

Security payment for the average aged couple and almost the entire monthly income 

for an aged widower living alone. The 2008 average increase in Social Security is 

only about $24 a month, less than the amount needed to pay for the increase in 

home heating oil this year. 

Low-income families using heating oil this winter are facing a difficult situation. 

This is especially true for those on fixed incomes including the elderly and disabled. 

I do not expect the situation to change anytime soon. 

This situation for natural gas is quite different. Prices are set domestically and 

have been increasing at a much slower rate. For example, the average cost of home 


40381-4.eps
21 

heating with natural gas is projected at $884 for the current winter heating season, 

about $71 more than last year and $1,135 less than the cost of home heating oil. 

OUTLOOK FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

The increase in contingency funding provided by the Omnibus Appropriations Act 

will help States to adjust benefit levels to pay for higher heating and cooling costs. 

Yesterday’s release of funds will provide needed help to offset the impact of higher 

energy costs this winter. 

The States are concerned that the increase will not be sufficient to meet the growing need for energy assistance and offset the impact of higher energy prices. We are 

currently conducting a survey of the States and the reports are grim. The States 

are serving about 15.6 percent of eligible households. State directors believe that the 

percent served needs to be increased to at least 25 percent of the eligible households 

to help offset the growing affordability gap as prices increase faster than the rate 

of income. 

ARREARAGES AND SHUT-OFFS

One indicator of the rising need for energy assistance is the increase in arrearages 

and shut-offs. The National Regulatory Research Institute, for example, in a recent 

report found that past-due gas utility accounts rose from 16.5 percent in 2001 to 

21 percent in 2006. Last spring, in a survey conducted by NEADA, States reported 

that 1.2 million households were cut off from natural gas and electric service due 

to nonpayment of their energy bills. Several States reported significant increases in 

arrearage and shut-off rates from previous years. In addition, we are also learning 

that traditional arrearage management programs that provide matching payment 

programs to help families reduce their outstanding debt are becoming less and less 

effective. States are reporting that families increasingly do not have the resources 

to meet matching payment requirements and as a result are at greater risk of shutoff. 

The following provides a brief summary from several of the initial group of States 

that have responded to the survey: 

• Arizona: the State continues to struggle in meeting the increasing demand for 

LIHEAP services due to various factors working together as the ‘‘perfect storm’’ to 

deplete all available resources. Providers report that requests for energy assistance 

services continue to increase and include inquiries from non-traditional populations 

who are in financial distress due to the sub-prime lending problem. One of the largest utility companies in the State has reported a 42 percent increase in calls to its 

customer service department from September 2006 to September 2007, most calls 

from customers who cannot pay their home energy bills. One LIHEAP provider (the 

Community Action Human Resources Agency in Pinal County) reported a total of 

1,000 families turned away due to lack of funds between August and September of 

2007. In fiscal year 2007, Arizona served approximately 33,000 households with 

LIHEAP benefits. However due to the sharp decrease in funding, together with an 

increase in energy costs, Arizona estimates that at least 10,000 fewer families will 

be served in 2008. 

• Arkansas: the State expects to reduce the number of households served by up 

to 20 percent as compared to the number served in fiscal year 2007. 

• California: the State expects to serve fewer households and will have to reduce 

the amount of funding available for weather-related (and fire-related) emergencies 

and disasters than they have used in the past. No change has been implemented 

in the eligibility criteria or benefit structure. The maximum benefit is still $200 and 

with higher prices that won’t cover much. The maximum for emergency assistance 

will remain at $1,000 and that may not be enough to prevent cutoffs of utility service as energy costs increase. They are only able to serve 8 percent of the eligible 

population and there has been an increase in the number of applications at the local 

level—with some local agencies exhausting their allocations sooner. The available 

funding will be prioritized to those with the lowest income and highest energy burden. 

• Connecticut: the State set their income eligibility level at 60 percent of State 

median income as a result of State statute. Benefits were also set in statute. There 

is concern that the high cost of fuel will result in households exhausting their benefits early in the heating season and there will not be sufficient funding available 

to provide adequate benefit levels throughout the winter heating season. 

• Delaware: the State will serve up to 20 percent fewer households than in fiscal 

year 2007 in order to maintain adequate benefit levels. Delaware’s average benefit 

is $355 which currently buys at least 100 gallons of heating oil, propane or kerosene. While the $355 benefit is not a problem for those homes heating primarily 

22 

with gas or electricity, approximately 50 percent of Delaware’s LIHEAP households 

heat with delivered fuel. In many situations vendors will not deliver less than 100 

gallons of fuel to a home without adding a surcharge. For this reason, the State did 

not want to lower their benefit levels from last year. 

