« PreviousContinue »
Table K-13. Average burden of expenditures for home heating, home cooling, and total residential energy, for low income households, 1979 to 1989 (p. 134 of HHS' annual LIHEAP report to Congress for FY 1989)
Question. What percentage of eligible households was served by the program in 1990.
Answer. Our latest estimate for FY 1990 indicates that 5.8 million households were assisted with heating costs. Based on preliminary estimates of eligible households derived from the Census Bureau's March 1990 Current Population Survey, the 5.8 million households constitute:
23 percent of the 25.4 million households eligible under
stricter state LIHEAP income standards. Question. Your budget documents indicate that the LIHEAP was never intended to meet the entire home energy costs of low income households, but rather to supplement assistance available through other federal and state programs. What percentage of home energy costs were covered by LIHEAP during the 1990 and 1991 heating season?
Answer. The data for the 1989-90 winter heating season are being developed for HHS' annual LIHEAP report to Congress for FY 1990. We should have that data developed some time in April 1991. We would be happy to provide the data to the Subcommittee at that time.
The data for the 1990-91 winter heating season will not be available until April 1992.
Question. Last year, Congress created an Energy Emergency Contingency Fund to meet increased demand resulting from unexpected fuel price increases. oil and propane prices triggered the release of the contingency funds in mid-December. How much higher than average were December 1990 heating oil prices?
Answer. DOE calculated that the average price for home heating oil for the month of December for the years 1986-89 was 85.9 cente per gallon and that the December "trigger" price of 20% above this
average was 103.1 cents per gallon. DOE identified three national survey prices of home heating oil during December 1990 of 128.5 cents per gallon on December 3, 1990; 124.1 cents per gallon on December 17, 1990; and 120.3 cents per gallon on January 7, 1991. These prices were well above the "trigger" that caused release of the contingency funds. We now have more detailed information on December 1990 prices from the Petroleum Marketing Monthly which is released by DOE in late March. The Petroleum Marketing Monthly's more comprehensive survey shows an average for the month of December of $1.19 per gallon, which is lower than the quick surveys used to trigger the contingency fund.
Question. The FY 92 budget includes a request for an identical contingency fund of $100 million. Do you anticipate a problem with further price increases in home heating oil next year and is that why you proposed an identical contingency fund?
Answer. We do not expect further increases in the cost of home heating oil. Our budget estimates anticipate that the contingency fund will not be triggered in FY 1992 and the funds requested will not be outlayed. The price for home heating oil began to decrease significantly following the start of Operation Desert Storm. With both the conflict and the worst of this winter heating season behind us, we anticipate that prices will decline even further. However, the price of home heating oil has been the most volatile of all the fuels during crisis periods. In the event of a crisis next winter, such as unusually colder weather, prices for home heating fuels would be the most likely to be affected.
The Energy Emergency Contingency Fund was established to deal with increases in the costs of home heating oils resulting from the Middle East turmoil. According to the provisions of the statute (Public Law 101-517), the contingency funds were distributed to the states on the basis of their low income households' consumption of home heating oil, liquified petroleum gas, and kerosene. It is on the basis of this statutory provision that we have proposed $100 million in energy emergency contingency funds in FY 1992.
Question. citing the New England region in testimony before the Subcommittee, you indicated that the Family Support Administration has seen an increase in the number of AFDC applications that coincides with the beginning of the economic downturn. What mechanisms do you have in place to measure increases in requests for assistance under the LIHEAP program?
Answer. We have one mechanism in place to measure the change in requests for assistance under the LIHEAP program. Beginning with the Family Support Administration's FY 1989 Winter Telephone Survey, states are asked twice a year for information about the number of applications received for LIHEAP heating and crisis assistance for both the previous and current fiscal years. We are still developing and analyzing that information from this year's Winter LIHEAP Telephone Survey. That data should be available in April 1991.
Question. How many more Americans were eligible for LIHEAP assistance this year than last year, as a result of the economic downturn?
Answer. We derive our estimates of households eligible for LIHEAP assistance from the Current Population Survey conducted in March of each year by the Bureau of the Census. We have preliminary data on the number of households eligible for LIHEAP assistance in FY 1990. A comparison of that data with FY 1989 data indicates that an additional 200,000 households were eligible in FY 1990, i.e., 25.4 million households were eligible in FY 1990 compared to 25.2 million households in FY 1989 under the federal maximum income standard. The information for FY 1991 will not be available until data from the March 1991 Current Population Survey are made available to us in September 1991.
