The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Updated October 21, 2008
Libby Perl
Analyst in Housing Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Summary
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in
1981 (P.L. 97-35), is a block grant program under which the federal government
makes annual grants to states, tribes, and territories to operate home energy assistance
programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of
funds: regular funds, which are allocated to all states using a statutory formula, and
contingency funds, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the
Administration. The formula by which regular funds are distributed was changed by
Congress in 1984 and is sometimes referred to as the new LIHEAP formula. The
implementation of the new formula effectively depends on the level of funds
appropriated by Congress. As a result, if appropriations for regular funds do not
exceed a certain level (about $2 billion) funds are distributed according to the
proportion of funds that each state received in FY1984; this is sometimes referred to
as the old LIHEAP formula.
States may use LIHEAP funds to help households pay for heating and cooling
costs, for crisis assistance, weatherization assistance, and services (such as
counseling) to reduce the need for energy assistance. According to the most recent
data available from HHS (for FY2005), the majority of LIHEAP funds — 55.2% —
was used to pay for heating assistance, 2.8% of funds was used for cooling aid,

17.6% of funds went to crisis assistance, and 10.6% was used for weatherization.

The LIHEAP statute establishes eligibility for households with incomes at or below
150% of poverty or 60% of state median income, whichever is higher, although states
may set lower limits. In FY2005, an estimated 34.8 million households were eligible
for LIHEAP under the federal guidelines. According to HHS, 5.3 million households
received heating or winter crisis assistance and approximately 400,000 households
received cooling or summer crisis assistance that same year.
On September 27, 2008, Congress passed a continuing resolution for FY2009,
the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2638), which the President signed into law on September 30, 2008 (P.L. 110-
329). The law appropriated $5.1 billion for LIHEAP in FY2009, exceeding by nearly
$2 billion the FY2006 appropriation of approximately $3.2 billion, which previously
had been the highest level of funding ever appropriated for the program. Of the $5.1
billion, approximately $4.5 billion was appropriated as regular funds and $590
million as contingency funds. However, P.L. 110-329 further specified that $840
million of the regular funds was to be distributed according to the new LIHEAP
formula, while the remainder — approximately $3.6 billion — was to be distributed
according to the old LIHEAP formula. In addition, P.L. 110-329 gave states the
discretion to serve households with incomes at or below 75% of state median
income. All funds, including the contingency funds, were to be released to states,
tribes, and territories within 30 days of enactment of P.L. 110-329. On October 16,

2008, HHS announced how the funds would be distributed (see Table 3).

This report describes LIHEAP funding, current issues, legislation, program
rules, and eligibility. It will be updated as events warrant.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
LIHEAP Funding and Recent Developments............................1
FY2009 LIHEAP Funding.......................................1
FY2008 LIHEAP Funding.......................................3
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161).................3
Additional LIHEAP Funding Legislation.......................3
Distribution of LIHEAP Contingency Funds.........................5
FY2009 Contingency Funds.................................5
FY2008 Contingency Funds.................................6
LIHEAP Legislation in the 110^th Congress..........................7
Report to Congress on Preventing Loss of Life Because of
Extreme Indoor Air Temperatures.............................9
Program Rules and Benefits.........................................10
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility..............10
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available.............................11
Use of Funds................................................11
Households Served............................................11
Benefit Levels...............................................12
Funds and Their Distribution .......................................14
Regular Funds...............................................14
Tier I...................................................15
Tier II..................................................15
Tier III.................................................16
Contingency Funds...........................................16
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds..........................16
Other Funds.................................................17
Legislative History................................................17
List of Tables
Table 1. Final FY2006-FY2009 LIHEAP Funding.......................5
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years..............14
Table 3. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2006 to FY2009..................19
Table 4. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2009........................21

The Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP):
Program and Funding
Introduction
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established by
Title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35), is a
block grant program under which the federal government gives states, tribes, and
territories annual grants to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income
households. The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of program funding: regular
funds and contingency funds. Regular funds are allotted to states according to a
formula prescribed by the LIHEAP statute.¹ The second type of LIHEAP funding,
called contingency funds, may be released and allotted to one or more states at the
discretion of the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The first section of this report describes appropriations of LIHEAP funds for
FY2009 and FY2008. It also discusses current issues and legislation related to
LIHEAP. The second section of this report discusses LIHEAP rules, including
household eligibility and how funds may be used, and presents the most recent data
available from HHS regarding household characteristics and benefit levels. Finally,
the third section discusses how each category of LIHEAP funds is distributed to
states, as well as a breakdown of funds to the states during the last several fiscal
years.
LIHEAP Funding and Recent Developments
FY2009 LIHEAP Funding
In FY2009, Congress appropriated $5.1 billion for LIHEAP, the most funding
that has ever been provided for the program, as part of the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R. 2638), which the
President signed into law on September 30, 2008 (P.L. 110-329). The appropriation
exceeded the President’s FY2009 budget request by $3.1 billion; the President had
requested $1.7 billion in regular funds and $300 million in contingency funds. The
appropriation also nearly doubled the $2.57 billion that Congress had provided for
the program in FY2008. Previously, the highest level of funding for LIHEAP had

¹ See Section 2604(a)-(d) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Title XXVI of
P.L. 97-35), as amended. The section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)-(d).

been $3.16 billion, appropriated in FY2006. In that year, Congress appropriated an
additional $1 billion for LIHEAP on top of the annual appropriation (see Table 1).
Of the total amount appropriated in FY2009, $4.51 billion was allocated to
LIHEAP regular funds. The appropriations law further specified the way in which
these regular funds were to be distributed:
^!Approximately $840 million was to be distributed according to the
new LIHEAP formula. The new formula was enacted in 1984 and
allocates funds to states on the basis of the heating and cooling costs
of low-income households. For more information about the
LIHEAP formula, see the section of this report entitled “Funds and
Their Distribution.”
^!The remaining $3.67 billion was to be distributed according to the
proportion of funds that states received under the old LIHEAP
formula, which existed prior to the enactment of the new formula in

1984.

Approximately $590 million of the total $5.1 billion appropriation was allocated to
contingency funds, the same amount that Congress appropriated in FY2008.
The FY2009 Continuing Appropriations Act further specified that states could
use these FY2009 funds to serve households with incomes at or below 75% of state²
median income at their discretion. Ordinarily, states may set eligibility for LIHEAP
assistance at the greater of 60% of state median income or 150% of poverty.³
P.L. 110-329 also required HHS to obligate all FY2009 LIHEAP funds,
including the contingency funds, within 30 days of enactment of the law. On October
16, 2008, HHS released tables showing how both LIHEAP regular and contingency
funds would be distributed to the states, tribes, and territories. In addition, HHS
announced that it would distribute FY2009 leveraging incentive and Residential
Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants on the basis of FY2008 applications
submitted by states and tribes. In FY2008, Congress did not authorize funds for
leveraging incentive and REACH grants in the appropriations law. As a result, no
awards were made to grantees. For more information about this issue, see the next
section of this report, “FY2008 LIHEAP Funding.”
To see how FY2009 LIHEAP funds were allocated to the states, see Table 3 at
the end of this report.

² HHS annually publishes state median income data in the Federal Register. For FY2009
data, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 44, March 5, 2008, p. 11924.
³ 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B).

FY2008 LIHEAP Funding
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). On December 26,

2007, the President signed the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-

161). The funding bill provided a total of approximately $2.57 billion for LIHEAP
(see Division G of P.L. 110-161). Of this amount, $1.98 billion was for regular
funds, the same amount appropriated in FY2007; $590 million was allocated for⁴
contingency funds. The regular fund appropriation exceeded the President’s
FY2008 budget request of $1.5 billion by $480 million and his contingency fund
request of $282 million by approximately $308 million. The regular fund
appropriation in P.L. 110-161 was the same amount that was requested in the
conference agreement for the FY2008 Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations bill (H.R. 3043, H.Rept. 110-424), which
was vetoed by the President on November 13, 2007. For contingency funds,
however, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $158 million more than
would have been provided in the House and Senate conference agreement, which
would have appropriated just under $432 million. The House-passed version of H.R.
3043 contained $682 million for contingency funds, while the Senate’s substitute
version of H.R. 3043 would have provided the same level appropriated in FY2007
— $181 million.
On June 26, 2008, HHS announced that it would distribute funds that were
thought to have been allocated to leveraging incentive and REACH grants in the
FY2008 Appropriations Act as part of the regular fund formula grants. Since the
early 1990s, leveraging incentive and REACH grants have been made to states and
tribes according to their ability to obtain non-LIHEAP resources for energy assistance
(leveraging incentive grants) and for increasing the energy efficiency of low-income
households (REACH grants). These funds are discussed later in this report. In recent
years, Congress has allocated around $27 million for these two funds, an amount that
is taken out of the LIHEAP regular fund appropriation. However, in FY2008, P.L.