In some rural areas the minimum delivery is 150 gallons. If the State were to 

lower the average benefit, LIHEAP or the customer would be paying a premium just 

to have the fuel delivered. The State believes that this approach would be unacceptable and therefore they have opted not to reduce the benefit level this year. In many 

instances the LIHEAP benefit is only about 20 percent of the households total winter heating bill; if the winter is especially cold, the LIHEAP percentage will be even 

lower. 

• Kentucky: the State is expecting to maintain benefit and eligibility levels; in 

light of the reduction in Federal funding, they are expecting to have to reduce the 

number of households served. With last year’s funding, Kentucky was able to serve 

100,566 households with basic grant funds and 123,728 with crisis assistance. Kentucky’s program generally operates until the end of March and into April as funding 

allows, but could run out of funds as early as next February. Kentucky has made 

no change to its eligibility criteria or benefit structure, but will reduce the number 

served as necessary based on final funding. 

• Maine: for the more than 84 percent of the LIHEAP households that heat with 

oil or kerosene, the cost of oil as of 11/6/07 averaged $3.09 per gallon and kerosene 

at $3.40 per gallon. An average benefit of $579 to service 48,000 households will 

only purchase 193 gallons of oil and kerosene at $3.40 will only purchase 170 gallons. This will provide 2 to 3 weeks of home heating in most low-income housing. 

The average household’s income is $13,000 annually, many senior citizens with only 

$7,000 a year to survive on. Right now Maine would need to receive another $17.5 

million just to provide a $370 supplemental benefit to LIHEAP households and this 

will still not provide the same relief as in past program years. 

• Maryland: the State increased their grant amounts this year but reduced eligibility from 200 percent of the Federal poverty level to 175 percent. Governor 

O’Malley has stated that Maryland will serve all who apply and are qualified and 

has stated that ‘‘we will find the money’’ to serve them. 

• Michigan: the State reduced the maximum amount it will pay to prevent shutoff or to restore payments from $550 per household to $350 per household for natural gas and electricity and from $850 to $650 for households using deliverable fuels 

in June 2007 due to lack of sufficient funds to meet the demand during the last fiscal year that ended 9/30/07. Michigan will continue that reduction into fiscal year 

2008 and is closely monitoring weekly expenditures with these reduced maximums 

in place to determine if additional reductions will be needed to stay within available 

funds. If the high rate of expenditures the State experienced in October continues, 

an additional reduction in these maximums will be needed without additional funds. 

• Minnesota: the State is maintaining current eligibility and benefit levels but 

could run out of funds as early as February. 

• Nebraska: deliverable fuels make up around 12 percent of the heating fuels 

used; the rest is provided by natural gas and electricity. Nebraska is not planning 

on reducing benefits but is looking at how much they can pay in crisis funds for 

a household this early in the heating year. Nebraska runs a year around crisis program along with a cooling program and will continue to make heating/cooling payments and crisis payments as long as they have the funding to do so. 

• New Mexico: several of the large companies in New Mexico have had rate increases approved for natural gas and electricity. Two rate cases are pending. The 

propane prices are the biggest concern since some have gone up more than 50 percent over summer prices. One company is currently reporting $3.19 a gallon for propane. Most companies are between $2.20 and $2.65 per gallon for propane. 

• New York: the State has increased the program’s maximum regular grant by 

$100 to $540 in order to maintain the program’s purchasing power. The program 

has only been open for 2 weeks and they are finding many situations where a regular and an emergency grant must be issued simultaneously for deliverable fuel customers to be able to meet minimum delivery requirements. This means that a 

household’s entire LIHEAP benefit amount will be exhausted in November. If additional funding is not provided, the State will have to reduce the number of households receiving benefits. 

• Ohio: will have to cut back its regular benefit by between 15 and 20 percent. 

The cost of all utilities are up across the board, mostly for propane and heating oil. 

In addition, Ohio has already received about 10 percent more applications this year 

than last year at this time. 

23 

• Pennsylvania: the State is planning on maintaining current eligibility and benefit requirements but anticipated serving fewer households if Federal funding is not 

increased. • Rhode Island: the State expects to serve 15 percent fewer families this year 

compared to last year. Rhode Island has reduced its average primary grant benefit 

from $475 to $350. Even with reducing the average benefit, Rhode Island will assist 

approximately 15 percent fewer families as compared to last winter. • Texas: the State operates a year-round energy assistance program. Their eligibility criteria is set at 125 percent of the Federal poverty level. They are expecting 

to serve only 6 percent of the eligible population, down from 7 percent in fiscal year 

2008. 

