George Radanovich

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would say I hope that the lessons that are being learned in California do not have to be learned in the United States to get a decent energy policy. Even though California is second only to Rhode Island in energy conservation, we have had 68 stage one power emergencies, 63 stage two power emergencies and 38 stage three power emergencies. The way it happens is when electricity begins to run out, that is a stage one alert. When it gets worse, that is a stage two alert. When that gets worse, that is a stage three alert and from there we enter into rolling blackouts. We are having to suffer through that because I think we have not been keen on making sure that California has had adequate energy supply and we will create that. We will become a great State or continue to be the great State that we are. But I do not want the country to have to go through the same problems that California is because of an unrealistic expectation out of energy and where the supply needs to go. California is getting real real fast. I think the rest of country needs to learn to get real about where our energy supplies need to come from. That is why I applaud the leadership in the House and also the President of the United States for putting this energy plan together, a realistic one that also includes alternative fuels, energies and conservation and puts them in their proper perspective.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for that, and for all his work on the Committee on Resources regarding the national energy policy. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things that the previous speakers were speaking about that stick in my craw. I just have to address them. One was regarding the issue of price-gouging. There was a lot of talk about price spikes and all these out-of-State generators that were making incredibly large fortunes. FERC did a study. They came back, or at least the judge that is trying to resolve the dispute between all those involved in the California energy crisis, he came back with the numbers. The out-of- State generators, out-of-State of California, made up or earned about 10 percent of those monies that are alleged to be overcharged during these last 6 months. The other 90 percent went to in-State-qualified facilities and also public utilities, like SMUD, the Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District, and in L.A., the similar utility district in California. Ninety percent of that number that is alleged to be price-gouged went to utilities within the State of California. So we had just better get our numbers right, and better yet, they had better stop doing the blame game and get to solving the problem in California. There is another thing that was talked about. That is the price caps, the issue of price caps in California, keeping the price down. The FERC did react by providing what they call a 7-24 monitoring system, where 7 days a week, 24 hours a day they will monitor prices, rather than just doing it during the time of a stage 3 alert. They will authorize the resubmittal of funds that were overcharged. The ISO, the independent system operator in California, is the one who has the ability to use those caps. They chose not to use them a couple of days ago because energy was at $84 a megawatt, and if they had put the cap that was provided for them by FERC on, it would have driven the price down to half of that, which would have been about $42 per megawatt. The hydro facility that they were depending on getting energy from, which was up in the Northwest somewhere, and forgive me, I don't know which State, was going to refuse to sell California the power because they were going to hold the water behind the dam, in effect hold the energy back until the price went back up because they could get it for a higher price, or they could keep it in their reservoirs for their own use later on. This is what we feared about price caps in the first place. That was that we are in the unfortunate position of having to worry about the price of energy, but also the number of blackouts that are caused by having no energy. Those of us who did not support caps were fearful that blackouts would increase by half again as much in California, and I think we are vindicated by the fact that even the independent system operator will not use the ability to lower their prices in California when they have the ability, because the lights will go out. This is what we have been saying all along. Mr. Speaker, I really think if we want to solve the energy crisis in California, we need to get the Governor out of the energy purchasing business. We need to restore the credibility or the creditworthiness of the utilities, get them back in business, and worry about our State's infrastructure, and get that up and running just as fast as possible. If the Governor and leader of the State of California would focus on that, rather than trying to focus blame on anybody but them, I think we would be moving to a solution faster. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a good friend who is here to talk about science and technology as related to the production of energy in the United States. I welcome the gentleman and thank him for coming down this evening.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I may weigh in a little, too, California used to have three nuclear facilities. We only have one, now. A few years ago, the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant, which was in the Sacramento area, the voters in the area voted to shut the thing down, so they not only discouraged new ones, they actually went after existing power- generating facilities. So it was, unfortunately, the view that we could have increased population and not increase energy capacity. That is not realistic, but I think that is the view that the gentleman so well expounded. That alternative energy is great, I think it needs to be expanded, but it is not realistic to think that it is ever going to meet a significant portion of our energy needs. It is just another way of saying that we do not want to develop our own energy resources.