110-161 did not appropriate funds for leveraging incentive and REACH grants.

When HHS discovered that language to appropriate the funds was missing from the
appropriations act, it released to the states the $26.7 million that would otherwise
have been distributed as leveraging incentive and REACH grants under the LIHEAP
formula.
Additional LIHEAP Funding Legislation. Some Members of the Senate
attempted to add funds to the FY2008 LIHEAP appropriation on three occasions in
FY2008. The first attempt was part of the economic stimulus package (H.R. 5140),
which was considered by the Senate in early February 2008. However, the LIHEAP

⁴ P.L. 110-161 contained an across the board rescission of 1.747% that reduced the stated
amounts appropriated for most Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education programs. See P.L. 110-161, Division G, Section 528. After application of the
rescission, $1.98 billion is available for regular funds and $590 million for contingency
funds. Prior to application of the rescission, the stated appropriations levels in P.L. 110-161
are $2.015 billion for LIHEAP regular funds and $596 million to contingency funds. Of the
amount appropriated for contingency funds, $250 million is designated as emergency
spending; the rescission does not apply to the $250 million in emergency funds.

provisions were ultimately removed from H.R. 5140 prior to the bill’s passage by the
Senate. An early Senate version of H.R. 5140, which was eventually signed into law
on February 13, 2008, as the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-185),
contained an additional $1 billion for LIHEAP. The funds would have been divided
evenly between regular and contingency funds. This would have brought the total
regular fund allocation for FY2008 to $2.48 billion and contingency funds to over $1
billion. The LIHEAP provisions would have required the contingency funds to be
distributed within 30 days of the law’s enactment and to be distributed according to
the old LIHEAP formula (see a discussion of the LIHEAP formula later in this
report).
The second attempt to provide funds for LIHEAP was part of the FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642). In the Senate Appropriations
Committee markup, an amendment was adopted that would have provided $1 billion
for LIHEAP, with $500 million allocated as formula funds and $500 million as
contingency funds. As with the provision in the economic stimulus package, the
amendment directed that the contingency funds be distributed according to the old
LIHEAP formula. However, prior to Senate passage of the bill, the language
directing how the contingency funds should be distributed was removed. As passed
by the Senate on May 22, 2008, H.R. 2642 would have appropriated $1 billion for
LIHEAP, without specifying if or how the funds would be divided. However, the
House removed the funds for LIHEAP from its version of H.R. 2642 prior to
approving the bill on June 19, 2008.
The third attempt to appropriate additional funds for LIHEAP was made through
S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. The bill, introduced on June
24, 2008, proposed to add more than $2.5 billion to the amounts already appropriated
for LIHEAP in FY2008. Under S. 3186, funding would have been divided evenly
between LIHEAP regular funds and contingency funds, with $1.265 billion going to
each. The bill bypassed committee consideration and went directly to the Senate
floor for a cloture vote on July 26, 2008. The cloture vote on S. 3186 failed,
however, so the Senate did not consider the bill.

Table 1. Final FY2006-FY2009 LIHEAP Funding
^Reg^u^la^r
^Set^-^Asides
^C^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^gen^c^y^T^otal^St^a^t^e^Form^u^l^a^(A^pprox^{. $300,000 f}^o^{r t}^echⁿⁱ^cal
^Gr^aⁿ^t^s^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce, w}^h^ich^is^perm^an^en^tly^au^th^{orized in}^th^{e s}^t^atu^t^e)
^Fiⁿ^a^l^FY^{2006 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^a
^P^.^L^.^109-¹⁴⁹^{1.98 b}^illion^{— 27.225 m}^illion^—^l^e^ve^r^a^gi^{ng i}ⁿ^c^eⁿ^tⁱ^v^e^fund^{181 m}^illion^2.161^b^illioⁿ
^P.L^.^109-²⁰⁴^b^{500 m}^illion^N^on^e⁵⁰⁰^m^illion^1.000^b^illioⁿ
^T^o^{tal 2}^.⁴⁸^b^illioⁿ^{— 27.225 m}^illion^—^l^e^ve^r^a^gi^{ng i}ⁿ^c^eⁿ^tⁱ^v^e^fund^{681 m}^illion^3.161^b^illioⁿ
^Fiⁿ^a^l^FY^{2007 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^P^.^L^.^110-⁵¹^{.98 billion}^{— 27.225 m}^illion^—^l^e^ve^r^a^gi^{ng i}ⁿ^c^eⁿ^tⁱ^v^e^fund^{181 m}^illion^2.161^b^illioⁿ
^Fiⁿ^a^l^FY^{2008 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^P.L^.^110-¹⁶¹^c¹^.⁹⁸^b^illioⁿ^No^{t sp}^ecifⁱ^ed^d^{590 m}^illion^2.570^b^illioⁿ
^Fiⁿ^a^l^FY^{2009 A}^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ
^P^.^L^.^110-³²⁹^{4.51 b}^illion^N^{ot s}^p^ecifⁱ^ed^d^{590 m}^illion^5.1^b^illioⁿ
^Source:^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce on}^t^h^{e bas}ⁱ^s^of^P.L^.^109-^{148, P.L}^.^109-^{149, P.L}^.^109-^171,
^P.L^.^109-^{204, P.L}^.^110-^{5, P.L}^.^110-^{161, an}^{d P.L}^.^110-^329.
^{a. U}ⁿ^{der t}^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^(P.L^{. 109-}^{148), di}^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^s^p^en^diⁿ^gⁱⁿ
^F^Y^{2006 w}^a^s^redu^{ced by}^1%^t^h^ro^{ugh a}ⁿ^a^c^r^o^ss-t^h^e^-^b^o^a^r^d^r^e^scⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^.^T^h^e^a^m^o^unt^{s i}ⁿ^P^.^L.^109-
^{149 i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{e t}^h^{e res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^.
^{b. T}^h^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^m^a^{de av}^ai^l^a^bl^{e f}^o^r^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶ⁱⁿ^P.L^.^109-^{204 w}^e^{re ori}^gⁱⁿ^al^l^y^appropri^a^t^e^{d f}^o^{r F}^Y^{2007 i}ⁿ
^t^h^{e D}^e^fⁱ^ci^t^R^e^du^ctⁱ^oⁿ^A^c^t^of^{2005, P.L}^.^109-^{171. C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^s^hⁱ^f^t^e^{d t}^h^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^t^o^F^Y^{2006 i}ⁿ^P.L^.
^109-^204.
^c^.^A^m^o^unt^s^f^o^{r D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^L^a^{bor, H}^eal^t^h^an^{d H}^u^m^aⁿ^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^{, an}^{d Edu}^catⁱ^oⁿ^prog^ram^s^w^e^r^e
^s^u^bj^ect^t^o^{a 1.747%}^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{. S}^{ee P.L}^.^110-^{161, D}ⁱ^vi^si^oⁿ^G^,^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ^{528. A}^m^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s
^{table repres}^en^{t th}^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^av^{ailable af}^{ter th}^{e res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^.
^d^.^T^h^{e F}^Y^{2008 C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^di^{d n}^o^t^au^t^h^ori^{ze f}^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r l}^e^v^e^ragⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^cen^tⁱ^v^e
^gr^aⁿ^t^s^.^A^s^a^r^e^sul^t^,^fund^s^t^h^a^t^w^o^ul^d^o^t^he^r^wⁱ^s^e^ha^ve^b^e^eⁿ^a^w^a^r^d^e^d^a^s^l^e^ve^r^a^gi^{ng i}ⁿ^c^eⁿ^tⁱ^v^e
^g^r^an^t^s^w^e^{re di}^s^t^ri^bu^t^e^d^t^o^t^h^{e s}^t^at^es^as^part^of^L^I^H^E^A^P^reg^u^l^{ar f}^uⁿ^d^s^.^In^F^Y^{2009, H}^H^S
^determⁱⁿ^{ed th}^{at it w}^o^u^l^{d aw}^{ard $27 m}^illionⁱⁿ^lev^e^ragⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^cen^tiv^{e g}^r^an^ts^on^th^{e bas}ⁱ^s^of
^F^Y^{2008 appl}ⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^.
Distribution of LIHEAP Contingency Funds
FY2009 Contingency Funds. In FY2009, Congress appropriated
approximately $590 million in LIHEAP contingency funds as part of P.L. 110-329,
the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act.
The law specified that HHS must obligate the funds to states within 30 days of the
law’s enactment (September 30, 2008). On October 16, 2008, HHS announced that
it would release the contingency funds to all states, tribes, and territories — of the
$590 million, $490 million would be released to all states according to the proportion

