As a percentage of income, energy expenditures for households are about 50 percent higher than for the general population. Thank you for letting me come and talk to you, Mr. Chairman, to comment on this program. I feel very strongly, and I— Mr. REGULA. Thank you, and it is difficult because of our budget constraints. Ms. LEBOLD. I realize that. But I've been there for five years, and it's very hard. These people were janitors, cooks. They came to Akron, Canton with the steel, rubber industries, and I'm sure all over Ohio. And they work very hard, and they are very proud of what they did. Mr. REGULA. Were you part of the visiting nurse association? Ms. LEBOLD. This is through the area agency on aging, the passport program, it is a Statewide program. A lot of the people that I saw, Chairman Regula, were people that were just above the Medicaid guidelines, but they would not give up that money, $5,000, in their savings accounts to get on Medicaid because they needed that for their kids or to bury them. And that's quite an issue. Mr. REGULA. OK. Thank you. Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BEVILL. I have a question. I'm sure she has experienced it, but I see so many of our senior citizens that are having to choose between medicine and food. Ms. LEBOLD. That's correct. Mr. BEVILL. And many of my constituents are taking part of the prescription because they can't get the full and then part of it food. That's the way they are existing. Ms. LEBOLD. That's correct. A lot of them do not want to go on Medicaid. They consider that welfare. Medication expenses for these elderly, sometimes if they are on cardiac drugs, $100 a month. And they are just living on social security. Mr. BEVILL. And just to cut the cost of living in itself, it would of course mean that they would have to have less purchasing power. Ms. LEBOLD. Right. They have to make some real serious choices. Mr. BEVILL. When they-if their COLAs are cut? Ms. LEBOLD. That's correct. Mr. BEVILL. Thank you. Ms. LEBOLD. Thank you. Mr. REGULA. Thank you very much for coming. [The statement of Ms. LeBold follows:] Linda LeBold Congressional District Coordinator American Association of Retired Persons Mr. Chairman, I am Linda LeBold, a Congressional District Coordinator in AARP's Voter Education Program. AARP appreciates this opportunity to testify regarding the Weatherization Assistance Program. This program is administered by the Department of Energy. The Association recommends that next year's appropriation be set at the 1995 level of $214.8 million. Weatherization Assistance helps low income households reduce their energy bills by funding such activities as installing weather stripping, storm windows and insulation. Energy costs are a burden on all low income families, often forcing such households to make difficult choices among basic necessities. This is especially true with the elderly, due both to their increased risk of freezing deaths or heat stroke and the fact that they tend to live in older, less well-insulated housing. The Association is concerned about reductions made in weatherization activities this year, due to the impact of the stopgap funding bills. In addition, the $114 million provided in the regular fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill that was subsequently vetoed by the President represents a 47% cut below fiscal year 1995. If not reversed, these reductions will deprive thousands of vulnerable households of critically needed assistance. Further, these reductions will have a devastating impact on the existing service delivery system and impose hardships on States that want to continue energy conservation efforts but are unable to do so because of scarce resources. We strongly urge Congress to reconsider the 47% cut previously adopted for Weatherization Assistance in the regular appropriations bill and to restore these funds, if at all possible, whenever action occurs on a final spending vehicle for the rest of the current fiscal year. The Department of Energy reports that, to date, its weatherization programs working in cooperation with Federal and State partners have increased the energy efficiency of over 4.5 million homes. Weatherization reduces energy consumption by an average of 17.6 Mbtu's per home, saving low-income residents millions of dollars. An estimated 5,300 skilled workers will be laid off nationwide because of the level of funding provided in the regular fiscal year 1996 bill. 24-697 96-3 Data from the Department of Energy's 1993 Residential Energy Consumption Survey indicate that low income households spend approximately 14 percent of their income on home energy, about three and a half times the percentage paid by the typical American household. The Survey further indicates that energy expenditures as a percent of income for older households are about 50% higher than for the general population. The Residential Energy Consumption Survey also indicates that 35 percent of the homes occupied by older households were built prior to 1950, compared to only 26 percent of those occupied by younger families. These homes are typically less well insulated, more expensive to heat and in need of repair. Research by AARP's Public Policy Institute using data from the 1993 American Housing Survey shows that older households, especially minority older households, are more likely to occupy substandard housing. For example, among owner-occupied units, homes of older African-American households were almost four times more likely to exhibit severe or moderate quality defects. The 1993 American Housing Survey indicates that 64 percent of low income older owners did not devote any funds to routine maintenance or improvements such as weatherization. Weatherization Assistance has made a crucial difference for many of these older households. Just under one-third of the dwellings weatherized under the program are occupied by older persons. The most recent full-scale evaluation