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Please do.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to come on this floor and talk about the President's plan for energy and for the future of the United States of America. I wanted to make a couple of points in response to the speakers of the previous hour regarding the situation in California. I am from California. I represent Fresno, California, and the central part of the state, where we too are at ground zero of the California energy crisis. There were a couple of statements made earlier which spoke ill of deregulation and used California as an example of that, and I would like to clarify that in California there was never really a deregulation plan. It was half a deregulation plan. In California's deregulation plan, the rates and the charges that the utilities were able to charge consumers were frozen. They were frozen rates and were not allowed to be increased, whereas the wholesale rates, or those rates that utilities had to go out and purchase energy for, were unlimited and put on the spot market, so that they would change minute by minute, hour by hour, every 24 hours, which made them very susceptible to high price spikes and such. That was the problem in California, the problem that the price increases could not be passed on as signals to the consumer to start conserving was what created the energy crisis in California. It was half of a deregulation plan, and under such a situation, it could have been easily corrected, up to a year ago. In May of the year 2000, when evidence started showing in San Diego that prices were starting to go through the roof, the Governor of California, who I believe was more concerned about providing leadership in a crisis than, frankly, his own reelection prospects and obtaining the presidency, had he acted earlier and imposed or allowed the PUC, the State PUC, to impose a 20 to 25 percent rate increase, not like the 48 percent rate increase that was passed because he waited so long, I think, people would have been able to begin conserving and he would have been able to get a lot of those utilities off the spot market and into some long- term contracts that made sense, and we would never have faced a $20 billion hit to the State of California. The minimum damage that could have been done would likely have been around $500 million to $1 billion. It was due to lack of leadership in California that created the energy crisis, and it was lack of leadership from the Governor and the State of California that caused the problems. I cannot explain that more. To be blaming a President who has only been in office for less than 6 months for all the woes of California I think is just unjust and unfair, and it is a diversion of what the real issue is, and that is that we have got poor leadership on this issue in the State of California. If California really wants to get out of their energy crisis, they only need to do a couple of things. I would say three things. First, the Governor has to stop buying power. I think the Governor has been taking on this responsibility for about 6 months now, and, since then, he has been purchasing energy up to seven times more than what the utilities are able to charge for and get back. That is an upside down equation that leads to billions and billions of dollars worth of debt that the utilities, after $9 billion in debt, could not manage. So the State has started incurring those losses, and still do. Today, California's Department of Water Resources, under the eye of the governor, is purchasing power right now 3 to 7 times more than what utilities are able to get from it. Now, granted, those prices are starting to come down, because a rate increase of 48 percent was imposed by the governor a year after he could have done it and averted this whole problem, has come into effect, and people are starting to conserve, and the future prices of energy are beginning to come down. This is what should have happened a year ago and did not happen until now. My own utility bill that I just got from my residence in California right now is about 4 times more than average of it. I think people in general are experiencing a doubling to tripling of their retail rates because of this. A 20 to 25 percent rate increase early on, with decisive leadership from the governor, would have prevented this entire thing and, instead, in waiting so long and in purchasing energy at such convoluted prices, he has led California into this crisis and we are still in the middle of it. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, the governor has entered into long- term contracts that do not start for about another year, but the average of those long-term contract prices range from about, again, 3 to 7 times more than what the utilities are able to charge for. I had a company in my office the other day that talked about the inability of the governor to sit down with all those that are involved in the energy crisis in California; that would be the utilities, that would be the marketers, that would be public officials, everybody that cares about California and who has a business stake in California, not only in the short term, but in the long term, and to sit down and work through this process, really resulted in nothing; in fact, did not happen until at least 8 months after the crisis began. Had the governor gotten people into his room, he would have been able to negotiate things. As an example, one company that has a geothermal plant in southern California, close to the gentleman from California who just spoke from southern California, went to the governor and was willing to sell energy at 7 cents per kilowatt hour and was