HARRISBURG, July 15 – The House of Representatives Sunday unanimously approved a measure introduced by state Rep. Camille “Bud” George, D-74 of Houtzdale, asking Congress and President Bush to reverse course and increase funding for heating assistance.
“America most confront the fact that too many citizens face the desperate decision of heating or eating,” said George, majority chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee. “Cutting heating assistance when energy prices remain high and the outlook for lower prices remains bleak flies in the face of facts and compassion.”
George’s House Resolution 122 notes that President Bush’s proposed budget would cut Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program — LIHEAP — funding by 18 percent. Pennsylvania would lose 25 percent of its federal heating assistance when the proposed budget cuts are combined with reductions prescribed in the federal Budget Reconciliation Act
“Almost half a million Pennsylvanians turn to LIHEAP every year, and the assistance has not kept pace with the high prices,” George said. “There is no sense in making a bad situation worse.”
George’s resolution notes:
? Households receiving LIHEAP typically pay more than 17 percent of their incomes to pay their energy bills.
? Most households in Pennsylvania receiving LIHEAP — roughly 75 percent — include at least one senior citizen, disabled person or child under 5.
? Demand for weatherization services has created a lengthy waiting list and is growing by about 400 households a year.
Commenting on an audit that found serious deficiencies in LIHEAP’s administration, George agreed that efforts must be made to ensure that LIHEAP goes to those who need it the most.
“The potential for fraud must be taken seriously,” George said. “However, it should be noted that LIHEAP payments are made most often to vendors, not individuals.
“It isn’t right, but I think it very likely that many suspect cases involve a widow or widower applying for LIHEAP under a deceased spouse’s name,” George said. “Heating assistance is provided — the money isn’t used to buy drugs or other illicit uses. It seems likely that this could be more indicative of the great need and desperation out there than the degree of fraud.”