• Virginia: the State will serve all eligible households who apply during the application period. In order to do so, they are expecting to reduce the percent of heating 

costs covered by the program grant. The State is concerned that as a result of the 

expected reduction in purchasing power, it could prove to be very difficult for households that use deliverable fuel, since most vendors have minimum delivery requirements that will likely well exceed their benefit amounts. 

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

Many States, in partnership with their local utilities, also provide supplemental 

funding through direct appropriations or by creating system benefit funds, which 

are small charges against the utility rate base that are used to provide discounts 

and arrearage protection programs. In addition, utilities have also taken steps to 

provide low-income families with additional time to pay their bills by providing 

flexible payment arrangements and in many cases actively supporting State efforts 

to develop system benefit funds. 

The combined total of State, utility and charitable giving was about $3.2 billion 

in 2006 with charitable giving being the smallest amount at about $140 million annually. It is important to note, however, that these State, utility and charitable 

funds are no substitute for adequate Federal funding. The level of support varies 

considerably with only 12 States accounting for 83 percent of the total non-Federal 

spending on energy assistance. 

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN FAMILIES DO HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO PAY FOR HOME

HEATING OR COOLING? RESEARCH FINDINGS

Funding provided by the Appropriations Committee has allowed us to conduct 

surveys of families receiving LIHEAP assistance. Among the findings of our last 

survey: 

• Of the families surveyed, 44 percent said that they skipped paying or paid less 

than their entire home energy bill in the past year. Households with children (67 

percent) and those with income below 50 percent of the Federal poverty level (62 

percent) were more likely to do so. 

• In addition, 30 percent reported that they received a notice or threat to disconnect their electricity or home heating fuel. Again, households with children (51 

percent) and those with income below 50 percent of the Federal poverty level (51 

percent) were more likely to experience this problem. 

• Also 8 percent reported that their electricity or gas service was shut off in the 

past year due to nonpayment of utility bills. In addition, 16 percent of households 

with children and 22 percent with income below 50 percent of the poverty level reported a service termination in the past year. 

• As well as 18 percent said that they were unable to use their main source of 

heat in the past year for reasons ranging from their heating system was broken and 

they were unable to pay for its repair, they ran out of their bulk fuel and could not 

afford to pay for more, or because their utility used for heat was disconnected. 

Households with children (27 percent) and households with income below 50 percent 

of the poverty level (36 percent) were more likely to face this problem. 

• And 13 percent reported that broken air conditioners or termination of electric 

service prevented them from using their air conditioner. Households with a disabled 

member (19 percent), households with children (19 percent) were somewhat more 

likely to report this problem. 

PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF UNAFFORDABLE ENERGY

Unaffordable home energy presents a threat to public health and safety directly 

in the following ways: 

• Households respond to high bills, arrearages, or worries about incurring high 

costs, by choosing not to heat their homes adequately in winter or cool them during 

24 

the summer, or by using unsafe means to heat or illuminate their homes, for example, heating with a kitchen oven or barbecue grill or lighting by means of candles. 

Utility service shutoffs directly threaten health in this manner. In addition, when 

homes in poor structural shape need weatherization, it may be prohibitively costly 

or impossible to keep interiors within a safe temperature range. • Lack of access to energy assistance also threatens health indirectly. The 

squeeze put on home budgets by high utility bills and the threat of shutoff leads 

households to make difficult trade-offs, purchasing heat or electricity for air-conditioning instead of food or medications. In northern States, for example, poor families 

with children spend less on food, and children eat fewer calories, compared with 

higher-income families (Bhattacharya et al., 1993). Poor seniors in the north are 

also more likely to go hungry in late winter and early spring, while seniors in the 

south, where energy bills for air-conditioning can be high, are more likely to go hungry in late summer (Nord and Kantor, 2006). • Seasonal differences in heating and cooling costs explain much of the difference 

in hunger prevalence for low-income households without school-aged children. 

Young children from families that are eligible for but not enrolled in energy assistance are more likely, than children from families receiving LIHEAP, to be small for 

their age (underweight) and more likely to need hospital admission on the day of 

a health care visit (Frank et al., 2006). • Researchers from the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C– 

SNAP) at the Boston Medical Center, conclude that: 

‘‘The health consequences of trade-offs in spending can be serious especially 

for the youngest children. The first 3 years of life are a uniquely sensitive period of extraordinary brain and body growth; the cognitive and physical development that takes place at this stage will never occur to the same degree again. 