of the Weatherization Assistance Program, a study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory released in September, 1994, indicates that weatherization efforts through the Weatherization Assistance Program have reduced home energy heating expenditures by an average of 18 percent for households receiving the service. For households using gas or electricity, expenditures have been reduced 18 percent and 36 percent respectively. When combined with Low Income Home Energy Assistance benefits, the home energy cost burden is reduced further. Emphasis in the Weatherization Assistance Program with respect to methods used has evolved from emergency and temporary measures (such as caulking and weather-stripping) to inclusion of those conservation remedies that on average produce the highest savings (e.g., combined attic and sidewall insulation). Personnel in the field are now much more experienced in determining which conservation techniques, under what circumstances, are most cost effective and save the most energy. A particularly promising area for improvement in energy efficiency is in manufactured housing. Manufactured homes, more commonly referred to as mobile homes, are a major source of housing for low-income and elderly households. Although the Department of Housing and Urban Development adopted improved energy efficiency standards for new manufactured homes in 1994, the large stock of existing manufactured homes are not energy efficient. Households living in manufactured homes spend on average twice as much for energy per square foot of living space as do households living in single-family homes. Homes manufactured before 1975, representing 44 percent of the existing stock, are even less energy efficient. Currently, approximately 20 percent of all weatherization work focuses on manufactured housing. Recent reports by the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) indicate that new weatherization techniques for pre-1976 manufactured housing can reduce energy bills by 30 to 50 percent These techniques are now being made available by NCAT to weatherization agencies across the nation. The combination of improved weatherization techniques and tougher energy efficiency standards for new manufactured homes promises major improvements in energy efficiency for this form of housing and substantial benefits for low income residents. DOE's supporting analysis for the 1990 National Energy Strategy indicated that long-term residential energy consumption could be reduced by 23 percent through a gradual introduction of the best available conservation technology. The analysis also noted that to make a major contribution in the short-term, conservation measures must focus on retrofitting existing buildings. In addition, the National Energy Policy Act of 1992 gives great emphasis to improving building efficiency. With a capability to weatherize approximately 250,000 dwellings a year, continuation of the Weatherization Assistance Program is essential to meeting national energy goals. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on funding next year for this critical program. THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1996. DOE WITNESS LYNN DAVIDSON, ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL Ms. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bevill, my name is Lynn Davidson. I'm with a group called Environmental Solutions International. I am here today on behalf of the National OCS Coalition. Our organization has been involved in OCS issues for many years, and we appreciate the opportunity to present our views. Our testimony today is in support of the continuation of the existing moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing in sensitive areas around the United States. I'd like to request that our written testimony be in the recordMr. REGULA. It will, yes. All of the written testimony will be made part of the record. Ms. DAVIDSON. In five minutes, I'll really have to cut this down. Mr. REGULA. Yes, I know. Ms. DAVIDSON. I know that you have heard from us year after year on the moratoria, and I don't want to bore you. We talk each year about the various States that are protected by the moratoria, the very big local communities, the fishing interests, the tourism interests and how they are affected by the threats posed by offshore development including oil spills particularly from transportation of oil. We talk about spills not being the only problem. Offshore oil and gas development brings with it very substantial discharges of toxic pollutants including heavy metals and very significant amounts of air pollution. We talk about pipelines, and we talk about the opposition being very consensus building. Both_Republicans and Democrats alike are often-particularly in the Statesare often opposed to Mr. REGULA. I've observed it. Ms. DAVIDSON. Opposed to the development of offshore oil in these areas. We also talk about the moratoria areas not being significant enough to threaten our energy security in this country. There are very, very small amounts of both oil and gas in those areas. As we have data from the Department of Energy as well as the Department of Interior to back that up, and it is in our testimony. And we talk about alternatives. We always mention that there are lots of alternatives to digging up this offshore oil and gas development. I'd like to deviate a little bit from the testimony and just to mention personally that I have been very concerned and, as I know many, many people have, about the growing dependence this country has on oil period, and how very little reserves our country has compared to what we use on a daily basis. And the very strong feeling I personally have for the need for some sort of national energy reduction plan. I can't go the grocery store without using a car. I can't come downtown without using a car. It is a very great concern, and I would like also to ask on behalf of the National NC Co |