November 14, 1979
Page 32276
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, after almost 24 hours of discussion and negotiation with Senator LONG, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and the floor manager of the bill over the formula which would reflect the philosophy described by my good friend, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. BOSCHWITZ), we found it impossible to devise a formula for distribution which reflects that philosophy and at the same time takes into account other equities which are important to other Senators from States which would be affected less favorably than the committee bill or less favorably than the original Boschwitz-Muskie amendment.
We have talked about establishing a floor, and there is a floor, I think, recognized in the committee bill which we sought to apply to the compromise. Again, as is so often the case with these formula approaches to Government programs, we found ourselves with States adversely affected by the change in formula in ways that they find not acceptable.
We have considered several formulas, three of which are reflected in the table which has been distributed, I think, to all Senators through three columns — one is marked "S. 1724," which is the committee bill; the second column is the original Boschwitz-Muskie amendment; and the third is an alternative to that amendment with a minimum which would establish a floor below which States would not fall. We thought that the third column, given the concepts built into the formula, looked like a fair compromise.
Now, as we have gotten the computer printout which shows its impact upon all of the States, several Senators have indicated that the impact with respect to their States either as between the third column and the first column or the third column and the second column is unacceptable. So at this point we do not seem to have a formula on which we can build a consensus.
Looking at these three columns, 15 States appear to be benefited most by the committee bill; 22 States seem to be benefited most by the amendment before us, the Boschwitz-Muskie amendment; and 13 States seem to be benefited most by the third column. I give Senators these totals to suggest the difficulty of accommodating these various points of view.
Mr. President, I simply wish to reemphasize, if I might, the reasons why I have supported the original Boschwitz amendment, because I think that the basic philosophy reflected in this amendment should be reflected in whatever solution the Senate finally approves.
The amendment would not increase the cost of the low-income energy assistance program. We have not been focusing on dollars. It would target the funds authorized under the committee bill to those States in which low-income households have the greatest need for assistance because they have the coldest weather.
It is clear that the energy assistance program provided under the committee bill and the program for fiscal year 1980 funded under the Interior appropriations bill are intended primarily to help people with home heating costs. Yet the allocation formula in the committee bill does not target the funds to the States where the need for assistance with home heating costs is the greatest.
The need for an enlarged program of low-income energy assistance became apparent when the OPEC countries increased the price of oil from $14.54 a barrel to $20.12 a barrel. Further increases, plus the impact of decontrol, could double — or more than double — home heating bills in my State and in other States across the northern tier in the country.
The impact of these tremendous increases of home heating costs will begreatest on low-income households in States which have the coldest weather. The most reasonable and efficient use of the authorized funds is to target the aid to those areas where the need is greatest. The amendment before us now would accomplish that objective by providing an allocation formula that gives greater weight to the number of heating degree days in a State. The allocation formula provided under the amendment would distribute the authorized funds more equitably among the States since 29 States would get increased funds.
The amendment would also decrease the weighting in the allocation formula for home energy expenditures from 50 percent to 25 percent. Home energy expenditures are an imperfect measure of the need for assistance for home heating costs because they include expenditures for items other than heating — air-conditioning, cooling, lighting, and so on. Home heating expenditures would be a better standard, but I understand that reliable data are difficult to determine which to base such a measure. Nevertheless, with respect to some of the modifications we have been discussing today, we have used a home heating costs basis.
Since home energy expenditure is an imperfect measure, it should be given less weight in the allocation formula. As I mentioned, under the amendment pending before us the weighting of home energy expenditures in the formula is reduced from 50 percent to 25 percent.
This amendment will help to assure that needy people in the coldest weather States will get more adequate payments than they would under the committee bill. Failure to target the authorized funds to those most in need of help with their home heating bills would undermine the objectives of the energy assistance program before us today. It could also give rise to pressures to increase program funding in future years to give more aid to the neediest group.
Mr. President, I believe that the amendment will improve the Home Energy Assistance Act by targeting the funds to the group most in need of assistance with their home heating bills.
It is for that reason, Mr. President, that I supported the Boschwitz amendment as a cosponsor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, I simply take this opportunity to express my support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota and my colleague, Senator MUSKIE.
It is essential that an energy assistance program be directed toward areas of the country that will be the hardest hit by severe climate and rising fuel costs. This amendment proposes a formula which would direct assistance to areas with the greatest need, because it properly weighs the relatively severity of climate.
During debates on this subject in the past, the emphasis on energy assistance legislation was placed on the need to assist individuals who will -suffer because of rising heating costs. The formula approved in the Interior appropriations bill for emergency fuel assistance reflects this intent because it places greater emphasis on the number of heating degree days a State experiences. I contend that S. 1724 should adopt a similar allocation formula which would properly weigh the relative severity of climate.
The amendment would provide a higher allocation for generally those States which suffer the coldest weather. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment which would direct energy assistance to those who will be the hardest hit by severe climate.