of funds that states received under the old LIHEAP formula,⁵ and $100 million would
be released to seven states where at least 30% of low-income households use heating
oil to heat their homes. The seven states received funds according to the proportion
of funds they received under the old LIHEAP formula weighted by their share of low-
income heating oil users. These seven recipient states were Alaska, Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. For the amount
of contingency funds received by each state in FY2009, see Table 3 at the end of this
report.
FY2008 Contingency Funds. Congress appropriated just over $590 million
in LIHEAP contingency funds for FY2008 to be released at the discretion of HHS to
states according to their energy needs. The Administration has distributed
contingency funds on three occasions in FY2008. (For the total amount of funds
distributed to each state in FY2008, see Table 3.) First, on January 16, 2008, the
Administration announced the release of $450 million to all states, tribes, and
territories. The total amount was distributed in three ways.
^!$150 million was distributed to all states tribes and territories on the
basis of the percentage of funds that each receives under the old⁶
LIHEAP formula.
^!$50 million was distributed to 11 states where the percentage of low-
income households that use heating oil is 20% or more. The
allocations were based on the percentage of funds each state receives
under the old LIHEAP formula, weighted by the percentage of low-
income heating oil users in the state. The states that received a
portion of the $50 million distribution were Alaska, Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
^!$250 million was distributed to 26 states where at least 60% of low-
income households use either heating oil, natural gas, or propane for
heat, and the average temperature between November 1, 2006, and
March 1, 2007, was 39° Fahrenheit or lower. Funds were distributed
on the basis of the percentage of funds each state receives under the
old LIHEAP formula, weighted by the percentage of low-income
households using heating oil, natural gas, or propane to heat their
homes. Each of the states that received funds under the $50 million
distribution, with the exception of Delaware, received a portion of

⁵ In 1984, Congress changed the way in which LIHEAP funds are to be allocated to the
states. This is sometimes referred to as the new LIHEAP formula. The way in which funds
were distributed to the states prior to this change in the formula is sometimes referred to as
the old LIHEAP formula. The formula is discussed in greater detail in the section of this
report entitled “Funds and Their Distribution.”
⁶ In each case where HHS distributed contingency funds based on the LIHEAP formula in
FY2008, grantees received the percentage of funds they receive under the old LIHEAP
formula. For a discussion of the formula, see the section “Funds and Their Distribution”
later in this report.

the $250 million distribution. The remaining states that received
funds were Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The second FY2008 distribution of contingency funds occurred on February 22,
2008, when the Administration released $40 million to eleven states on the basis of
heating oil usage. States received funds if at least 20% of low-income households
use heating oil as their primary heating source. The following states received funds:
Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
On September 17, 2008, the Administration released the balance of the FY2008
contingency funds — approximately $101 million — together with $20 million in
contingency funds that remained available from the FY2005 appropriation. Of the
total funds released, $96 million was distributed to all states, tribes, and territories
based on the proportions of the old LIHEAP formula. The remaining $25 million
was distributed to seven states where at least 30% of low-income households use
heating oil as their primary heating source. Funds were allocated to those seven
states based on their share of LIHEAP formula funds under the old formula, weighted
by the share of households in the state using heating oil. The states that received
funds on this basis were Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
LIHEAP Legislation in the 110^th Congress
Bills that would affect aspects of LIHEAP have been introduced in the 110^th
Congress. The following list discusses many of them, but is not an exhaustive list
of LIHEAP-related legislation.
^!Two bills, H.R. 4275 and S. 2405, both entitled the Keeping
Americans Warm Act, would appropriate $1 billion for LIHEAP
contingency funds in addition to amounts otherwise appropriated in
FY2008.
^!Versions of bills in both the House and Senate, entitled the Warm in
Winter and Cool in Summer Act (S. 3186 and H.R. 6427), would
appropriate additional funds for LIHEAP for FY2008. They would
add $1.265 billion to the formula grants, for a total of $3.245 billion
in FY2008, and $1.265 billion to the contingency funds for a total of
$1.855 billion.
^!The LIHEAP Equity Act (H.R. 153), would mandate that no more
than 50% of the funding provided under LIHEAP be made available
for heating purposes.
^!S. 669, the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act, concerns contingency
funds. The bill would allow a state governor to apply to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services for certification that there
is an emergency in his or her state (as defined by the LIHEAP

statute), and for an allotment of contingency funds in response to the
emergency.
^!The Home Energy Assistance Targeted for Seniors Act (H.R. 2984)
would rename LIHEAP the “Low Income and Senior Home Energy
Assistance Act” and make eligible for benefits households with
incomes at or below state median income, as long as at least 50% of
the household’s income was attributable to persons age 65 and older.
(Currently households may not have incomes above 60% of state
median income and still be eligible for LIHEAP.)
^!The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (H.R. 1252) would make
it illegal to charge excessive prices for various types of fuel if an
“energy emergency” is declared by the President. The illegal
practices would include selling oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum at unconscionably excessive prices; intentionally
reporting false price information; or manipulating the market.
Penalties imposed for violations of these provisions would be used
to provide LIHEAP assistance. On May 23, 2007, the bill bypassed
committee consideration and went straight to the House floor, where
it passed under suspension of the rules. A similar bill with the same
title (H.R. 6346) was introduced by the same sponsor,
Representative Bart Stupak, on June 23, 2008. The next day, a
motion to pass H.R. 6346 under suspension of the rules failed.
^!Two other bills would similarly use penalties imposed on energy
providers to fund LIHEAP. The Federal Energy Price Protection Act
(H.R. 2460) would penalize oil, gas, and petroleum suppliers for
price gouging with the fees going to LIHEAP, while the Clean,
Reliable, Efficient and Secure Energy Act of 2007 (S. 1602) would
give a portion of penalties collected from energy suppliers to
LIHEAP.
^!The Low Carbon Economy Act (S. 1766) would set greenhouse gas
emissions targets for entities such as natural gas processing plants,
electric power plants, and refineries. Under the program, these
regulated entities would trade allowances that entitle them to emit a
certain amount of greenhouse gases. A portion of the proceeds from
the auction of these allowances would be allocated to fund LIHEAP.
Another bill that would seek to cap carbon emissions and devote a
portion of proceeds from the sale of allowances is the Investing in
Climate Action and Protection Act (H.R. 6186).
^!America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191) would set up a system
under which regulated entities would trade allowances to emit
greenhouse gases. During the years 2012 to 2050, a portion of
proceeds from the auctions (20%) would be allocated to an Energy
Assistance Fund, of which 50% would be available to the LIHEAP
program. On December 5, 2007, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works reported S. 2191. On May 20, 2008,

S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act was
introduced in the Senate. It is identical to S. 2191, but contains
provisions to make the bill deficit neutral. The Senate debated S.
3036 in early June 2008. However, after several days of
consideration, the Senate was not able to invoke cloture on June 6,
2008. (For more information about the cap-and-trade provisions of
these bills, as well as those in S. 1766 and H.R. 6186, see CRS
Report RL33846, Greenhouse Gas Reduction: Cap-and-Trade Bills
in the 110^th Congress, by Larry Parker, Brent D. Yacobucci, and
Jonathan L. Ramseur.)
^!Another bill, the Energy Security and Corporate Accountability Act
(S. 1238) would not affect LIHEAP, but would create a program for
LIHEAP-eligible households called the Low-Income Transportation
Energy Assistance Fund. The program would give funds to families
to assist in purchasing gasoline or passes for public transportation.
A similar bill in the Senate, the Low Income Gasoline Assistance
Program Act (S. 2968) would make grants to states that would then
be used to assist low-income households with the purchase of
gasoline.
^!The Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008
(H.R. 5800) would impose a windfall profits tax on the sale of oil
and natural gas. A “windfall profit” is defined by the act as an
amount that exceeds a reasonable profit as determined by a
“Reasonable Profits Board,” to be established pursuant to H.R. 5800.
Proceeds under the windfall profits tax would be allocated to
LIHEAP. Another bill, the Renewable Investment and Consumer
Protection Act (H.R. 6155), would tax stock repurchase transactions
made by oil companies and give 40% of the proceeds to LIHEAP.
Report to Congress on Preventing Loss of Life
Because of Extreme Indoor Air Temperatures
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) required HHS to report to
Congress on how LIHEAP “could be used more effectively to prevent loss of life
from extreme temperatures.” On February 15, 2007, HHS released a report in which
it summarized state recommendations for ways to use LIHEAP funds to prevent heat-
and cold-related deaths due to indoor air temperature.⁷ Recommendations were in
five categories:
^!Education and outreach;
^!Weatherization and energy-related home repairs;
^!Special assistance for vulnerable populations;

⁷ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress on: Preventing Loss of
Life Due to Extreme Indoor Temperatures, February 15, 2007.