frustrated so much by the governor and was rebuffed, clear up until the governor finally took 21 cents per kilowatt hour on a long-term contract when they had been offering 7. It is this kind of, I do not even want to say the word ``leadership,'' in California that has caused our problems. It has not involved the environmentalists to a degree that has caused the shortage in California, it has really been a shortsightedness I think on the part of Californians to think that we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that our rapid increases in population are somehow going to get their energy from some source unknown or unnamed, so let us not take care of our own energy needs. Mr. Speaker, my own congressional district in California grew by 20 percent over the last 10 years. We are one of the faster growing parts of the State, but it is very obvious in all of California that our population was growing, our energy demands were increasing, and nobody, nobody was making the efforts not only to increase the capacity of the natural gas lines that come into the State of California from other areas, but also to license and permit other plants and facilities in the State in order to make up for it. It is much the same I think with Americans. We like to have the lights come on when we flip the switch; we love to have water come out of the faucet when we turn it on, but very few of us want one of those own facilities in our own backyard to provide that for us. As individuals in our local communities, we are like that, but we are also that way nationally, when it comes to the national energy policy that we have. The United States consumes over 25 percent of the energy produced in the world today, and yet we utilize and use about 2 percent of our natural resources to get it. It is this kind of nimbi attitude I think on a local level that has caused problems in California and, kind of on a national level, in our participation in the world's energy reserves that we think that we can have our cake and eat it too. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the President has taken the initiative on this energy policy to change that, because not only is it hypocritical, it is not serving in our best interests, it is a threat to our national security, and I think it is morally wrong to demand a lifestyle and yet not pay up for it to develop the resources to provide it. I commend the President for coming up with the energy policy that he has so that we can not only provide increased energy from alternate sources like wind and solar, but also realizing that they are never going to be able to take the place of natural fuels, coals, oils; they are not going to be a significant part of the energy mix in the United States, ever. I think that we can work to increase that, but the percentage increases that we get are not going to be that great. So it is wise for us to begin to look at developing our own resources so that we can make up the energy difference that is caused by the increased population in the United States, but also to begin to think about our national security. That is why I commend the President of the United States for doing what he is doing, providing the leadership. It may not be popular to some people; it may not be a thrill to talk about more nuclear plants or developing coal reserves, but I have to tell my colleagues, what is more important I think is keeping the lights on and keeping the water running and keeping our national boundaries secure. So that is why I want to thank the President. I have to tell my colleagues, today we took 2 very important steps forward on the development of our national energy policy. One was in the Committee on Resources where we began hearings on the Energy Security Act with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the committee. This bill focuses on increased production of diverse fields beneath Federal lands and the outer continental shelf. It instructs the Secretary of the Interior to establish an environmentally sound program for exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Again, the exploration in this wilderness accounts for about the size of one-fifth of Dulles International Airport. For those of us in America that have not flown into Dulles International Airport, it is about one-fifth the size of your own airport if you are in an urban setting. It is a very, very small piece of this vast, vast wilderness, about half a percent of the total landmass in general. It also adds 5 areas for increased production: hydropower, gas, geothermal, solar and wind energy. As my colleagues know, part of the problem in California was our overreliance on one single source of energy, and that was natural gas. Even in that situation, with the transmission lines in California, there was no increased technology to increase the capacity of the flow of natural gas within the State of California, which caused the high prices for those that were bringing natural gas into the line. It is California's fault, and it is time to stop blaming the bogeyman or the evil-doers for victimizing poor California. It was bad leadership that caused the energy crisis in California, and I am very thankful that we had the President come to the plate with this energy plan. Also, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we marked up the Energy Advancement and Conservation Act of 2001. It does the following: it leads with conservation, which is one of the most important aspects of the President's plan. It mandates that the Federal Government take the leadership role, leading by example and making conservation happen. It establishes a Federal energy bank to fund energy conservation projects. It expands LIHEAP and weatherization assistance. Now, LIHEAP is typically a program, a Federal program that makes up for the high cost of heating oil in the northeast. Typically, that is the history of the program, but it is being expanded so