Order Code RL31865
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding Issues
Updated October 16, 2003
Emilie Stoltzfus
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Julie Whittaker
Analyst in Applied Microeconomics
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP): Program and Funding Issues
Summary
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in
1981 by Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35 and currently authorized through FY2004, is a
block grant program under which the federal government gives states and other
jurisdictions annual grants to operate home energy assistance programs for low-
income households. The statute authorizes appropriations for both regular LIHEAP
grants, which are allotted to all states based on a three-tier formula, and for
contingency funds, which are allotted at the Administration’s discretion and based
on an emergency need.
The FY2003 regular LIHEAP funding level was $1.788 billion (P.L. 108-7);
there were no new contingency funds appropriated and currently no contingency
funds are available for release. In January 2003, HHS released $200 million in
LIHEAP contingency funds (available from an FY2001 supplemental appropriation
bill P.L. 107-20) in response to increased home heating oil prices. All states received
a part of these contingency funds, which were primarily allocated in the same manner
as regular program funds. On July 10, 2003 the House approved legislation (H.R.
2660) recommending $1.7 billion in regular LIHEAP funds and an additional $100
million in LIHEAP contingency funds for FY2004. On September 10, 2003 the
Senate approved an amended H.R. 2660, appropriating $2 billion for LIHEAP, all of
which would be for regular LIHEAP allotments. In his FY2004 budget, President
Bush also called for $2 billion in total LIHEAP funding, however his request
specified that of this amount $1.7 billion would be for regular fund allotments and
$300 million for contingency funds. As of October 16, 2003, H.R. 2660 is in
conference between the House and the Senate in order to resolve differences.
On April 10, 2003 the House passed its version of the Energy Policy Act of
2003 (H.R. 6). The House bill would raise the regular LIHEAP funds authorization
to $3.4 billion through FY2006. In addition it would authorize bonus payments
received by the federal treasury for leasing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be
appropriated for additional LIHEAP funding, and would require HHS to prepare a
report for Congress on how LIHEAP could more effectively prevent loss of life from
extreme temperatures. According to the committee report accompanying the bill, this
provision is expected to assist HHS in developing a “more accurate” formula for the
distribution of LIHEAP funds.
On July 31, 2003, the Senate suspended debate on the Energy Policy Act (S. 14).
That same day, the Senate passed H.R. 6 with an amendment that replaced the
language in the House version of H.R. 6 with the text of the energy bill the Senate
had passed in 2002 (H.R. 4, 107th). This included authorization of $3.4 billion for
FY2003 through FY2005. As of October 16, 2003, H.R. 6 is in conference between
the House and the Senate in order to resolve differences.
This report provides background on LIHEAP and will be updated as significant
program events or legislative activities occur.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Federal eligibility standards and grantee responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Participation and benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Funding and allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Recent Developments and Current Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
LIHEAP formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Funding level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Contingency funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Performance measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Tables
Table 1. LIHEAP Funding Trends: FY1982-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

---

The Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP):
Program and Funding Issues
Introduction
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in
1981 by Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35 and currently authorized through FY2004, is a
block grant program under which the federal government gives states and other
jurisdictions annual grants to operate home energy assistance programs for low-
income households. The most current Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) data show an estimated 4.8 million households received winter heating/crisis
assistance in FY2001. According to a survey done by the National Energy Assistance
Directors Association (which represents state LIHEAP directors), the number of
household receiving winter heating assistance in FY2002 stood at approximately 4.4
million.
LIHEAP is a federally funded block grant program designed to ease the energy
cost burden of low-income households. Federal requirements are minimal and leave
most important program decisions to the states, the District of Columbia, U.S.
territories and commonwealths, 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 eligibility to households with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty
income guidelines (or, if higher, 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 excluded. States may separately choose to make eligible for
LIHEAP assistance any household or households where at least one member is a
recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), Food Stamps, or certain needs-tested veteran’s 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 or frail elderly 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. LIHEAP assistance
does not reduce eligibility or benefits under other aid programs. Federal rules also
require outreach activities, coordination with the Department of Energy’s