^!Partnerships with other social services programs and energy
providers; and
^!Research on the needs of, and best practices for helping, vulnerable
households.
Program Rules and Benefits
Federal LIHEAP requirements are minimal and leave most important program
decisions to the states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and Indian tribes and
tribal organizations (collectively referred to as grantees) who receive federal funds.
The federal government (HHS) may not dictate how grantees implement
“assurances” that they will comply with general federal guidelines.
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility
Federal law limits LIHEAP eligibility to households with incomes up to 150%
of the federal poverty income guidelines (or, if greater, 60% of the state median
income). States may adopt lower income limits, but no household with income
below 110% of the poverty guidelines may be considered ineligible. States may
separately choose to make eligible for LIHEAP assistance any household of which
at least one member is a recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamps, or certain needs-tested
veterans’ programs. LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under
other aid programs.
Within these limits, grantees decide which, if any, assistance categories to
include, what income limits to use, and whether to impose other eligibility tests. The
statute gives priority for aid to households with the greatest energy needs or cost
burdens, especially those that include disabled individuals, frail older individuals, or
young children. Federal standards require grantees to treat owners and renters
“equitably,” to adjust benefits for household income and home energy costs, and to
have a system of “crisis intervention” assistance for those in immediate need. The
LIHEAP definition of “energy crisis” leaves room for each state to define the term
slightly differently, although generally, crisis assistance is provided to households
that are in danger of losing their heating or cooling due to problems with equipment,
receipt of a utility shutoff notice, or exhaustion of a fuel supply.⁸ Federal rules also
require outreach activities, coordination with the Department of Energy’s
Weatherization Assistance Program, annual audits and appropriate fiscal controls,
and fair hearings for those aggrieved. Grantees decide the mix and dollar range of

⁸ The LIHEAP statute defines an energy crisis as “weather-related and supply shortage
emergencies and other household energy-related emergencies.” 42 U.S.C. §8622(3). For
the state definitions of “crisis” see the HHS LIHEAP Networker FY2007 compilation of
definitions, available at [http://www.liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2007/CrisisDef2007.doc].

benefits, choose how benefits are provided, and decide what agencies will administer
the program.⁹
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available
Funds are available for four types of energy assistance to eligible households:
^!help paying heating or cooling bills;
^!low-cost weatherization projects (e.g., window replacement or other
home-energy related repair; limited to 15% of allotment unless a
grantee has a waiver for up to 25%);
^!services to reduce need for energy assistance (e.g., needs assessment,
counseling on how to reduce energy consumption; limited to 5% of
allotment); and
^!help with energy-related emergencies (winter or summer crisis aid).
Use of Funds
The majority of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home heating costs. In
FY2005, the most recent year for which data regarding total obligations are available,
approximately 55.2% of all LIHEAP funds were used to provide heating assistance;¹⁰
all states (including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance.
Nearly all states also offered crisis assistance, most of which is used for heating
needs. In FY2005, 17.6% of LIHEAP funds were used to provide crisis assistance
in 47 states. Six of these 47 states provided summer as well as winter crisis¹¹
assistance, and one state — Hawaii — provided only summer crisis assistance.
Also in FY2005, 2.8% of funds were used for cooling aid (offered by 13 states);
10.6% of total LIHEAP funds were used for weatherization services (provided by 44
states); 8.1% of available funds were used for administration and planning purposes
(51 states), and 1.2% of the FY2005 funds were used to offer services to reduce the
need for energy assistance (provided by 24 states).¹²
Households Served
In FY2005, it is estimated that 5.3 million households received LIHEAP heating
or winter crisis assistance.¹³ This estimate attempts to remove duplication among

⁹ Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at
[ h t t p : / / www.l i h eap.ncat .or g/ sp.ht m] .
¹⁰ Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2005 of $2.224 billion. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2005, April

24, 2008, p. 14 (hereafter FY2005 LIHEAP Report to Congress).

¹¹ Ibid., Table C-3, pp. 57-58.
¹² Ibid., p. 14.
¹³ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
(continued...)

households that received both heating and winter crisis assistance; the estimate is
derived from the 4.9 million households that received heating assistance and the 1.3
million that received winter or year round crisis assistance in FY2005. The number
of households receiving heating or winter crisis assistance in FY2005 increased from
FY2004, when an estimated 5.0 million households were served. When LIHEAP
began in FY1983, approximately 6.8 million households received heating or winter
crisis assistance. Since that time, the number of households receiving assistance
declined generally until FY2000, reaching a low of 3.6 million recipients in FY1999.
After FY2000, the number of recipient households began increasing again. (See
Table 3.)
The same trend can be seen in the percentage of federally eligible households
that receive heating or winter crisis assistance. In FY1983, the 6.8 million
households that received funds represented 31% of federally eligible households. By
FY1999, the number of federally eligible households receiving LIHEAP heating or
winter crisis assistance had dropped to 12%. In FY2004, 14% of federally eligible
households received assistance, and in FY2005, that number increased to 15%.
The number of households receiving cooling assistance reached its high point
in FY2002, with more than half a million recipients. In FY2005, approximately¹⁴
400,000 households received cooling or summer crisis assistance. This estimate of
de-duplicated households is derived from the 337,000 households that received
cooling aid and the 93,000 households that received summer crisis aid in FY2005.
Also in that year, 104,000 households received weatherization assistance.¹⁵
HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance,
about 32% had at least one member 60 years of age or older; about 31% had at least
one member with a disability; and some 22% included at least one child five years¹⁶
of age or younger.
Benefit Levels
The constant dollar value of LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefits has
declined, generally, from the program’s beginning, as has the portion of home heating
bills covered by LIHEAP. In FY1983, the average heating and winter crisis benefit,
measured in constant 1981 dollars, was $209. By FY1998, it had declined to $117,
and although the value of benefits went up from FY1999 through FY2001, it declined¹⁷
again thereafter, and in FY2005 the average constant dollar benefit was $140. (See
Table 3.) In addition, the LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefit now covers a

¹³ (...continued)
Families, FY2005 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, May 2007, p 28 (hereafter FY2005
LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook).
¹⁴ Ibid., p. 29.
¹⁵ FY2005 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 19.
¹⁶ Ibid., pp. 21-22.
¹⁷ FY2005 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.

smaller portion of home heating bills than in earlier years. In FY2005, the LIHEAP
benefit covered 8% of the combined home heating costs of all households federally
eligible for LIHEAP, compared to 18% in FY1983.¹⁸ This estimate includes the
heating costs of households that were eligible for LIHEAP based on the federal
guidelines, but did not receive LIHEAP assistance.
The constant dollar value of the cooling and summer crisis benefit, which is
available to a more limited number of households in far fewer states, had largely
risen from the program’s beginning until FY2002. In FY1983, the constant dollar
value of LIHEAP cooling benefits (in 1981 dollars) was $57. By FY2000 and
FY2001, the average benefit had reached $107. However, by FY2004 and FY2005,
the average cooling or summer crisis benefit had declined to $91.¹⁹
Apart from federal funding levels, a variety of factors help determine to what
extent LIHEAP is able to meet its stated goal of assisting low-income households in
meeting their home energy needs.²⁰ These include the following:
^!the cost of energy for a given household (influenced by energy price
fluctuations and variation in kinds of fuels used);
^!the amount of energy consumed (influenced by severity of the
weather, energy efficiency of housing, and expected standards of
comfort); and
^!the number of eligible households (influenced by population size
and health of the economy).

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 31.
¹⁹ Ibid., p. 30.
²⁰ See also CRS Report RS20761, LIHEAP and Residential Energy Costs, by Bernard Gelb.

Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years
^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar
¹⁹⁸³¹⁹⁹⁰¹⁹⁹³¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵
^H^o^useho^l^ds
^Nu^m^b^{er receiv}ⁱⁿ^g^aid^{( m}^illioⁿ^s⁾⁶^.8⁵^.⁸⁵^.6³^.⁹³^.6³^.⁹⁴^.8⁴^.⁴⁴^.8⁵^.⁰⁵^.3
^Nu^m^b^er^f^e^d^e^r^a^lly^elig^ib^{le (}^m^illioⁿ^s⁾²²^.²²⁵^.⁴²⁸^.⁴²⁹^.¹²⁹^.⁰²⁹^.⁴³⁰^.⁴³²^.⁷³⁴^.⁵³⁵^.⁴³⁴^.⁸
^Federally^elig^{ible an}^{d receiv}ⁱⁿ^g^aid^31%^23%^20%^13%^12%^13%^16%^13%^14%^14%^15%
^Ben^e^fi^{t L}^e^vel^s
^A^v^erag^{e ben}^e^fⁱ^t⁽ⁿ^omⁱⁿ^al^$)^$225^$209^$201^$213^$237^$270^$364^$291^$312^$277^$304
^A^v^erag^{e ben}^e^fⁱ^t^(con^s^t^an^t^{1981 $)}^a^$209^$147^$129^$117^$128^$140^$187^$147^$154^$132^$140
^L^I^HE^A^P^C^overage
^P^o^r^tⁱ^o^{n o}^f^wⁱ^nt^e^r^he^a^tⁱ^{ng b}ⁱ^l^l^c
^cov^e^{red by}^L^I^H^E^A^P^(f^{or al}^l^b^18%^15%^11%^9%^9%^11%^14%^12%^N^A^8%^8%
^f^e^d^e^r^a^lly^elig^ib^{le h}^o^u^s^eh^o^l^d^s⁾
^Source:^T^a^bl^{e com}^pⁱ^l^e^{d by}^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce (C}^R^S^{) on}^t^h^{e bas}ⁱ^s^ofⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^atⁱ^oⁿ^p^r^o^vⁱ^d^e^d^by^or
ⁱⁿ^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e U.S. Dep}^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Health^an^d^Hu^m^aⁿ^Ser^v^{ices, A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^f^o^r^Ch^ild^r^eⁿ^an^d^Fam^{ilies, Of}^fⁱ^ce
^of^C^o^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Serv^ices^{, Div}ⁱ^sⁱ^on^of^En^erg^y^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce,^L^I^{HEAP Home Ener}^gy^As^sⁱ^s^t^ance^N^o^t^e^books^f^o^{r F}^Y^1998,
^F^Y^{2000, F}^Y^{2001, F}^Y^{2002, F}^Y^{2003, F}^Y^{2004 an}^{d F}^Y^2005.
^{a. T}^h^{e con}^s^t^aⁿ^t^dol^l^a^rs^{are bas}^e^{d on}^t^h^{e 1981 v}^a^l^u^{e of}^t^h^{e ben}^e^fⁱ^t^(u^sⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e C}^P^I-^Uⁱⁿ^dex⁾^.
^{b. T}^h^es^{e percen}^tag^e^s^repres^en^{t th}^{e es}^tim^{ated portion}^of^co^m^bⁱⁿ^e^d^ho^m^e^he^a^tⁱ^ng^c^o^st^s^fo^r^a^l^l^ho^use^h^o^l^d^s^fe^d^e^r^a^l^l^y
^elig^{ible f}^o^{r L}^I^HEA^P^th^{at w}^a^s^of^f^s^{et by}^L^I^HEA^P^h^eatin^g^/^wⁱⁿ^t^{er cris}^is^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce.
^{c. H}^H^S^di^{d n}^o^t^m^a^k^e^F^Y^{2003 dat}^a^f^o^{r t}^h^es^{e t}^r^en^ds^av^ai^l^a^bl^e.
Funds and Their Distribution
The LIHEAP statute authorizes regular funds appropriations, which are
allocated to all states on the basis of a statutory formula, and contingency fund
appropriations, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the
Administration. The statute also authorizes a smaller amount of funds for incentive
grants to states that leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance
programs.
Regular Funds
Regular funds are distributed to states according to a three-tier formula in the²¹
LIHEAP statute and based on the level of funds appropriated in a given fiscal year.
The three-tier formula is the result of changes to the LIHEAP statute in 1984 through
the Human Services Reauthorization Act (P.L. 98-558). Prior to the changes in P.L.

98-558, LIHEAP allotments to the states were based largely on home heating needs

²¹ States are defined to include the District of Columbia. Indian tribes receive funds out of
state allotments that are proportionate to their share of LIHEAP-eligible households in the
state. Before state allotments are made, the statute provides that at least one-tenth (but not
more than one-half) of 1% of the total appropriation must be set aside for energy assistance
in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.

with minimal consideration of cooling costs, and did not provide for the use of
updated data, including population and energy costs.
The new distribution formula provides that in determining state allotments the
Department of Health and Human Services shall use “the most recent satisfactory
data available” and consider home energy costs of low-income households (not
simply all households, as was previously the case). These changes to the calculation
of state allotments mean that some states will receive a smaller percentage share of
regular funds, while some will receive a larger share. In order to offset the losses to
certain states resulting from the formula change, and “prevent severe disruption to
programs,”²² Congress implemented two “hold harmless” provisions in P.L. 98-558
to prevent states from losing too much funding. This resulted in the three-tier current
law formula, which is described in more detail below.
Tier I. The Tier I formula is used to allocate funds when the total LIHEAP
regular fund appropriation is less than $1.975 billion. Neither hold harmless
provision applies at the Tier I level, and HHS allocates funds according to the
allotment percentages used under the pre-1984 formula. The old formula is used
because the amount of appropriated funds required to trigger the new formula is
$1.975 billion. The LIHEAP statute stipulates that for FY1986 and succeeding years,
no state shall receive less money than it would have received in FY1984 had the
LIHEAP funding in that year been $1.975 billion.²³ According to HHS, then, the
LIHEAP statute requires use of the old allotment percentages when funding is less
than $1.975 billion.²⁴ Until FY2006, funding levels for LIHEAP only twice exceeded
the $1.975 billion level, in FY1985 and FY1986. Thus, from FY1987 through
FY2005, states continued to receive the same allotment percentages they received
under the previous LIHEAP formula.
Tier II. For appropriations above $1.975 billion and up to $2.25 billion, the
Tier II rate applies, and HHS uses the formula enacted in 1984 to calculate state
allotments. Under the Tier II formula, a hold harmless level applies, and no state may
receive less funding than it would have received under the Tier I distribution rate as
it was in effect for FY1984, assuming a $1.975 billion appropriation.²⁵ State
allotment percentages may be different, however. To ensure that states receive their

²² Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2), to
accompany H.R. 2439, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
²³ 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A).
²⁴ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program: Report to Congress for FY1987, p. 133. The statutory provision that provides
for use of the old formula is 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3).
²⁵ Since this language was enacted, Congress further provided that HHS could use regular
LIHEAP funds appropriations for Training and Technical Assistance (P.L. 99-425). It also
authorized Leveraging Incentive Grants (P.L. 101-501) and the REACH option (P.L. 103-
252) — both of which it generally funds out of regular LIHEAP funds. These debits on the
regular funds account were not in place for FY1984. Because they affect the level of regular
funds available for state grant allotments by a little more than $25 million, it is possible but
not certain that HHS would not implement the newer formula before a regular funds
appropriation level of approximately $2.0028 billion.

hold harmless levels of funding, those states that gain the most funding under the
new formula must have their percentage share of funds ratably reduced to bring other
states up to the hold harmless level.²⁶
Tier III. The Tier III formula applies to funding levels at or above $2.25 billion.
The Tier III rate uses the Tier II methodology to distribute funds, but adds a second
hold-harmless requirement, a hold harmless rate. States that would receive less than
1% of a $2.25 billion appropriation must have their funds allocated using the rate that
would have been used at a hypothetical $2.14 billion appropriation (if this rate is
greater than the calculated rate at $2.25 billion). In both the Tier II and Tier III rates,
a state will not be allocated less funds than the state received under the Tier I
distribution as it was in effect in FY1984 (had the appropriation level been $1.975
billion).
Contingency Funds
The statute currently provides an annual authorization of $600 million for²⁷
LIHEAP contingency funds (contingency funds are authorized indefinitely).
Appropriated contingency funds may only be released at the discretion of HHS and
may be allocated to one or more states according to their needs. The statute
authorizes the appropriation of contingency funds “to meet the additional home
energy assistance needs of one or more states arising from a natural disaster or other
emergency.” The term “emergency” is defined in the LIHEAP statute to include a
natural disaster; a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption; significant
increases in the cost of home energy, home energy disconnections, participation in
public benefit programs, or unemployment; or an “event meeting such criteria as the
[HHS] Secretary may determine to be appropriate.”
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds
In 1990, P.L. 101-501 amended the program statute to provide a separate
funding authorization of $50 million ($30 million if regular funds appropriated are
under $1.4 billion) for incentive grants to states that leverage non-federal resources
for their LIHEAP programs.²⁸ Such resources might include negotiated lower energy
rates for low-income households or separate state funds. States are awarded
incentive funds in a given fiscal year on the basis of a formula that takes into account
their previous fiscal year success in securing non-federal resources for their energy
assistance program. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) the statute was further amended to
provide that of any incentive funds appropriated, up to 25% may be set aside for the
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option (REACH). Under the REACH
option states may be awarded competitive grants for their efforts to increase
efficiency of energy usage among low-income families and to reduce those families’
vulnerability to homelessness and other health and safety risks due to high energy
costs. The funding authorization for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants is