that those of us in California that cannot afford the increased costs because we have to run our air conditioners a little bit more because it got up to even last week 108 in some parts of the central valley, these LIHEAP funds are being extended to help those rising costs because our air conditioners are running so high. That program is being expanded in California. It provides assistance to schools and hospitals for energy conservation, and for consumers it provides new appliance standards and expands the energy star program to provide better consumer education. This is just a piece of what is beginning to happen in Washington today because of the initiative of the President of the United States, President Bush, who has seen that we have been shortsighted over the last 8 to 10 years and not developed a policy that leaves us vulnerable to foreign countries all across the world. With that, I would like to invite the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, to begin perhaps a little dialogue on the bill that was begun in his committee today, and that is the Energy Security Act. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the gentleman.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great wife, mother, sister, aunt, grandmother, great grandmother and friend. Eighty years ago this Saturday, July 14th, Nancy Leigh MacConell, was born in Globe, Arizona, eldest daughter of Elijah and Alta Phillips. Nancy is also a treasure to one and all. She has brought great joy to all her family including her beloved sisters Joan and Sidney and her late husband Michale MacConell, Jr. Nancy is the mother of three; Suzanne Du Pree, Michele King and Michale, the grandmother of ten and the great grandmother of thirteen. And all firmly believe she has the patience of Job and is the greatest mom there ever was. I rise today to celebrate and honor Nancy MacConell's 80th birthday and wish her as much and love and joy in the next 80.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the retirement of Wain Johnson after his twenty years faithful dedication to Mariposa County. Mr. Johnson's agricultural vision revised and shaped Mariposa County's grape growing industry. In March of 1981, Wain began working as the University of California Farm Advisor for Mariposa County. Wain is a past President of the Mariposa Wine Grape Growers Association. His impact on the grape growing industry, in Mariposa County has been great. Wain's dream was for the county to become a premier grape growing and winemaking region. He helped Mariposa County realize this dream by educating the County's grape growers, providing classes and seminars in viticulture to local farmers. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to Wain Johnson for his service to the people of Mariposa County. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing him a long and happy retirement.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Steve Samuelian for being presented with the Chair's Award from the United Way of Fresno County (UWFC). The Chair's Award is selected by the Chair of the Board of Directors of the UWFC, and is awarded to the board member who has demonstrated outstanding service to community improvement. The main goal of the United Way is to maximize financial resources in order to build a healthier community while improving the quality of life. Steve's exemplary service to the UWFC has helped advance the mission, values, and goals of the United Way. In addition to his work on the Board of Directors, Steve recruited and chaired the Leadership Giving Committee of the United Way of Fresno County. The Leadership Giving Committee is the group that recruits and handles major donors to the United Way of Fresno County. The amount of contributions to this committee has doubled under Steve's guidance. Steve serves on the Board of Directors of the Clovis District Chamber of Commerce and participates in the National Education Association's Read Across America Program. He is also a member of the Resource Development Committee for the Fresno Leadership Foundation. In addition, Steve is actively involved in the Armenian-American community, and serves on the Board of Advisors for the Armenian Studies Program at California State University, Fresno. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Steve Samuelian for earning the United Way of Fresno County Chair's Award. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Steve Samuelian's contributions and dedication to the community.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Vache and Jane Soghomonian for being named Honorary Presidents at the 26th Annual Homenetmen Navasartian Games. The announcement was made on May 28 in Los Angeles, CA. The Soghomonians are long-time supporters and activists within the Armenian community. Vache has been a member of the Homenetmen since age seven. Vache and Jane have both remained active in the physical, moral, and social education of Armenian youth, organizing many events and fund-raisers. Vache and Jane Soghomonian are active participants in the Fresno, CA community, and continue to support the Armenian population. They have recently made a generous donation to the Homenetmen Navasartian Games, and will always keep their hearts close to the Armenian community. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Vache and Jane Soghomonian for their dedication to the local Armenian community. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. and Mrs. Soghomonian and wishing them continued success.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico and gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Georgia for participating in this special order.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her comments.