Babies and toddlers who live in energy insecure households are more likely to 

be in poor health; have a history of hospitalization; be at risk of developmental 

problems and be food insecure.’’ 

CONCLUSION

There is no substitute for adequate Federal funding of LIHEAP. The authorized level of $5.1 billion would provide sufficient funds to increase grant levels to adjust 

for inflation in energy prices and allow States to reach out to eligible households 

who are not currently receiving assistance. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I would welcome any questions 

or requests for additional information on this important program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think that’s very important to know and 

useful to understand. I think that’s what’s happening here in the 

State, I think they deserve credit for being involved, and that’s certainly good but, obviously, we need to do a great deal more. 

Margaret, I saw earlier you had that yellow envelope in front of 

you. 

Ms. GILLIAM. Yes, I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you do. 

[Laughter.] 

You told me a little earlier that you were carrying your bills 

around in that, is that what you are doing, your heating bills? 

Ms. GILLIAM. Yes, I am. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t know if you wanted—you look like you’ve 

got it all marked down. 

Ms. GILLIAM. During the summer months, I try to always prepare for the winter, something I’ve been doing now for the past 4 

years and—— 

Let me put my bifocals on so I can see. 

[Laughter.] 

My heating season consists, I would say, about 5 months a year. 

So, you know, saying this is what it cost me last year is not so. 

This is only for 5 months. Five months last year, up until April, 

the total amount I spent on fuel was $4,384.80. This year so far, 

up until yesterday, my heating bill is close to $4,000, and the last 

25 

delivery I did get was through the Mass Energy Association, and 

I didn’t have to pay for that one. That was actually a good donation. This is only January. So you can see where my concern is on 

it. 

I even called up Mr. Coard and asked dispirited enough to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I think you’re going to get a call, Robert. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GILLIAM [continuing]. And he’ll say, ‘‘Well, okay, I’ll see what 

I can do.’’ But I can’t sit by the phone waiting to hear from him. 

I have to kind of sit there and get a little bit nervous, get a little 

anxious. All that you see that’s on TV is not so. We weren’t told 

up until the last moment that we weren’t getting this government 

oil this winter. They were willing to give us, if we qualified and 

sent our applications in on time, first come, first served, we would 

get 100 gallons of oil. That’s what happened. I called earlier in the 

season to make sure that I was able to get it, because as time goes 

by, the phone lines, you can’t get through. So I did get only 100 

gallons of oil. 

I don’t know where the statistics come from that we see in the 

newspapers or on TV. That’s not so. 

I can spend at least, up until yesterday, with my figures, at least $700 a month for fuel only. And that’s quite a bit. My Social Security cost-of-living increase this year was only $20. But my insurance premium went up. My co-pay for my medication went up. And 

other little things went up $2 or $3 here, and I ended up being able 

to have $1.24 left from that $20 increase that I had gotten at the 

beginning of the year. 

So it hurts. It really hurts. I’m not ready to give up my apartment yet, because I have two children that are counting on me. 

They are lovely children. They are two young teenagers, and they 

need me, and I need to be there for them. But I do need to reach 

out to the community to give me the help I’ve needed. Like I say, 

I’m not the only one out there. If I call—I don’t even get upset 

when they tell me that they cannot—and just stay in and keep my 

eyes glued to the newspaper or TV to kind of get a feel of where 

can I go, and that’s been kind of hard. But as Mr. Coard has stated, all that he has stated, it is facts, not fiction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Diane, is there anything you want to add to—— 

Ms. STROLLO. No, I think that was all I had to say today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am very grateful to all of our panel, but to you 

two in particular. It’s never easy to be able to talk about the kind 

of personal challenges that you are facing. I mean, it’s not easy. I 

think, the best way we can ever express our appreciation is to do 

something about it. And that, you certainly have my commitment 

and pledge that we will. 

I want to thank all of you. It has been very useful and helpful. 

We touched on related subjects: are the people going to be able to 

hold on to their mortgages when they’re running through these 

kinds of challenges, whether they’re going to be able to get the food 

because of what’s happening in these food banks; cost of their 

health care—an issue that’s very close to my heart about what 

we’re trying to do and how failure to deal with this issue undermines efforts that we are facing on that. We haven’t talked about 

even tuition, how we’re going to get these teenagers in school along 

26 

with the increase of cost of tuition. These are all the central challenges that are just defining challenges about what kind of society 

we are and whether we really have a sense of community and 

whether we have a sense of fairness and decency. 