²⁶ 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3).
²⁷ 42 U.S.C. §8621(e).
²⁸ 42 U.S.C. §8621(d).

separate from regular funds, and the programs were not reauthorized in P.L. 109-58.
In practice, however, Congress has funded these initiatives at $22 million to $30
million with dollars set-aside out of annual regular fund appropriations.
Other Funds
States are allowed to carry over unused funds from a previous fiscal year
(limited to 10% of funds awarded a state). A diminishing amount of money may also
be available from previously settled claims of price control violation by oil
companies.²⁹ In addition, the Social Services Block Grant program allows states to
transfer up to 10% of funds to provide low-income home energy assistance,³⁰ while
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program gives states the discretion to
use funds for home heating and cooling costs.³¹
Legislative History
Since it was created by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981
(Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), the LIHEAP program has been reauthorized or amended
seven times. The legislation and some of the significant changes made are briefly
discussed in the following paragraphs.
In 1984, P.L. 98-558, established a new formula by which regular LIHEAP
funds are to be distributed in every year (after FY1985) in which regular
appropriations exceed $1.975 billion. This level of funding was exceeded in FY1986
and again in FY2006.
In 1986, P.L. 99-425 extended the program with few changes. In 1990, P.L.
101-501 created the Incentive Program for Leveraging Non-Federal Resources and
authorized a July to June program year (or forward funding) for LIHEAP to allow
state program directors to plan for the fall/winter heating season with knowledge of
available money. This program year language was subsequently removed, although
the statute now states that money appropriated in a given fiscal year is to be made
available for obligation in the following fiscal year. Congress last provided advance
appropriations for LIHEAP in the FY2000 appropriations cycle.
In 1993, P.L. 103-43 extended the authorization of LIHEAP for one year but
made no other changes. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) Congress stipulated that LIHEAP
benefits and outreach activities target households with the greatest home energy
needs (and costs), and it enacted a separate and permanent contingency funding
authorization of $600 million for each fiscal year. The 1994 law also established the
competitive REACH grant option. In 1998, P.L. 105-285 authorized annual regular

²⁹ FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 11. For FY2004, $2 million in oil overcharge
funds was available to one state.
³⁰ 42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
³¹ 42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).

funding for each of FY2002-FY2004 at $2 billion and made explicit a wide variety
of situations under which HHS is authorized to release LIHEAP contingency funds.
In 2005, the Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) reauthorized the program and
raised the LIHEAP regular funds authorization level for FY2005 through FY2007 to
$5.1 billion. It also explicitly permitted the purchase of renewable fuels as part of
providing LIHEAP assistance; required the Department of Energy to report on use
of renewable fuels in provision of LIHEAP aid; and required HHS to report (within
one year of the legislation’s enactment) on ways that the program could more
effectively prevent loss of life due to extreme temperatures. The law also allowed
the Secretary of the Interior, when disposing of royalty-in-kind oil and gas taken as
payment from lessees using federal land, to grant a preference for the purpose of
providing additional resources to support federal low-income energy assistance
programs. (Lessees of federal land may pay royalties to the U.S. government in oil
and natural gas rather than cash payments.) However, the Government
Accountability Office issued a decision determining that the law did not give the
Interior Department sufficient authority to grant such a preference.³² Because of a
provision in existing law that the Interior Department cannot sell oil and gas obtained
as in-kind royalties for less than market price,³³ the provision in P.L. 109-58 does not
allow a price preference.

³² U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Interior — Royalty-in-Kind Oil
and Gas Preferences, B-307767, November 13, 2006, available at
[ h t t p : / / www.ga o.gov/ d eci si ons/ a ppr o/ 307767.pdf ] .
³³ 42 U.S.C. §15902(b)(3)(A).

Table 3. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2006 to FY2009
^(Fuⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^Sh^owⁿ^f^o^{r Each}^{State Does}^No^{t I}ⁿ^clu^d^{e Distr}ⁱ^b^u^tioⁿ^s^to^T^r^ib^es)
⁽^d^o^llar^sⁱⁿ^m^illioⁿ^s⁾
^To^t^a^{l F}^{unds Dist}^ribut^ed^a^Reg^u^la^r^Co^nt^ing^e^ncy^To^t^a^l
^St^a^t^e⁽^R^eg^ula^r^a^{nd Co}^nt^ing^e^ncy⁾^Allo^t^m^ent^Dis^t^ributed
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁹
^A^l^abam^a^{31.787 22.077}^19.090^59.649^4.182^63.832
^A^l^as^k^a^12.839^8.631^11.681^16.333^5.100^21.433
^A^rⁱ^z^on^a^{14.230 7.856}^8.591^26.844^1.882^28.726
^A^r^k^aⁿ^s^as^{23.336 15.749}^14.667^36.497^3.213^39.711
^C^a^lⁱ^f^ornⁱ^{a 156.441}^94.089^102.250^223.989^22.402^246.391
^C^o^l^o^rado^{44.806 33.073}^41.326^63.474^7.877^71.352
^C^oⁿⁿ^ectⁱ^c^u^t^{71.106 48.102}^65.618^95.783^30.104^125.887
^D^e^l^a^w^a^re^{10.954 5.727}^6.929^17.384^1.364^18.748
^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^u^m^bⁱ^a^8.165^6.700^7.284^14.653^1.596^16.249
^F^l^ori^d^a^{49.785 27.970}^30.406^95.013^6.662^101.675
^G^e^orgⁱ^a^{40.026 28.564}^24.047^75.141^5.269^80.410
^H^a^w^aⁱⁱ^{2.567 2.228}^2.403^4.652^0.531^5.182
^Idah^o^{14.055 12.275}^13.241^25.632^2.924^28.556
^Illin^ois^{193.814 119.418}^149.216^{237.236 28.443}^265.679
^In^di^an^a^{75.327 54.062}^67.552^103.602^12.877^116.479
^Iow^a^{52.054 38.319}^47.881^67.803^9.127^76.929
^K^aⁿ^s^as^{27.709 19.727}^22.083^45.308^4.188^49.496
^K^eⁿ^t^u^c^k^y^{45.320 32.010}^30.588^68.353^6.702^75.055
^L^o^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^{a 32.671}^22.499^19.651^57.196^4.305^61.502
^Maiⁿ^e^{43.496 32.487}^44.835^47.649^28.644^76.293
^Mary^l^aⁿ^d^{61.889 33.036}^35.913^101.296^7.868^109.164
^Mas^s^ach^u^s^et^t^s^{126.425 93.}⁷⁵⁷^126.442^{162.916 50.499}^213.414
^Mi^chⁱ^g^an^{153.615 112.509}^140.589^221.244^26.862^248.106
^Miⁿⁿ^e^s^o^t^a^{110.849 81.681}^102.063^144.528^19.455^163.982
^Mi^s^sⁱ^s^sⁱ^ppi^{27.415 17.838}^16.448^38.937^3.604^42.541
^Mi^s^s^o^u^rⁱ^{78.220 52.645}^59.603^103.541^11.361^114.902
^Mon^t^an^a^{19.259 12.487}^15.602^26.075^2.974^29.049
^N^e^bras^k^a^{28.634 18.940}^23.660^39.558^4.512^44.070
^N^e^v^a^da^{7.247 4.016}^4.366^13.643^0.957^14.599
^N^e^w^H^a^m^p^s^hⁱ^r^e^27.740^18.769^25.635^34.112^13.624^47.737
^N^e^w^Jers^ey^114.759^79.920^108.707^166.690^19.083^185.773
^N^e^w^Mexⁱ^co^11.555^9.867^10.711^22.919^2.347^25.266
^N^e^w^Y^o^rk^381.719^261.178^359.046^475.409^62.240^537.649
^N^o^rt^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^71.125^45.156^41.629^121.051^9.121^130.172
^N^o^rt^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^19.272^13.446^16.426^27.299^3.114^30.413
^O^hⁱ^o^{164.226 105.643}^132.004^220.588^25.162^245.750
^O^k^l^a^h^o^m^a^{26.921 17.517}^16.048^44.572^3.521^48.092
^O^r^eg^on^{24.575 25.035}^27.010^44.640^6.009^50.650
^Penⁿ^s^y^l^v^aⁿⁱ^a^{202.324 140.520}^191.759^274.925^33.469^308.394
^R^h^{ode Is}^l^aⁿ^d^23.066^15.428^20.816^30.123^8.420^38.544
^S^o^u^t^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^25.279^17.636^15.266^47.702^3.345^51.047