Question. Can you provide a credible estimate of the size of the LIHEAP-eligible population for the winter of 1991-92?
Answer. Such an estimate cannot be provided until data are available from the Current Population Survey that the Bureau of the Census will conduct in March 1992.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTTED BY SENATOR PHIL GRAMM
Question. To date, what is the cumulative total of State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) costs (from the end-ofyear reports and the FY 1991 application) that States have submitted for approval and that DSLA has approved? How do these costs compare to the total amounts of SLIAG funds available to states through FY 19917
Answer. The total State SLIAG costs, comprising actual approved costs for FYs 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 and States' estimates for FY 1991, amount to $1.5 billion. Adding the $273 million of costs submitted but not yet approved for FY 1989 and 1990, results in a total amount of costs to $1.8 billion. The amount of funds available through FY 1991 is $2.4 billion. State costs through FY 1991 are $600 million less than SLIAG funds available.
Question. Do State SLIAG costs (both submitted and approved) exceed State drawdown levels? If so, by how much?
Angwer. No, State drawdown levels exceed State SLIAG costs. As of December 1990, States had drawn down $1.1 billion. Approved costs total $798 million. Drawdown levels therefore exceed approved costs by $327 million. Submitted costs, including both approved and pending approval, total $1.07 billion; drawdowns exceed total submitted costs by $54 million. As of the end of December, 1990, therefore, States had drawn down more than the total amount of costs which they had submitted.
Question. How did the Department take costs (both submitted and approved) into account in its FY 92 SLIAG budget projections?
Answer. The Department, in requesting rescission of $1.1 billion in FY 1992, recognizes that by FY 1992 most of the objectives which congress set for legalization will have been met. State Costs have been much lower than both the Department and States expected back in 1986. Most of the direct impacts of legalization public health costs and education services to allow these aliens to remain in this country have already been met with only part of the funds which states have already received. For instance, over 90 percent of all "Pre-82" legalized aliens and all "SAWS" (Special Agricultural Workers) who have been granted temporary resident status have now adjusted to permanent resident status. The remainder of funds still available are ample to carry out Congress' intent to mitigate some of the fiscal impact on State and local governments of the Federal decision to grant legal status to previously illegal aliens. These impacts appear to be less than Congress anticipated when it established the funding level for SLIAG in 1986.
Data available to us so far indicate that newly legalized aliens are accessing public services at rates less than those of the general population. In addition, some of the costs for which States are claiming SLIAG reimbursement are costs that would have been incurred even if Congress hadn't legalized aliens. Legal immigration status is not a precondition to receiving services and benefits under most State and local programs.
Additionally, data indicate that most legalized aliens are employed and do not rely on public services. Aliens were not eligible for legalization if they were likely to become "public charges", and data show low unemployment among legalized aliens.
This means that legalized aliens are taxpayers, contributing directly and indirectly, through their employers and their landlords, to State and local revenues.
Question. In the state SLIAG cost approval process, DSLA has frequently disallowed or "zeroed out" SLIAG costs submitted by states in their application and end of year reports. These costs have been excluded from the allocation formula pending resolution of policy mentodology, or documentation issues with states. Please provide the following information (at this point in time): the number of State programs where DSLA has "zeroed out" costs submitted by the states.
Answer. When States submit costs which are unacceptable, Division of State Legalization Assistance (DSLA) informs them of the deficiencies in their reporting and provides an opportunity for States to revise or properly document costs so that they can be accepted. Until States submit acceptable costs, reported costs are shown as "zero." DSLA provides several acceptable methods of submitting costs. All costs submitted using an acceptable method and sufficiently documented are accepted. We expect that most of these costs will be accepted prior to the FY 1991 funds allotments.
States which are unable to submit costs at the time costs reports are due submit zeroes for program estimates which subsequently may be revised when States have compiled costs and reported them. There are 239 state programs for which states have reported no costs. By contrast, there are only 48 State programs that DSLA "zeroed-out" while awaiting additional information or revisions from the States before accepting the costs of the programs for reimbursement.
Question. the costs, as submitted by the States, for programs where DSLA has "zeroed out" costs submitted by the States.