---

CRS-2
weatherization program, annual audits and appropriate fiscal controls, and fair
hearings for those aggrieved. Grantees decide the mix and dollar range of benefits,
choose how benefits are provided, and decide what agencies will administer the
program.1
Participation and benefits. Funds are available for four types of energy
assistance to eligible households:
! help paying heating or cooling bills;
! low-cost weatherization projects (limited to 15% of allotment unless
grantee has waiver for up to 25%);
! services to reduce need for energy assistance (limited to 5% of
allotment); and
! assistance with energy-related emergencies.
According to an HHS analysis of data from the Census Bureau’s March 1999
Current Population Survey, approximately 24% of LIHEAP recipients are households
that do not receive any other public assistance through TANF, SSI, Food Stamps or
subsidized housing and some 35% are elderly households.
HHS uses state data to estimate participation levels. For FY2001 (most recent
year available) an estimated 4.4 million households received assistance with heating
payments; 250,000 received cooling aid; 1,356,000 received winter crisis aid; 87,000
received summer crisis aid; and 97,000 received weatherization assistance.
(Although HHS estimates a combined total of households that received winter crisis
and/or heating assistance — 4.8 million households in FY2001 — because one
household may have received multiple kinds of assistance, it is not possible to simply
add each of the household counts together to calculate a single number of households
aided.)
The percentage of federally eligible households receiving LIHEAP winter
heating/crisis benefits declined from 31% in 1983 to an estimated 13% in FY2000.2
Greater program funding during the 2000-2001 heating season ($1.4 billion in regular
FY2001 funding plus $856 million in LIHEAP contingency funds)3 brought the
percent of federally eligible households served in FY2001 to 16%. Subsequent
program funding has fallen below the effective total FY2001 LIHEAP funding level
($2.26 billion). For FY2002, Congress appropriated $1.7 billion in regular LIHEAP
funds — $300 million above the regular funds available for FY2001. However,
because fewer contingency funds were released (and none during the heating season)
1 Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at
[http://www.ncat.org/liheap/sp.htm].
2 Many states have income eligibility standards below the maximum federal eligibility level
so that the percentage of estimated state-eligible households served would be higher (e.g.
23% in FY2001).
3 These contingency funds were made available to all states. Of this total contingency fund
amount, $400 million was released from the federal treasury in the final week of FY2000.
This made the money effectively available to state programs for the FY2001 program year.
See Table 1 at the end of this report for LIHEAP funding levels by year.

---

CRS-3
state LIHEAP administrators experienced an effective cut in resources.4 Total
FY2003 funding currently stands at $1.988 billion ($1.988 billion in regular funds
plus $200 million in contingency funds, made available to all states in January 2003).
The most recent available state data compiled by HHS shows an average
heating/winter crisis benefit of $364 in FY2001 (compared to $271 in FY2000 and
$237 in FY1999). The constant (1981) dollar value of average winter/heating crisis
benefits declined from $213 in the first year of the program (FY1981) to a low of
$112 in FY1998; in FY2001 its constant dollar (1981) value was $187.
Authorization. In 1998, P.L. 105-285 reauthorized LIHEAP, without major
program changes and set annual funding authorization for FY2002-FY2004 at $2
billion. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252), Congress stipulated that LIHEAP benefits and
outreach activities target households with the greatest home energy needs (and costs),
enacted a separate and permanent contingency funding authorization of $600 million
each fiscal year and allowed those funds to be allocated to one or more states at the
discretion of the HHS secretary. The 1994 law also established the “Residential
Energy Assistance Challenge” (REACH) grant program to increase efficiency of
energy usage among low-income families and reduce their vulnerability to
homelessness, and other health and safety risks due to high energy costs.
Other significant amendments to the program were authorized in 1990 under
P.L. 101-501. That act created the Incentive Program for Leveraging Non-Federal
Resources, which offers supplemental grants to states that win reduced energy rates
for low-income households. Although the statute provides a separate funding
authorization of between $30 million to $50 million for leveraging incentive and
REACH grants combined, in practice, they have been funded at between $22 million
to $30 million out of the program’s regular fund appropriations. P.L. 101-501 also
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.
Funding and allocation. The LIHEAP statute authorizes regular
appropriations, which are allocated to all states based on a statutory formula, and
contingency funds, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the
Administration.

Regular funds.
Regular funds are allocated to states according to a three-tier
formula prescribed in the LIHEAP statute as amended by the Human Services
Reauthorization Act (HSRA) of 1984 (P.L. 98-558). The particular tier used for the
allocations is determined by the size of the appropriation for that fiscal year. For
4 Congress appropriated a total of $300 million in contingency funds. Of this amount, $100
million was released in August 2002 to states (34, including the District of Columbia) that
experienced exceptionally high summer temperatures. The remainder of these appropriated
contingency funds lapsed with the close of FY2002.

