[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 27575]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                THE LOW-INCOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, humorist Frank McKinney Hubbard once said, 
``Don't knock the weather. If it didn't change once in a while, nine 
out of ten people wouldn't start a conversation.''
  Unfortunately, extreme weather is nothing to laugh about. Tonight, I 
would like to talk about the underfunding of the Low-Income Energy 
Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, and how we have failed to protect 
our Nation's citizens against harsh winter and blistering summer 
elements. Lyndon Johnson once talked about building a ``Great 
Society.'' But we cannot have a ``Great Society'' if we only provide 
tax breaks for the wealthy while ignoring the suffering of the poor in 
America.
  LIHEAP was enacted to assist low-income citizens who pay a high 
proportion of their household income to meet their immediate home 
energy needs. Low-income households spend 14 percent of their annual 
income on energy expenditures, compared to non-low-income households, 
that only spend 3.5 percent. In fact, two-thirds of the families that 
utilize LIHEAP assistance have annual incomes of $8,000, forcing them 
to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table.
  From 1995 to 2004, the average number of cold-related deaths was 27 
annually. Meanwhile, my colleagues from the south note that during the 
same time period, the average number of deaths from heat was 237 
annually. The point is that LIHEAP should be available to offset high 
energy costs in both winter and summer.
  The hardships of high energy bills this winter can be visibly seen on 
the face of an elderly grandmother shivering in the cold of her living 
room or having to cut back on medicine to keep the heat on. Savings are 
used up, credits ratings are destroyed, and children are increasingly 
vulnerable to sickness and ill health. This is not the policy of a 
great society.
  The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association's most recent 
survey on the impact of rising energy costs on poor families 
illustrates this troubling reality: 32 percent sacrificed medical care; 
24 percent failed to make a rental or mortgage payment; 20 percent went 
without food for at least a day; and 44 percent said they skipped 
paying or paid less than their full home energy bill in the past year.
  Since 2003, the price of heat to heat one's home has risen 
tremendously as the price of natural gas has risen by 45 percent and 
heating oil has risen by 50 percent. As a result, those who use natural 
gas to heat their home could see their average heating costs spike from 
$750 to $1,100 this year. For those who use home heating oil, like me, 
last year's expenditure of $1,200 could jump to as high as $1,600 this 
year.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle contend that Congress 
has increased funding for this critical program in recent years. They 
point to the $2 billion in the fiscal year 2005 and the $5 billion 
authorized this year in the energy bill. However, there are three 
problems with this argument, or as I like to call it ``the triple 
whammy.''
  First, we have to understand the $5 authorized in the energy bill was 
cut to $3 billion in the House's pre-Thanksgiving budget reconciliation 
bill. Second, the $3 billion figure will be further cut to around $2 
billion by the appropriators, because that is the figure they are 
pushing for to effectively flat line the funding for LIHEAP. Third, 
take a look at this graph. You can clearly see that even when 
appropriations increased for LIHEAP, the purchasing power, and that is 
what is critical for these funds, actually decreased for LIHEAP 
recipients. Inflation in heating oil and natural gas prices actually 
decreased purchasing power by 42 percent since the program's inception 
in 1982.
  Ironically, during this time of inadequate LIHEAP funding, oil 
companies are boasting record profits, some as large as 255 percent. 
This situation is so bad that some of our Senate colleagues recently 
wrote a letter to the nine big oil companies and asked them to donate a 
part of their profits to help low-income people cover these increased 
energy costs.
  Only one response was received, from Citgo, a state-owned Venezuelan 
company controlled by Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. Chavez took 
this public relations opportunity to promote his socialist world view 
as counterpoint to the United States capitalist world view.
  Specifically, he is using profits from Venezuelan-based Citgo to make 
friends in the United States and attempting to illustrate the failures 
of American democracy. Citgo has provided discounted heating oil this 
winter to low-income residents in Massachusetts. Twelve million gallons 
of heavily discounted heating oil was donated to low-income communities 
across the State of Massachusetts, helping consumers save between 60 
and 80 cents per gallon. This is a total savings of $10 million to $14 
million which will occur this winter.
  While I am certainly appreciative of this gesture, by having to 
accept Venezuela's charity, we are playing into Chavez's hands. We 
cannot effectively promote democracy and free markets around the world 
if our policies here at home reflect a callous disregard for our poorer 
citizens.
  Close to home in my State of Maryland, we will need about $84 million 
in Federal fuel assistance, that is more than twice the amount 
originally anticipated to help low-income residents heat their homes 
this winter. The Maryland Energy Assistance Program says it will need 
$51 million more to cover rising energy costs.
  In conclusion, I call upon my Republican colleagues to forego or at 
least delay the additional tax cuts for the warm and the wealthy. 
Instead, I hope my colleagues on the right side of the aisle will fully 
fund the $5 billion promise in the energy bill for low income energy 
assistance.

                          ____________________