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Arizona. I want also to state my admiration for this President for taking on this job. I do not envy him. I mean, I was born and raised right next to Yosemite National Park. Mr. Speaker, I go up and I feel in many ways closer to God in the high country at 9,000 feet. I go to Yosemite, and I hug boulders, and I love them, and I love the environment. This country has the reputation of holding the environment so sacred. It is wonderful, especially the States we represent and the beauty that comes from those States, those are treasures that we always want to cherish. But we also have people who have needs, who need water, who need electricity. I am not willing to say that myself or my wife or my child have more of a right towards those needs than anybody else does. Everybody has a right to equal access to this infrastructure in this country, and so we have these resources, the desire to want to be environmentally responsible and, yet, the need to use energy and water and infrastructures. So it is not an easy job, I think, but I want to applaud the President for taking this on, because it is not a real popular thing. It not something that will shoot him up in the polls for a while, but it will be something that he is providing leadership for in this country and that we so desperately need. Mr. Speaker, before I wrap up this hour, I will yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, continuing to defend California, it was an issue of supply I think that is at the heart of California's energy problems; but the way out of the energy crisis in California now is to, number one, get the governor out of the energy purchasing business; and, number two, work over time to get those utilities creditworthy again so that they can begin to get back into the energy purchasing business, and then get them off the spot market as much as possible. Really, that is the way out of California's energy crisis, in addition to aggressively working on new power supply in the State. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. RADANOVICH. The solution to California's problem was within the leadership of California, in the State legislature and the Governor's office. It was clear that that is where this problem was going to be called. After a series of mistakes, refusing to impose modest rate increases, gallivanting off, getting the State involved in energy purchasing, buying energy for seven times more than what the utilities were able to receive for that energy, led this thing into such a precarious position that the Governor could not afford then to solve the crisis, frankly, because, if he did, he then would be answering questions like what the heck did you do with our $12 billion surplus? So, unfortunately, the politics do not allow for the solution in California. Just know for a fact that there is no solution to this paying four to seven times more for the energy in California than what is being gathered up by the utilities. The reason that that is happening is because it is not politically expedient to solve the problem in California. There is too much need to vilify the President, there is too much need to vilify Members of Congress, those of us on the Committee on Commerce, because then the issue becomes why did you wait so long to solve this, when it could have cost far less in money and in damage to the State?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I have no doubt that that happened during the time from a year ago beginning last May to now. I think the real crime has been the hesitancy to provide leadership on the issue. Because of that, it led to a situation that could have cost the State maybe $2 billion to one that has cost the State of California $50 billion and has eaten up about a $12 billion surplus that we had last year. It really was a hesitancy to act, and an allegiance to labor and the environment.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The very ones he vilified, many times they have not been able to speak to him unless it was at his own fund raisers. This is the way the whole thing worked out. But the problem could have been solved a year ago, and I will make this point: if the Governor would have allowed for a modest retail rate increase by the utilities of, say, 25 percent, it would have driven down future prices; and he could have encouraged the utilities to get into long-term contracts where the wholesale price was below the retail price. We would never have been in this situation. It was his delay in imposing a modest increase of 25 percent that, by the time he had to impose it, grew to 48 percent, and on top of that, diverting his energies to State bio-energy, the transmission lines. I give him credit, he was working for ways to get the utilities creditworthy, but his decision was delayed and delayed for political expediency and the fear of doing something wrong that might hurt politically. That was the crisis in California.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I will say again that the problem in California was a crisis of leadership, and I think blurred objectives; one being a blurred objective, one objective being staying in office and getting reelected, and the other being providing for the needs of California.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Being the gentleman from California, if I may, if the gentleman would yield, I think the gentleman is right on the mark. But there was a separate issue in California that brought, I think, the energy crisis in the United States to the fore. What the problem was in California was really a crisis in leadership in an improper reaction to a flawed deregulation bill that was passed in 1995. We began to see signs of that with this ``deregulation'' plan, that froze the rates at which utilities could charge consumers but put 100 percent of the energy that they were able to purchase on the spot market, which fluctuated from day to day. That is half a deregulation bill, that is not a full one. If you do not go all the way with deregulation, you do not have deregulation. It caused problems beginning in May of last year.