^To^t^a^{l F}^{unds Dist}^ribut^ed^a^Reg^u^la^r^Co^nt^ing^e^ncy^To^t^a^l
^St^a^t^e⁽^R^eg^ula^r^a^{nd Co}^nt^ing^e^ncy⁾^Allo^t^m^ent^Dis^t^ributed
^FY²⁰⁰⁶^FY²⁰⁰⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁸^FY²⁰⁰⁹
^S^o^u^t^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^16.540^10.977^13.715^22.921^2.614^25.536
^T^eⁿⁿ^e^s^s^e^e^{47.139 33.568}^30.985^73.723^6.789^80.512
^T^e^x^a^s^{84.005 46.545}^50.599^158.110^11.086^169.196
^U^t^ah^{22.848 15.062}^18.823^31.646^3.609^35.255
^V^e^rm^on^t^{20.903 14.162}^19.370^25.568^10.587^36.156
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^{75.053 40.241}^43.746^118.084^9.585^127.668
^Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^{39.631 40.443}^43.626^71.568^9.634^81.201
^Wes^t^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^24.543^18.621^20.157^40.584^4.435^45.019
^Wi^s^c^on^sⁱⁿ^{99.837 73.525}^91.872^130.096^17.512^147.608
^Wy^omⁱⁿ^g⁸^{.987 5.932}^7.415^12.640^1.442^14.081
^Subtotal^3,096^2,108^2,559^4,428.898^582.230^5,011.128
^Trⁱ^b^e^s^b^32.897^23.201^27.983^47.403^7.434^54.837
^T^e^rri^t^o^ri^es^c^3.456^2.788^3.014^6.070^0.664^6.734
^Le^ve^r^a^gi^ng/^RE^A^C^H^d^27.225^27.225^—^f^27.000^—^27.000
^T^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng/^T^e^c^h^.^A^sst^.^e^0.297^0.297^0.292^0.300^—^0.300
^T^o^tal³^,160^2,161^2,591^4,509.672^590.328^5,100
^So^urce^:^T^a^{ble com}^p^{iled by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) u}^sⁱⁿ^g^{U.S. Departm}^eⁿ^t^o^f
^Health^an^{d Hu}^m^aⁿ^Serv^ices^{(HHS) data.}
^{a. T}^h^{e to}^{tals sh}^o^wⁿⁱⁿ^th^{ese co}^lu^mⁿ^{s in}^clu^d^{e r}^e^g^u^l^{ar f}^uⁿ^d^allocat^ion^s^{to s}^t^ates⁽ⁿ^{et of}^th^{e direct}
^aw^ards^{to tribes}^{) an}^{d an}^y^con^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^s^aw^{arded to th}^{e s}^t^{ate in}^th^{at y}^ear.
^b^.^T^h^{is f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{is m}^a^d^e^dⁱ^r^ectly^av^ailab^l^{e to}^o^r^f^o^r^tr^ib^{es b}^u^{t is r}^e^ser^v^ed^o^u^{t o}^f^{a g}ⁱ^v^eⁿ^state’^s
^allotm^en^{t am}^ouⁿ^t^{. A}^s^pres^cribedⁱⁿ^th^{e statu}^t^{e, th}^{e tr}^ib^al^set-^as^{ide f}^r^om^{a s}^t^{ate g}^r^os^s^allotm^en^t
ⁱ^s^bas^e^{d on}^t^rⁱ^b^al^h^o^u^s^eh^ol^dsⁱⁿ^t^h^at^s^t^at^e.
^{c. T}^h^{e s}^t^atu^t^{e prov}^ides^th^{at HHS m}^u^s^t^s^e^t-^as^{ide n}^o^{t les}^s^th^en^on^e-^ten^t^h^of^{1% an}^{d n}^o^t^m^o^re^th^an^on^e-
^h^a^lf^o^f¹^%^f^o^r^u^s^{e in}^th^{e ter}^r^ito^rⁱ^{es (}^A^m^e^rⁱ^can^Sam^o^{a, Gu}^am^{, P}^u^{erto R}ⁱ^{co, North}^e^rn^Marian^a
^I^s^lan^d^{s, an}^d^th^{e U.S. Vir}^gⁱⁿ^I^s^lan^d^s)^.
^d^.^T^h^{e statu}^t^e^p^r^o^v^id^es^a^sep^a^r^a^te^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^au^th^o^r^izatioⁿ^f^o^r^co^m^p^etitiv^{e g}^r^an^{ts u}ⁿ^d^er^th^{e lev}^e^r^a^gⁱⁿ^g
ⁱⁿ^cen^tⁱ^v^{e prog}^ram^(desⁱ^gⁿ^e^{d t}^o^en^cou^r^ag^{e s}^t^at^e^s^t^oⁱⁿ^creas^{e n}^oⁿ^-^f^e^deral^s^u^pport^f^o^{r en}^erg^y
^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce). It als}^o^prov^ides^th^{at u}^p^{to 25% of}^an^y^lev^e^ragⁱⁿ^g^f^uⁿ^d^s^m^a^{de av}^ai^l^a^b^l^e^m^a^y^be
^res^e^rv^{ed f}^o^{r com}^p^etitⁱ^v^{e R}^E^A^C^{H g}^r^an^ts^(f^{or s}^t^{ate ef}^f^o^rts^{to in}^creas^{e ef}^fⁱ^cien^{t u}^s^{e of}^en^erg^y
^am^oⁿ^g^lo^w^-ⁱⁿ^co^m^e^h^o^u^s^eh^o^l^d^s^an^d^to^r^e^d^u^{ce th}^eir^v^u^lⁿ^e^r^a^b^ility^to^h^o^m^e^lessn^{ess an}^d^o^t^h^e^r
^problem^s^du^{e to h}ⁱ^g^h^en^erg^y^cos^t^s⁾^{. C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^h^a^sⁱⁿ^recen^{t y}^ears^s^tipu^l^{ated th}^{at a}^c^e^rtain
^p^o^r^tⁱ^o^{n o}^f^t^h^e^LI^H^E^A^P^r^e^gul^a^r^fund^{s b}^e^se^t^a^sⁱ^d^e^fo^r^l^e^ve^r^a^gi^{ng gr}^aⁿ^t^s^aⁿ^d^,^o^f^t^hⁱ^s^a^m^o^unt^,^H^H^S
^ha^{s r}^e^se^r^v^e^d²⁵^%^fo^r^RE^A^C^{H gr}^aⁿ^ts.
^{e. T}^h^e^st^at^u^t^{e prov}ⁱ^d^es^t^h^at^H^H^S^m^a^y^res^e^rv^{e u}^p^t^o^{$300,000 f}^o^{r m}^a^kⁱⁿ^g^g^r^an^t^s^{or en}^t^e^riⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^o
^con^t^racts^w^ith^s^t^ates^{, pu}^{blic ag}^en^cies^{, or priv}^{ate n}^oⁿ^p^rof^its^th^{at prov}^{ide train}ⁱⁿ^g^an^d^techⁿⁱ^cal
^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce related to ach}^ievⁱⁿ^g^th^{e pu}^rpos^es^of^th^{e L}^I^HEA^P^prog^ram^.
^f^.^T^h^{e F}^Y^{2008 A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^(P.L^.^110-¹⁶¹⁾^di^dⁿ^o^t^s^p^eci^f^y^f^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r l}^e^v^e^ragⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^cen^tⁱ^v^{e an}^d
^RE^A^C^H^gr^aⁿ^ts.