---

CRS-4
funding levels below $1.975 billion a Tier I rate, determined in 1981, is applied. For
allocations from $1.975 up to $2.25 billion a new Tier II rate is applied. At the Tier
II rate, states are subject to a hold-harmless level where their new Tier II allocation
must be at least as great as the allocation the state received in 1984. Those states
with the greatest percentage increase in their allocations and which are not at a
hold-harmless level must have their allocations ratably reduced until the
hold-harmless provision for states below that level is met. The Tier II formula is
required by law to account for variations in heating and cooling needs of the states,
variations in types of energy used, variations in energy prices, and variations in the
low-income population and their heating and cooling methods, while using the most
current data available.
For funding levels at or above $2.25 billion a Tier III rate is applied. The Tier
III rate uses the Tier II methodology but there are additional requirements for
distributing funds. States that would have received less than 1% of a total $2.25
billion allocation must be allocated funds using the rate they would have experienced
at a hypothetical $2.14 billion allocation (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 in 1984. However, the proportion of total regular
funds each state receives may differ substantially from the proportion received in
1984.
In all cases LIHEAP grants to states may be supplemented with other federal
dollars, including: contingency funds, leveraging incentive and REACH grants,
funds left over from the previous fiscal year, and rarely (if ever) used authority to
transfer funds from other federal block grants.5
Contingency funds. The statute currently provides that LIHEAP
contingency funds may only be released at the discretion of the Administration and
may be allocated to one or more states based on their needs. It further provides that
contingency funds are authorized “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.”
Table 1 (at the end of this report) shows a history of actual and proposed
LIHEAP funding for each of FY1982-FY2004.
Recent Developments and Current Issues
Appropriations. On July 10, 2003 the House approved legislation (H.R.
2660) recommending $1.7 billion in regular LIHEAP funds and an additional $100
million in LIHEAP contingency funds for FY2004. On September 10, 2003 the
5 For more information on the formula allocation, see CRS Report RS21605, Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Estimated Allocation Rates.

---

CRS-5
Senate approved an amended H.R. 2660, appropriating $2 billion for LIHEAP, all of
which would be for regular LIHEAP allotments. In his FY2004 budget, President
Bush also called for $2 billion in total LIHEAP funding, however his request
specified that of this amount $1.7 billion would be for regular fund allotments and
$300 million for contingency funds. As of October 16, 2003, H.R. 2660 is in
conference between the House and the Senate in order to resolve differences.6
Authorization. On April 10 the House passed its version of the Energy Policy
Act of 2003 (H.R. 6), which included several LIHEAP provisions that were reported
out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 8 (as part of H.R.
1644). The House-passed bill would raise the LIHEAP regular funds authorization
to $3.4 billion and extend the program’s funding authorization through FY2006. In
addition, H.R. 6 would require HHS to report to Congress, within 1 year of the bill’s
enactment, on how LIHEAP “could be used more effectively to prevent loss of life
from extreme temperatures.” The committee report accompanying the bill (H.Rept.
108-65, Part 1) states that this provision is intended to assist HHS in developing a
“more accurate” formula for distributing LIHEAP funds. H.R. 6 was amended on the
House floor to include an additional LIHEAP provision that would allow any bonus
funds received by the federal treasury as a result of leasing activities in the Arctic
National Wildlife Reserve to be appropriated for additional LIHEAP funding
(H.Amdt. 68). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bonuses would
produce $2.1 billion in revenue to the federal treasury over 5 years.
On June 5, 2003, the Senate voted to amend S. 14, the Energy Policy Act of
2003, to include a provision that would raise the regular funds authorization for
LIHEAP from $2.0 billion to $3.4 billion in FY2004 and would extend, at this same
higher level, the program’s funding authorization through FY2006 (S.Amdt. 860).
Program funding authorization is currently set to expire with FY2004. On July 31,
2003, the Senate suspended debate on the Energy Policy Act (S. 14). That same day,
the Senate passed H.R. 6 with an amendment that replaced the language in the House
version of H.R. 6 with the text of the energy bill the Senate had passed in 2002 (H.R.
4, 107th Congress). This included authorization of $3.4 billion for FY2003 through
FY2005. As of October 16, 2003, H.R. 6 is in conference between the House and the
Senate in order to resolve differences.
LIHEAP formula. According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee
(H.Rept. 108-65, Part 1), the HHS report on preventing loss of life due to extreme
temperatures should “assist the Secretary in developing a more accurate formula
allocation methodology” to better meet the home energy assistance needs of
“vulnerable populations.” Any formula developed, the committee report notes,
should use the best statistical data and model now available, be a simple, easy-to-
understand science based mechanism that considers state-level expenditures for low-
income home heating and cooling needs, and include annually updated, state-level
heating and cooling degree day and fuel price information. Finally, the legislative
language would require HHS to consult with appropriate state officials in preparing
the report. Although the Senate rejected a proposal to amend S. 14 to include
6 For more information about FY2004 appropriations see CRS report RL31803,
Appropriations for FY2004: Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

