[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10364-H10368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE FIELD BRIEFING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a second.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes; I would.
  Mr. DORNAN. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I made reference earlier to your hard-hitting, factual, truthful 
special order last night with Chris Cox, and I would like to ask 
unanimous consent that this not interrupt the flow of this fascinating 
environmental presentation, but that my question of you and my short 
statement hear appear at the beginning of your special order so it has 
a flow from special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DORNAN. What I wanted to do was to point out at the end of my 
special order, because I got caught a little about there, that I have 
asked unanimous consent they duplicate it to put it in the Record at 
the end of my remarks for any Americans tracking us through the gallery 
of visits here, or through the electronic wizardry of C-SPAN I and II, 
that I am putting into the record the vote.
  You were here for that great debate in January 1991, so was the 
Speaker pro tempore; 180 Democrats voted against doing anything about 
Saddam Hussein. Some of them even voted against the sanctions, like my 
pal, Eliot Engel, although he voted for hostile action. But all the 
leadership: Tom Foley, who was the Speaker, Mr. Bonior, who was in 
leadership then, Mr. Hoyer, the entire leadership here and the entire 
leadership that is over there today in the Senate: Mr. Daschle, then 
the majority leader, Mr. Mitchell, they all voted against doing 
anything. And Admiral Crowe, who had risen to glory under Reagan and 
Bush, he wrote against any action, and his reward is to be the 
Ambassador to England in the Court of St. James.
  Now we have these same people coming to the floor. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] at least had the decency to say, well, he 
voted no because he thought we went into week 2 early and left a few 
days too late, and I might agree with the analysis, but that is not a 
reason to vote against going in at all, because he did not know when we 
were going in.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If I could reclaim my time for a moment?
  Mr. DORNAN. Sure.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Actually, it is worse than what you are presenting. 
The fact is that we had hundreds of thousands of Americans in the 
desert in a very vulnerable situation. They were in a hostile 
environment, even if there were no enemy troops out to kill them; and 
what happened, what you are talking about, the vast majority of the 
members of the Democratic Party who were here in this body decided and 
voted that they should not be permitted to conduct offensive military 
operations.
  What, in essence, that vote was all about was saying our troops, 
vulnerable in the middle of a hostile desert, facing a well-armed foe 
would not be able to conduct offensive operations but would have to sit 
there and fry in the desert and take hits, but were not permitted to 
take offensive action.

  This is Vietnam times 10, if they would have succeeded. Luckily a 
number, Democrats crossed over to join almost every Republican.
  Mr. DORNAN. 240 to 183.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Almost every Republican voted to side with 
our troops.
  You do not put people out in that condition unless you are willing to 
back them up, and the last thing you want to do is put them out in the 
middle of the desert as it is going into summertime and make them sit 
there and make them take the hits for not letting offensive military 
operations take place.
  They voted that way, and then when Schwarzkopf came here, when he 
came here to give a speech to this body after the great victory that he 
led us to, I remember the Schwarzkopf reception because all of those 
who voted, not all of them, but so many of those who voted to make him 
a sitting duck elbowed everybody else out of the way in order to get 
their picture with General Schwarzkopf.
  At that time, if you remember, right after we voted to give them the 
right to conduct offensive military operations, and it became clear 
that our forces were going to win a magnificent victory, the Democrats 
who controlled this body at the time, if you remember, Bob, called us 
back, immediately called us back in order to have a vote which was 
nothing but a face-saving vote for them at massive expense to the 
taxpayers to get everybody back here for just a face-saving vote for--
--
  Mr. DORNAN. To support the men and women.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is right.
  Mr. DORNAN. Two quick final thoughts:
  You are right. Boy, was I understating it. Those of us who were 
raised in California and in New York, a few other big cities, find 
words like arrogance, gall, the effrontery of it all. They are not 
strong enough.
  We must turn to Yiddish, one of the world's most powerfully 
expressive and emotional languages. The word with great accent 
``chutzpah'' comes to mind, that they would ask us, without even being 
consulted, let alone a fulsome debate, as President Bush and Dick 
Cheney gave us, that we should sign off on some feel-good thing from 
the other Chamber without being consulted about the air war that may be 
beginning any second over there of hostilities again affronting our 
Constitution.