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the President for just the very reason that the gentleman just mentioned, because he is taking a leadership role on this issue. The polls came out the other day in the front page of the New York Times that he is slipping now down to 53 percent. Whether one agrees with that or not, I can see where a President like this has the leadership and the desire to want to improve America, to upset a few people and ruffle a few feathers just to make things different for our country and better. I think that is what real leadership is, and that is why I want to applaud the President for doing that. The person who spoke recently was the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a wonderful representative of that State. We are joined now by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), and I would yield to her at this point.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the example of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and put an environmental approach to it, because I am in the Congress continually amazed about the hypocrisy of the extreme environmentalist movement in this Nation. I really believe that the current style of environmentalism in the United States will end when one cannot get water out of a faucet or one cannot get light out of a light switch. People tend in the United States to be very environmental everywhere else but their own backyard, and when emergencies hit like this, there is a change in perception about what we ought to be doing. It is that not-in-my-backyard approach, I think, that has led to a lot of this Nation's energy crises. It has been at the local levels of government, all across the country, but it has also been fueled a lot by the extreme environmental movement that basically puts the environment over human life, and the priorities thereof. The reason why I wanted to bring that up, when the gentleman was mentioning this is, does the gentleman think that the environmental policies that regulate oil exploration in Iraq are much more stringent in the United States? I do not think so. Yet the United States uses 25 percent of the world's energy and only has 2 percent of the resources, and I do not know what the number is of that 2 percent that is locked up, but I guarantee it is a very, very high percentage. We are such hypocrites in this country because we demand to use so much energy, and yet we refuse to use our own resources, where if we did that, energy demand would be much more environmentally responsible than in a Third World country.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the time that I have that I have been most graciously given to begin to talk about our Nation's energy needs and the national energy policy that has been put forth by the new administration, by President Bush, and the information contained in the National Energy Policy Development Group's report on national energy policy. I want to commend the administration for taking the leadership on what is a real challenging issue, and that is, providing energy for America's needs. Being from California, they are urgent needs now and also for the energy needs in the Nation for the future. It is a daunting task and one that needs to make up for a lot of lost time because there has not been a lot of focus on our Nation's energy needs in the last 8 years. So although it may not be popular at times, I want to commend the President for the excellent job that he is doing by tackling such difficult issues. Why do we need an energy policy? If I may take just a few minutes to outline, it is because America faces its most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. Our fundamental imbalance of supply and demand has led to this crisis. Our future energy needs far outstrip present levels of production. Right now, United States energy needs are 56 percent dependent on other countries supplying that need. With that need growing at an ever-increasing rate, we become far more dependent on rogue nations that do not have the best interests of the United States at heart and in many, many ways leave ourselves very vulnerable. I think that it is high time that this policy has been sought after, and I applaud the President for taking steps in this direction. Last winter, heating bills for many families in the United States tripled. Average natural gas heating costs in the Midwest rose by 73 percent last winter. New Englanders' heating bills jumped by about 27 percent. Millions of Americans are dealing with rolling blackouts, including myself, and brownouts and grayouts and threatening their homes, businesses, families and their own personal safety. Low-income Americans and seniors have been the hardest hit. While energy costs typically represent only about 4 percent of a middle-class household budget, last winter costs for average low-income households were about 14 percent of the household budget. Drivers across America are paying higher and higher gasoline prices. In 2000, fuel prices on average rose 30 to 40 cents per gallon from a year earlier. This summer in some parts of the Nation, gasoline prices may skyrocket to about $3 a gallon. High fuel costs also are destroying many, many jobs. For example, trucking company bankruptcies are at an all-time high. Farm production costs are spiking sharply because of higher energy prices while farm income remains low. Surging natural gas prices have increased the prices of fertilizer by 90 percent since 1998. I can read a lot of the talking points on this about a national energy policy, but I think I can speak from the heart being from California and dealing with our energy crisis and the blackouts that we have. Many, many people say that California is an example of how not to deregulate and because of that they face rolling blackouts. Gratefully and thank God there was no direct loss of life