---

CRS-6
legislative language similar to this, members of the Senate HELP Committee have
indicated their willingness (even as early as the 107th Congress) to at least review the
LIHEAP formula. (See Congressional Record, April 16, 2002, pp. S2716-S2717.)
In addition, the President’s FY2003 budget indicated the Administration’s interest
in changing the formula used to distribute LIHEAP funds and, in particular, in
“basing the formula on current home energy expenditures paid by low-income
households.”
As amended in 1984 (P.L. 98-558), the LIHEAP statute provides that funds be
allotted to states based on current home energy expenditures of low-income
households. However, it also states that unless regular LIHEAP funds reach $1.975
billion in any given fiscal year (after FY1985) no state can receive less funds than it
would have received under the previous allotment formula. Because regular LIHEAP
funds have not exceeded $1.975 billion since FY1986, the prior formula for
allocating funds has generally governed the percentage share of funds states receive.
First developed for use in FY1981, that formula relied on then available population,
weather, and energy expenditure data and included factors that gave greater weight
to states with colder temperatures.
Funding level. For FY2003, Congress allowed $1.788 billion in funding for
regular LIHEAP grants (P.L. 108-7). In addition, on January 24 the Administration
released $200 million in LIHEAP contingency funds to all states. This brings the
total FY2003 regular and contingency funding available for LIHEAP to $1.988
billion.
Under the series of continuing resolutions that funded the government from
October 1, 2002 through February 20, 2003, HHS had made allotments to states for
the first two quarters of FY2003 at a lower funding level than was finally approved.
In early March, HHS released supplemental regular LIHEAP funds based on the
higher funding level included in the final law (P.L. 108-7)7 and on April 1 it awarded
states their third quarter LIHEAP allotment. However, as of the March supplemental
release, 10 states (DC, GA, IL, KY, MN, MS, NM, NY, RI, and TX) had requested
and received their full FY2003 LIHEAP grant allotment, an additional 23 states had
received 90% or more of their funding, and only 5 states (AZ, HI, MI, NC, WI) had
received less than 75% of their regular FY2003 funding. (LIHEAP funds are
released quarterly, but states are permitted to specify what percentage of their total
annual funds they wish to receive in a given quarter.)
The LIHEAP statute authorizes regular appropriations, which are allocated to
all states based on a statutory formula (described above), and contingency funds,
which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the Administration. Of
the $1.788 billion in regular LIHEAP funds made available for FY2003, $100 million
had previously been appropriated as contingency funds (P.L. 107-20) that were to
remain “available until expended.” However, the FY2003 spending legislation ( P.L.
108-7) amended this previous law and converted the remaining contingency funds
into regular funds.
7 For a table showing total LIHEAP funds released (including regular and contingency), by
state, as of Mar. 13 go to [http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030304.html].