                              {time}  1430

  A final thought. I leave you now to go to the West Front, Ronald 
Reagan the first President ever sworn in out there, where bishops, 
cardinals of the Catholic Church, bishops of the Mormon Church, prolife 
ministers and pastors, great evangelical leaders and pro-life rabbis 
are gathering to ask the U.S. Senate, six hardened hearts, to turn 
around and support the overwhelming majority of theHouse and Senate to 
override Clinton's veto on partial birth infanticide of 80-percent-
delivered babies held in the mother's birth canal under great distress 
to the mother, heck with the distress on the baby, because the 
abortionist is about to stab it in the back of its head and remove its 
brains by suction. I am going out there now to that.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I have always 
believed that there is an honest disagreement on the issue of pro-life 
and pro-choice and the abortion issue. I personally, until I came to 
the conclusion that life begins at conception, I was ambivalent about 
this whole issue. But once you come to a conclusion, once

[[Page H10365]]

you say to yourself, I honestly believe that we are talking about a 
baby, once you actually say to yourself this is the conclusion I have 
come to, and looking at all the facts, then that is it. There is no 
more decision. If you believe life begins at conception, you cannot 
permit the killings of babies.
  Many of our colleagues have an honest disagreement. They have not 
come to that. Their eyes have not been opened to that. I did not 
believe that all the time, either. But as soon as I did, then my 
decisionmaking was past. No moral person could permit a baby to be 
killed.
  But a partial birth abortion, even those people who do not believe 
that life begins at conception, as I now have come to believe, even 
those people who do not believe that know that a partial birth abortion 
is a baby that is well along the way.
  Mr. DORNAN. You see the arms and legs moving.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. This really is tragic that the other side, who is so 
opposed to any restrictions on abortion, have been able to blind 
themselves about what this is. There should be no question about this.
  Mr. DORNAN. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is changing his vote. At 
least one has let his conscience kick in. He wrote a speech titled 
``Too Close to Infanticide.'' Great cardinals and bishops and 
Protestant leaders have said it is infanticide, and that is what I say. 
Eighty percent of the infant is there, You are holding the mother in 
distress while you take its brains out and kill it right in front of 
your eyes. That is infanticide.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let us just hope, I happen to believe that we should 
try to explain in a very heartfelt, way, those of us whose eyes have 
been opened, that honestly, there is no other, once you conclude that 
life begins at conception you cannot have any other belief. Even the 
most strident person who is pro-choice that I know, if they believed 
that it was a baby that we were talking about, they would not believe 
that there should be an abortion.
  Mr. DORNAN. Beautifully put. You have actually picked up the theme of 
the cardinals, to try and win by persuasion. But when you are a fighter 
pilot, that is hard. Your dad is a fighter pilot. Ask your dad how hard 
it is to be loving and kind and try to open people's eyes when they 
keep trying to funnel Federal dollars into what is obviously the 
infanticide of a living child, 80 percent born. I am going to take your 
advice and speak with love out there on the West Front today.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think we should.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked for this time to report to theHouse on a field 
briefing and site visit that was held on August 8, a hearing and field 
briefing that was hosted by the Energy and Environmental Subcommittee 
which I chair. Joining me at that field briefing were four other 
members of the Committee on Science: Mr. Schiff, the distinguished 
chairman of the Basic Research Subcommittee, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Foley, 
and Mr. Stockman. The field briefing could well have been called: Free 
Enterprise Works. Each of the sites that we visited gave us a firsthand 
look and a better understanding of the private sector's response to 
environmental challenges. We found that in southern California new 
technologies are emerging to clean and purify the environment and to 
make a profit, to boot.
  We began the day by attending a ground-breaking for C-launch. This is 
an innovative project of the Boeing Corporation which will launch 
commercial satellites from platforms based at sea. I am particularly 
pleased that Boeing has chosen the site of the now closed Long Beach 
Naval Station for its home port, bringing much-needed jobs to the area.
  We next visited the Long Beach headquarters of Gridcore. Gridcore is 
a company that has commercialized technology originally developed at 
the Department of Agriculture research lab in Wisconsin. They are a 
proud example of a public-private partnership.
  The result of this cooperation is a remarkable product. They are 
panels with the strength of plywood at half the weight made from 100 
percent recycled material, primarily fiber from old corrugated 
cardboard containers. It is keeping our landfills from overflowing 
while at the same time producing a building substitute for trees.
  Even more, this technology allows the production of Gridcore products 
without the use of toxic resins or binders. Not only is Gridcore made 
from recycled materials, but the product itself is also recyclable.
  So what we have here, a product of a basically public-private 
partnership, is the development of an environmental technology that 
will keep our landfills from overflowing, but at the same time save 
trees, and at the same time, of course, make a profit for those who are 
engaged in the enterprise.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter Gridcore's 
specification sheet at this point in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton of Texas). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The specification sheet referred to is as follows:

                           Gridcore


                          specification sheet

     Product description
       Gridcore is an engineered molded fiber stressed 
     skin panel. Proprietary technology facilitates the pressure 
     forming of recycled resources into three dimensional 
     geometric ribs molded to smooth faces. When laminated 
     together, they form a honeycomb panel with high strength-to-
     weight features and impressive design, fabrication and 
     application flexiblity.
     Size
     4' x 10' x 23/32'' (Internally Tested)
     Thickness Tolerance: 1/64''
     (Equivalent to A/C plywood specifications)
     Weight
     1.0-1.25 pounds per square foot (nominal 3/4'' basis) 
         (Internally Tested)
     Density
     20 pounds per cubic foot (nominal 3/4'' basis) (Internally 
         Tested)
     Bending Strength
     ASTM D 1037 @ 50% RH
     Modulus of Rupture: 1,000-1,300 PSI (Timber Products 
         Inspection Lab)
     Modulus of Elasticity: 150,000-200,000 PSI
     (Equivalent to low density particleboard specifications)
     Flat Crush
     ASTM C 365 @ 50% RH: 50-60 PSI (Internally Tested)
     Screw Withdrawal
     ANSI A208.1 @ 50% RH:
     Hollow Core: 76 pounds (Timber Products Inspection Lab)
     Epoxy Filled Core: 254 pounds
     Linear Expansion
     50%-90% RH: 0.15%-0.20% (Fiber Research International)
     Flame Spread
     ASTM E-84: Class C (United States Testing Company)
     Flame Spread Index: 115 Test performed on Gridcore
     Smoke Density: <450 Gridboard assembly.
     Environmental Features
       Current Gridcore products are made from 100% 
     recycled resources, primarily kraft fiber from old corrugated 
     containers. Gridcore is free of formaldehyde's and 
     urea reins. Non-toxic PVA (white) glue is used to laminate 
     sub-panels. The manufacturing process generates no toxic off-
     gasses. The water utilized in the forming & pressing cycles 
     is recycled back into the system. Wide-spread adoption of 
     Gridcore can slow deforestation and provide 
     sustainable building solutions for the growing needs of 
     Twenty-First Century development.