attributed to the blackouts that we have had so far, but there is no guarantee that we will not face them in the future. In California's energy problems, it was as much mismanagement of the issue from the State level as it was an energy crisis that hit this year; but had there been good management, California would have hit sooner or later because of the dramatic increase in energy needs in California and the lack of California's ability to meet those needs through increased power generation. There has not been a new generation plant in California in the last 10 years. So many, many people buried their heads in the sand thinking that the increased population was not going to have an effect on the infrastructure of California, when indeed, of course, it did, and it caught up with us in the form of these blackouts. So I do commend the President for his desire to want to piece this thing together and diversify our energy base so that we are not so reliant on natural gas. I have with me today a dear friend. My mom was born in his district in Arizona. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is here also to speak on the President's national energy policy, and I would like to yield him some time.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my appreciation to our fine chairman, the ranking member, and all of the members of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies for their good work on the agriculture spending bill and the accompanying report that passed the full committee on June 13th. In particular, I am thankful that the Subcommittee has recognized the important contributions made by the Valley Children's Hospital located in California's Central Valley. Valley Children's Hospital (VCH) is the only freestanding children's hospital in a rural area in the United States. VCH serves the 10- county, 60,000 square mile region between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay, and it functions as a ``safety-net'' health care provider to all children of Central California. The facility provides services regardless of an individual's race, religion or ability to pay, with over 70 percent of its patients on MediCal. As you can imagine, VCH faces many challenges to its ability to provide health care. These challenges include inadequate transportation, shortages of health professionals, high poverty and unemployment, and the fact that there are 93 different spoken languages and dialects in the region. Each of the 10 counties that VCH serves is federally designated as medically underserved. In light of budget realities, we must continue to carefully define our appropriations priorities. I appreciate the Subcommittee's recognition that Valley Children's Hospital is a meritorious organization with projects that deserve special consideration.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor His Holiness Karekin II Nersissian, the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians. Karekin II traveled to the United States last month and visited Armenian churches, schools and a retirement home in Fresno, California and surrounding communities. Karekin II was born in the village of Voskehat, in 1951, in the Etchmiadzin Region of Armenia. He entered the Theological Seminary of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in 1965 and graduated in 1971. In 1970 he was ordained a Deacon, and in 1972 he was ordained a Celibate Priest. Karekin II then left for Germany to serve as a pastor, while continuing his theological education at the University of Bonn. In 1979, Karekin II returned to the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, and thereafter, left for Russia to study at the Theological Academy of the Russian Orthodox. In 1980, he was appointed Assistant to the Vicar General of the Araratian Pontifical Diocese. In 1983, he was appointed to Vicar General of the Araratian Pontifical Diocese. Karekin II was ordained a Bishop in October of 1983 and was granted the title Archbishop in November of 1992. In 1998, Karekin II was appointed to the Vicar General of the Catholicos. On Wednesday, October 27, 1999, Karekin II was elected as the 132nd Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians. Since his ascension to the head of the Armenian Church, Karekin II has actively rejuvenated the Theological Seminary. He has been instrumental in the construction of new churches and the building of St. Gregory the Illuminator Mother Cathedral in Yervan, Armenia. Many new priests have been ordained and assigned to churches in Armenia and Diaspora under the leadership of Catholicos Karekin II. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring His Holiness Karekin II Nersissian for his spiritual leadership to all Armenians.

Mr. RADANOVICH

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Teen Outreach Through Technology (TOTT) for their exemplary service to their community. TOTT is a non-profit organization with an emphasis on youth delinquency prevention. In 1986, Faye Johnson undertook an independent study at Fresno City College to explore the use of telecommunications with at-risk or troubled teens. Her study showed very positive results and shortly thereafter, a formal program was put in operation, volunteers were recruited, and TOTT became a non-profit organization. TOTT's purpose is to reduce juvenile delinquency by redirecting negative energy into a positive outcome through computer technology. Through the use of a computer network, newsletter and trained volunteer programs, youth are involved in the process of educating the public to their needs, exploring solutions to their problems, and improving their understanding of themselves and others. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Teen Outreach Through Technology for their innovative use of technology to serve young people in the Fresno area. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing TOTT many more years of continued success.