---

CRS-7
Contingency funds. The FY2003 funding act (P.L. 108-7) did not include
an appropriation of LIHEAP contingency funds and as of April 15, 2003, there are
no LIHEAP contingency funds available for release. For FY2002, $300 million in
LIHEAP contingency funds were appropriated (of which $100 million was released
and $200 million expired at the end of that fiscal year).
On January 24, 2003, President Bush directed HHS to release $200 million in
LIHEAP contingency funds to help address increased home heating fuel costs. Of
these funds, $120 million was distributed to all states according to the same formula
used to allocate regular LIHEAP funds. The remaining $80 million was also
distributed to all states but several formula factors were added to ensure that states
with the largest number of low-income households using oil as their primary heating
fuel received a greater share of the funds. Low-income households were defined as
having income at or below 150% of the federal poverty level or 60% of state median
income, whichever is greater.8 To distribute this money, the Administration drew on
LIHEAP contingency funds that Congress included in an FY2001 supplemental
appropriations act (P.L. 107-20).
In late FY2002, HHS released $100 million in LIHEAP contingency funds to
each state whose temperatures between June 23, 2002 and August 3, 2002 were
significantly higher than the state’s 30-year average temperature for that time period.
Among the 34 jurisdictions that met this criteria, funds were allocated based on the
severity of the heat wave and the number of households with incomes below 125%
of the federal poverty level.9 The August release of contingency funds was made
from the $300 million appropriated for this account as part of FY2002 appropriations
(P.L. 107-116).
Performance measurement. The LIHEAP statute provides that federal
LIHEAP funds should serve low-income households that pay high home energy costs
relative to income and that have very young, disabled, or elderly individuals. DHHS
has developed performance goals and measures to enable it to quantify state
performance. The performance goals are to increase the percentage of LIHEAP
recipient households having: a household member 5 years old or younger; a
household member at least 60 years old; and the lowest income households with the
highest energy costs. Achievement of these goals will be measured using specially
developed benefit-targeting and burden-targeting indexes. The agency intends to
measure performance using a FY2001 baseline. The data collected are intended to
help states improve program outreach and management, and to assist DHHS in
determining how best to offer technical assistance to states.
8 A list of FY2003 contingency allotment amounts by state is available at [http://www.hhs.
gov/news/press/2003pres/20030124a.html].
9 A list of FY2002 contingency allotments amounts by state is available at [http://www.acf.
dhhs.gov/programs/liheap/im02-17.htm].

---

CRS-8
Table 1. LIHEAP Funding Trends: FY1982-FY2004
($ in thousands)
Regular funds
Regular funds
Contingency
Contingency
Fiscal
President’s
authorization
Regular funds
funds
funds
year
request
levela
appropriation
appropriated
dispersed
1982
$1,400,000
$1,875,000
$1,875,000
—
—
1983
1,300,000
1,875,000
1,975,000
—
—
1984
1,300,000
1,875,000
2,075,000
—
—
1985
1,875,000
2,140,000
2,100,000
—
—
1986
2,097,765
2,275,000
2,100,000
—
—
1987
2,097,642
2,050,000
1,825,000
—
—
1988
1,237,000
2,132,000
1,531,840
—
—
1989
1,187,000
2,218,000
1,383,200
—
—
1990
1,100,000
2,307,000
1,443,000
—
—
1991
1,050,000
2,150,000
1,415,055
195,180
195,180
1992
1,025,000
2,230,000
1,500,000
300,000
0
1993
1,065,000
ssanb
1,346,030
595,200
0
1994
1,507,408
ssanb
1,437,402
600,000
300,000
1995
1,475,000
2,000,000
1,319,202
600,000
100,000
1996
1,319,204
2,000,000
900,000
180,000
180,000
1997
1,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
420,000
215,000
1998
1,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
300,000
160,000
1999
1,300,000
2,000,000
1,100,000
300,000
175,299
2000
1,400,000
ssanb
1,100,000
900,000
744,350c
2001
1,400,000
ssanb
1,400,000
600,000
455,650
2002
1,400,000
2,000,000
1,700,000
300,000
100,000d
2003
1,400,000
2,000,000
1,788,000e
0
200,000f
2004
1,700,000
2,000,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on HHS data.
a Amounts listed are for regular funding only. In 1994, Congress enacted a permanent $600 million
annual authorization for contingency funding. Prior to 1994, contingency funds were sometimes
available.
b Such sums as necessary.
c President Clinton released $400 million of these FY2000 contingency funds in late Sept. 2000
making it effectively available to states in FY2001.
d These funds were distributed out of a total of $300 million in contingency funds that were
appropriated in FY2002 (P.L. 107-116). With the end of FY2002, the remaining $200 million
of these FY2002 contingency funds expired.
e The final FY2003 appropriations act (P.L. 108-7) included $1.688 billion in new regular funds and
converted $100 million of the contingency funds, originally appropriated in FY2001 (P.L. 107-
20), into regular funds.
f These funds were distributed out of a total of $300 million in contingency dollars appropriated as part
of the FY2001 supplemental (P.L. 107-20). That law provided that the funds were “available
until expended.” Congress subsequently converted the remaining $100 million into regular
funds available (see tablenote e).

---