Answer. The costs submitted for these programs total $273 million. We expect that most of these costs will be accepted by DSLA prior to the FY 1991 funds allotments.
Question. the percentage of State-submitted SLIAG costs the "zeroed-out" programs represent.
Answer. The costs submitted for these programs total $273 million. This amount is 26 percent of the total submitted costs. We expect that most of these costs will be accepted by DSLA prior to the FY 1991 funds allotments. As noted above, even when the costs for these programs are included, the funds already available to States far exceed costs.
Question. the reasons that these programs remain "zeroed-out" by type and by program category.
Answer. Although there are no significant methodological questions, there have been minor problems with cost methodologies used by States, with the documentation provided by States, and with whether program costs were reimburseable under SLIAG. with regard to cost methodology, there are cost submissions for five public assistance programs, nine public health programs, nine education programs, and five submissions for SLIAG administration which are pending due to questions pertaining to the cost methodology used. There are also several submissions which are pending due to problems with the documentation provided; of these programs, three are public assistance programs, three are public health programs, eight are education programs, and four submissions for SLIAG administration. There is also one public assistance program and one submission for SLIAG administration which are pending due to questions concerning whether the costs are SLIAG reimbursable.
Question. the process and timetable DSLA is using to resolve these issues prior to running the FY 91 SLIAG allocation formula.
Answer. The costs submitted for these programs total $273 million. It is anticipated that 95 percent of these pending costs will be resolved before the FY 1991 allocation formula is run. It is expected that the formula will be run in mid-April.
Question. How much is the SLIAG federal offset for FY 88 FY 917 What percentage of cumulative SLIAG appropriation (FY 88 FY 91) does this represent? What are the corresponding aggregate State SLIAG costs for Medicaid? Since states will have Medicaid costs for SAWS and SSI recipients not allowed in the offset, it is my expectiation that state Medicaid costs should substantially exceed the federal offset.
Answer. Our current estimate for the Federal offset for FY 88 through FY 1992 is $460 million. The previous year's estimate for the offset for the period FY 88 through FY 91 was $948 million. However, the law requires that the amount of the Federal offset be estimated two years in advance for the President's budget and that it be adjusted subsequently as data on actual costs are received from States. The data received from States have indicated that the earlier estimates of the amount of the offset were overestimated; therefore, to adjust for the earlier overestimates, it is now estimated that the offset for FY 88 through FY 92 will equal $460 million.
The amount of the offset ($460 million) is 12 percent of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation for FY 88 through FY 91. This percentage is less than that which was anticipated when IRCA was passed. At that time, federal offsets were expected to reach 25 percent of the $4 billion available for appropriation.
States have not reported all Medicaid costs; the data provided are therefore underestimates by a large unknown percentage. The fragmentary data which have been reported indicate that State Medicaid costs are $201 million. In addition, it is estimated that Medicaid costs through FY 1991 will increase by $109 million. (This estimate is based on indications from States that $90 million in Medicaid costs will soon be reported.) Additional components of the offset are estimated to equal about $40 million. The total figure for estimated Medicaid and other costs is therefore $350 million for FY 88 through FY 91, which equals the adjusted Federal offset for that period.
Adjustments made to the estimate for the offset, as described above, are necessary because Federal offset costs have not been as high as was originally anticipated, just as SLIAG State costs have been lower than estimated.
Question. Adding together the Federal offset and State Medicaid costs, what percent of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation is for Medicaid?
Answer. As noted above, Medicaid costs reported by States are incomplete. The costs reported by States total $201 million; and the Federal offset is $460 million. The total of the offset and the reported State Medicaid costs is $661 million; this amount is 28 percent of the $2.4 billion appropriated for SLIAG through FY 1991.
Question. For each of the following programs, please provide the aggregate State SLIAG costs through FY 91 and the percentage of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation this represents: a) public health; b)SSI/SSP; c) adult education; d) state and local indigent health care; and e) anti-discrimination education and outreach.
Answer. A) Public health costs for FY 88 - FY 91 are expected to total $134 million. This amount is 6 percent of the cumulative SLIAG appropriation of $2.4 billion. B) SSI/SSP is not a figure which is available as an aggregated amount. As an estimate, it is assumed that the figure reported by California ($41 million) is