It is, I find, unconscionable about the profiteering that’s going on 

at this time. I mean, it is unconscionable when you have these extraordinary—the core prices that are being set by a monopoly internationally and the OPEC and American companies are profiting in 

the most incredible way, and finding out that our fellow citizens 

who have been part of our community are faced with these kinds 

of challenges in terms of their own lives and in terms of their children’s lives. Again, it’s difficult, but I think any family that hears 

the story can certainly understand the cost in terms of anxiety for 

these family members as they’re looking—thinking about this 

week, next week, the following week, every week, every day. This 

is something that’s going on, and we, as a country and as a society, 

know how to deal with it, and we can deal with it, and the question 

is whether we will deal with it. 

Well, you have certainly my strong, strong commitment to be in 

the battle for it, and I am hopeful about the outcome, hopefully, the 

sooner, the better. 

I had a number of my colleagues that had good statements—all 

who are strong supporters of our program, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, Bernie Sanders of Vermont who has been very, very involved and engaged in this and talked to me before being here, he 

is actually hearing some other committee business, otherwise, I 

think he would be here today; Senator Collins, Representative Markey, all of those, and my colleague, Senator Kerry, as well. 

So we have a very good group that are strongly committed, and 

we will make the battle, and we don’t intend to lose. 

So we thank all of you for being here today. 

[Additional material follows.] 

27 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS

Chairman Kennedy, thank you for holding this very important 

hearing. As you know, I had planned to be here with you this 

morning but due to the change in schedule, I unfortunately could 

not make it to Boston today. Thank you for including my statement 

in the record. 

Mr. Chairman, the skyrocketing price of home heating oil, propane, kerosene, natural gas and electricity is already stretching the 

household budgets of millions of families with children, senior citizens on fixed incomes and persons with disabilities beyond the 

breaking point. 

Today, there is one Federal program to help the most vulnerable 

people in this country stay warm this winter. That program is the 

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program otherwise known as 

LIHEAP, and that program is needed now more than ever. 

Unfortunately, the spike in energy costs is completely eviscerating the purchasing power of this extremely important program 

in Vermont and other cold weather states across the country. If the 

President and the Congress do not act soon to confront this problem head-on, I fear for the public health and well-being of millions 

of our most vulnerable citizens. 

Community Action Programs throughout the State of Vermont, 

the agencies on the front lines of this energy crisis, have reported 

to me and my office about the severity of the heating crisis this 

winter. Let me just give you a few examples. 

As of last week, the Central Vermont Community Action Council 

(CVCAC) exhausted their entire $206,000 LIHEAP budget, and is 

currently negotiating with the State for more money. CVCAC has 

estimated that they will need an additional $400,000 in LIHEAP 

funding to make it through the rest of the winter or more than 

double what they spent on LIHEAP all of last year. In central 

Vermont, CVCAC has reported heating oil prices as high as $3.73 

a gallon and propane prices as high as $3.99 a gallon. These are 

astronomical prices. To put this in perspective, just four years ago 

it cost less than $1.50 a gallon for heating oil in my state. Today, 

it now costs about $500 for CVCAC to arrange a delivery of 125 

gallons of emergency heating oil this winter, $200 higher than last 

year. 

The Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity has reported to my office that if more LIHEAP funds aren’t released soon, 

they will have exhausted all of their LIHEAP funding by the third 

week of February. 

Similar problems are also occurring in the northeastern, southeastern and southwest parts of Vermont. In other words, thousands 

of senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children, and persons with disabilities are in danger of going cold in 

my State of Vermont if we don’t significantly increase LIHEAP 

funding soon. In the richest country on the face of the earth, we 

must not allow that to happen. We must ensure that no American 

has to make the unacceptable choice between heating their homes, 

putting food on the table or paying for other basic necessities. 

28 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, on December 4, 2007, I introduced S. 2405, the Keep Americans Warm Act, to provide an extra $1 billion in emergency LIHEAP funding—money that would be in addition to the $2.4 billion provided in the Fiscal Year 2008 Labor, 

Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. I 

am pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations bill provided an extra 

$200 million for LIHEAP, but I strongly believe that LIHEAP still 

needs an additional $800 million. That is why I will be introducing 

an amendment as soon as possible to provide this much needed increase to LIHEAP. 