Table 4. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2009
⁽^d^o^llar^sⁱⁿ^th^o^u^san^d^s)
^a^C^o^ntⁱⁿ^g^e^nc^y^F^unds^a
^Fisc^a^l^R^e^g^u^l^a^r^F^unds^To^ta^l^P^resi^d^en^t’s
^Year^Di^stri^b^u^t^ed^R^e^que^s^t^Au^th^ori^zed^Ap^p^r^op^ri^ated^Ap^p^r^op^ri^ated^Di^stri^b^u^t^ed
¹⁹⁸²^1,400,000^1,875,000^1,875,⁰⁰⁰^—^—^1,875,000
¹⁹⁸³^1,300,000^1,875,000^1,975,⁰⁰⁰^—^—^1,975,000
¹⁹⁸⁴^1,300,000^1,875,000^2,075,⁰⁰⁰^—^—^2,075,000
¹⁹⁸⁵^1,875,000^2,140,000^2,100,⁰⁰⁰^—^—^2,100,000
¹⁹⁸⁶^2,097,765^2,275,000^2,100,⁰⁰⁰^—^—^2,100,000
¹⁹⁸⁷^2,097,642^2,050,000^1,825,⁰⁰⁰^—^—^1,825,000
¹⁹⁸⁸^1,237,000^2,132,000^1,531,⁸⁴⁰^—^—^1,531,840
¹⁹⁸⁹^1,187,000^2,218,000^1,383,²⁰⁰^—^—^1,383,200
¹⁹⁹⁰^1,100,000^2,307,000^1,443,⁰⁰⁰^—^—^1,443,000
¹⁹⁹¹^1,050,000^2,150,000^1,415,⁰⁵⁵^195,180^195,180^1,610,235
¹⁹⁹²^925,000^2,230,000^1,500,⁰⁰⁰^300,000⁰¹^,500,000
¹⁹⁹³^1,065,000^ssaⁿ^b^1,346,030^595,200⁰¹^,346,030
¹⁹⁹⁴^1,507,408^ssaⁿ^b^1,437,402^600,000^300,000^1,737,402
¹⁹⁹⁵^1,475,000^2,000,000^1,319,²⁰²^600,000^100,000^1,419,202
¹⁹⁹⁶^1,319,204^2,000,000^900,⁰⁰⁰^180,000^180,000^1,080,000
¹⁹⁹⁷^1,000,000^2,000,000^1,000,⁰⁰⁰^420,000^215,000^1,215,000
¹⁹⁹⁸^1,000,000^2,000,000^1,000,⁰⁰⁰^300,000^160,000^1,160,000
¹⁹⁹⁹^1,000,000^2,000,000^1,100,⁰⁰⁰^300,000^175,299^1,275,299
²⁰⁰⁰^1,100,000^ssaⁿ^b^1,100,000^900,000^744,350^c^1,844350^c
²⁰⁰¹^1,100,000^ssaⁿ^b^1,400,000^600,000^455,650^1,855,650
²⁰⁰²^1,400,000^2,000,000^1,700,000^300,000^100,000^d^1,800,000
²⁰⁰³^1,400,000^2,000,000^1,788,300^e⁰^200,000^f^1,988,300
²⁰⁰⁴^1,700,000^2,000,000^1,789,³⁸⁰^99,410^99,410^1,888,790
²⁰⁰⁵^1,900,500^g,^h^5,100,000^1,884,799^297,⁶⁰⁰^277,250^2,162,050
²⁰⁰⁶^1,800,000^g^5,100,000^2,480,000^681,⁰⁰⁰^679,960^3,160,000
²⁰⁰⁷^1,782,000^5,100,000^1,980,⁰⁰⁰^181,000^181,000^2,161,000
²⁰⁰⁸^1,500,000^—ⁱ^1,980,000^590,328^610,678^j^2,590,678
²⁰⁰⁹^1,700,000^—ⁱ^4,509,672^590,328^590,328^5,100,000
^Source:^T^a^{ble prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) on}^th^{e bas}ⁱ^s^of^{HHS data.}
^a^.^A^m^o^unt^{s l}ⁱ^s^t^e^d^und^e^r^t^h^e^Re^gul^a^r^Fund^{s he}^a^dⁱ^{ng a}^r^e^fo^r^r^e^gul^ar^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^on^l^y^{. In}^{1994, C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s
^en^{acted a perm}^an^en^{t $600 m}^illion^a^nnua^l^a^u^t^h^o^rⁱ^z^a^tⁱ^o^{n fo}^r^c^o^ntⁱ^nge^nc^y^fundⁱ^ng.^A^s^sho^w^n,
^h^o^w^e^v^e^r^,^b^e^f^o^r^e^th^{is au}^th^o^r^izatioⁿ^coⁿ^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^{s w}^e^r^e^so^m^e^tim^{es m}^a^d^e^av^ailab^l^e.
^{b. Su}^ch^s^u^m^s^asⁿ^eces^s^a^ry^.
^c.^P^r^es^iden^{t C}^lin^ton^releas^{ed $400 m}^illion^of^th^es^{e FY2000 con}^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^sⁱⁿ^late^Septem^ber²⁰⁰⁰
^m^a^kⁱⁿ^gⁱ^t^ef^f^ectⁱ^v^el^y^av^ai^l^a^bl^{e t}^o^s^t^at^esⁱⁿ^F^Y^2001.
^{d. T}^h^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^e^{re di}^s^t^ri^bu^t^e^{d ou}^t^of^t^h^e^t^o^t^a^l^F^Y^{2002 con}^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^c^y^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^(P.L^{. 107-}^116).
^W^ith^th^{e en}^{d of}^{FY2002, th}^{e rem}^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^{$200 m}^illion^of^th^es^{e con}^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^s^ex^pired.
^e.^T^h^e^fⁱⁿ^a^l^FY2003^{appropriation}^s^act^(P^.L^{. 108-}^{7) in}^clu^d^{ed $1.688 billion}ⁱⁿⁿ^e^w^reg^u^l^{ar f}^uⁿ^d^s^an^d
^con^v^e^{rted in}^{to reg}^u^l^{ar f}^uⁿ^d^s^{$100 m}^illion^of^re^m^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng^con^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^s^origⁱⁿ^ally
^appropri^a^t^e^{d i}ⁿ^F^Y^{2001 (P.L}^{. 107-}^20).
^f^.^T^h^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^e^{re di}^s^t^ri^bu^t^e^{d o}^u^t^of^con^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^c^y^dol^l^a^rs^appropri^a^t^e^{d as}^part^of^t^h^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰¹
^s^u^pplem^en^{tal (P}^.L^{. 107-}^{20). T}^h^at^law^prov^{ided th}^{at th}^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^e^{re “}^a^v^a^{ilable u}ⁿ^{til ex}^pen^d^ed.”
^Co^ngr^e^{ss sub}^s^e^q^ue^nt^l^y^c^o^nve^r^t^e^d^so^m^e^o^f^t^h^e^s^{e dollars}ⁱⁿ^{to reg}^u^l^{ar f}^uⁿ^d^s^(s^{ee tablen}^ote).
^g^.^O^f^t^h^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^requ^es^t^e^{d by}^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^tⁱⁿ^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^an^{d F}^Y^{2006, $500,000 w}^a^s^t^o^{be s}^e^t^asⁱ^d^e
^f^o^r^{a n}^a^tioⁿ^a^{l ev}^alu^a^tioⁿ^.

^h^.^In^{FY2005, th}^{e P}^r^es^iden^t’^sⁱⁿ^{itial bu}^dg^{et requ}^es^{t f}^o^{r L}^I^HEA^P^reg^u^l^{ar f}^uⁿ^d^s^w^a^s^{$1,800,000,500.}
^How^e^v^e^{r, on}^Nov^e^m^b^{er 14, 2004, th}^{e P}^r^es^iden^{t s}^u^bm^{itted a bu}^dg^{et am}^en^d^m^eⁿ^t^t^o^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^,
^requ^es^tⁱⁿ^g^{$1,900,000,500 f}^o^{r L}^I^H^E^A^P^reg^u^l^{ar f}^uⁿ^d^s^.
ⁱ^.^L^I^H^E^A^Pⁱ^s^uⁿ^a^u^t^h^o^ri^{zed i}ⁿ^F^Y^{2008 an}^{d F}^Y^2009.
^j^.^Of^th^{e con}^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^s^dis^t^ribu^{ted in}^{FY2008, $20 m}^illion^cam^e^f^r^om^f^uⁿ^d^s^appropriatedⁱⁿ^th^e
^F^Y^{2005 D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^s^of^L^a^bor,^H^eal^t^h^an^d^H^u^m^aⁿ^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^{, an}^{d Edu}^catⁱ^oⁿ^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t
^(P^.L^{. 108-}^{447). C}^oⁿ^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^sⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{447 w}^e^{re m}^a^{de av}^{ailable u}ⁿ^{til ex}^pen^d^ed.