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply appreciative that you are a co-sponsor of this amendment and the Keep Americans Warm Act. I am 

also delighted that this legislation has strong bipartisan support 

and has so far been endorsed by the AARP, the American Gas Association, and the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, just to name a few. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I welcome the President’s release of $450 million in emergency LIHEAP funding, everyone should 

know that the President still has $160 million at his disposal to 

distribute to states dealing with heating emergencies. Anyone paying attention to this issue can tell you that there is a home heating 

emergency in Vermont and throughout this country. The President 

should release all of this funding immediately targeted to those 

States most in need. 

Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing 

and allowing me this opportunity to submit this statement for the 

record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS

As I travel around the State of Maine, I hear again and again 

about the high cost of energy causing a crisis situation for many 

Maine citizens. The cold weather combined with rapidly increasing 

prices for home heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products 

refined from oil has created a huge burden for families throughout 

the Northeast. I am pleased that Chairman Kennedy and Ranking 

Member Enzi are bringing attention to this important issue with 

today’s hearing. 

Earlier this month, the price of crude oil on the New York Mer- cantile Exchange briefly reached $100/barrel. This caps a rapid rise 

in prices from $71/barrel in August 2007, a sharp increase just at 

the time when heating oil demand rises. This winter, the Energy 

Information Administration estimates that households can expect 

to pay between 10 to 22 percent more for heating fuels than during 

the 2006–2007 winter. In my State of Maine, consumers face home 

heating oil prices 48 percent higher than this time last year ($2.26/ 

gallon on January 8, 2007 compared to $3.35/gallon as of January 

9, 2008). 

That troubling rise touches virtually every aspect of the economy. 

Oil prices significantly affect the costs of heating homes, driving 

family cars and commercial trucks, running fishing boats, operating farm and logging equipment, and manufacturing operations. 

All of this has a particular impact on low-income citizens. 

Throughout my time in the Senate, along with a bipartisan group 

of Senators, I have fought for increased funds for the Low Income 

29 

Heating Assistance Program, LIHEAP, the Federal program that 

provides States with funding to help low-income people and the elderly meet their energy needs. The LIHEAP program provides assistance for 48,000 Mainers each year and nearly 6 million households nationwide. 

In September 2007, we secured $131 million in contingency 

LIHEAP funds. We also supported a nearly $400 million increase 

over last year for LIHEAP funding in the consolidated appropriations bill, signed by the President this month. However, this winter 

has brought a sharp increase in applications for LIHEAP assistance, but hundreds of those requests are being turned down due to 

a shortage of funds. For that reason, we requested that the President immediately release the $586 million that Congress put in the 

LIHEAP contingency fund. Maine needs at least $20 million of 

those additional contingency funds to keep abreast of the increased 

requests. Yesterday the President released $450 million of the 

LIHEAP contingency funds, with about $9 million going to Maine. 

While it is encouraging news that the Administration agreed to our 

request to release these funds, the need for additional assistance 

remains critical. This winter has brought a sharp increase in applications for LIHEAP assistance, but hundreds of those requests are 

being turned down due a shortage of funds. I will continue to seek 

the release of the remaining contingency funds. Citizens in the 

Northeast should not be forced to choose between medicine and 

food or heat, yet I continue to hear from people faced with exactly 

such dire choices. 

We also are working to obtain additional emergency LIHEAP 

funding for this winter. We are pursuing every possible option—for 

example we tried to include this funding in the Farm Bill the Senate debated in December. Unfortunately, we did not succeed, but 

this will remain a priority when the Senate reconvenes. 

Many causes appear to have contributed to the sharp rise in oil 

prices: increased global demand for crude oil, instability in the 

Middle East and Venezuela, supply decisions of the OPEC cartel, 

insufficient U.S. refining capacity, the declining value of the dollar, 

the timing of government purchases for the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve, and speculative trading on futures markets. To minimize 

one of these causes, I, along with Senators Lieberman, Levin, and 

Coleman, recently urged the Department of Energy to temporarily 

suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). It makes no 

sense whatsoever for the Department of Energy to purchase more 

oil for the SPR at a time when prices are at record highs. The Department should not be taking oil off the market and adding to 

pressures on supplies when consumers are struggling to heat their 

homes and fill their gas tanks. 

Our long-term challenge to address energy prices is, of course, to 

reduce our reliance on imported oil. We need to pursue the goal of 

energy independence just as fervently as the Nation embraced 

President Kennedy’s goal in 1961 of putting a man on the moon. 

Energy independence and stable energy costs, and environmental 

stewardship, are goals that are within our reach, but they require 

a major national effort. The time to begin that effort is now. 

30 

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