       Note.--Changes in raw material content can affect the 
     structural characteristics of the panels. If surfaced with 
     coatings, veneers or laminates, Gridcore should be 
     balanced with similar treatments on both faces to prevent 
     warping.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, as part of its commercialization 
agreement with the Government, Gridcore is paying royalties on its 
profits. As a result, the taxpayers will get more back in terms of what 
Gridcore is giving them through royalties than it costs us in the 
original investment.
  Well, I have been somewhat skeptical of developing a partnership-type 
relationship between government and private companies. In this case it 
has obviously worked, and certainly these royalty arrangements by which 
private companies commercialize government-developed technologies, 
certainly this should be encouraged, and in this case, Gridcore has 
developed a product which is a win for the taxpayers, a win for the 
consumers, and a win for the environment.
  From Gridcore, our field briefing went on and we visit the 
headquarters of Simple Green in Huntington Beach. Simple Green began in 
the family workshop of Bruce Fabrizio and his father, Joseph. They 
successfully developed an alternative to toxic cleaners

[[Page H10366]]

used to remove tannic acid that results from coffee roasting. Twenty 
years later they have developed an all-purpose cleaner that degreases 
products marketed around the world, and these products are nontoxic 
nonflammable, nonabrasive, and even biodegradable.
  One of the greatest obstacles to this success, to the development of 
an environmentally friendly product, a cleaner that went well beyond 
anything that was on the market at that time, one of the greatest 
obstacles they had to overcome was the high taxes, high interest rates 
and double-digit inflation during the 1970's.
  This was the time during the late 1970's when, as entrepreneurs, they 
struggled to establish their new company to offer this environmentally 
sound alternative to the cleaning products that were already on the 
market. But with high interest rates and a killer inflation they were 
almost kept off of the market simply by the general economic 
conditions.
  So let us never forget that when we are talking about cleaning the 
environment or any other very laudable goal that we must insure that 
the fundamental economic factors that are at play in our society are 
conducive to entrepreneurs developing new products and creating jobs 
and basically bringing about the progress that will make this a better 
world.
  Well, once they were successful, Simple Green did not stop at just 
making a good product and making a profit. In fact, the product itself, 
of course, is beneficial in that it is more environmentally safe than 
the other cleaners that are on the market, but they did not stop at 
just making a profit at doing that. They went on to establish the Egbar 
Foundation which stands for: everything is going to be all right, which 
is, of course, in stark contrast to some of the pessimism that we hear 
from other people who claim to be interested in the environment but 
basically are so pessimistic and are making such outlandish claims that 
the world is going to end and that we all are going to be consumed in 
our own waste that it actually decreases the amount of activity, of 
human activity, that is aimed at solving the problems because they are 
so pessimistic.

  Well, the Simple Green people established this foundation, everything 
is going to be all right, in order to stimulate new ideas and to get 
people active and personally mobilized to try to make this a better 
planet environmentally. Using 1 percent of the company's annual sales, 
the foundation sponsors an environmental education program which 
involves over 200,000 California students.
  While onsite we learned that Simple Green has recently begun research 
on using its technologies to improve bioremediation techniques. They 
now have developed a method to reclaim land despoiled by oil and other 
toxics in a more effective and more efficient way than the currently 
alternatives.
  Again they are making money by building a better more effective 
product that will be better for the environment as the product is being 
used.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place a statement from Simple 
Green, on its bioremediation research, into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton of Texas). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The statement referred to is as follows:

           Simple Green--The Key to Environmental Technology

       For more than 20 years, Simple Green has been helping make 
     our planet a much cleaner place. Unlike hazardous solvents 
     and harsh detergents, Simple Green's unique formula is non-
     toxic, non-flammable and biodegradable.
       Now marketed throughout the world as an environmentally 
     sensitive cleaner and degreaser, Simple Green's reputation 
     continues to grow.
       Simple Green is versatile, safe and effective. We're still 
     discovering brand-new applications for its use. At home, 
     industry, and, now even in the land, as an integral part of 
     promising new techniques for bioremediation.
       Bioremediation is proving to be an attractive alternative 
     for waste disposal. The United States Environmental 
     Protection Agency defines bioremediation as ``a process 
     whereby naturally occurring microbes, typically bacteria or 
     fungi, degrade harmful chemicals into less toxic or non-toxic 
     compounds.''
       One of the most difficult problems in bioremediation is 
     that the pollutant is often not readily available to the 
     microbial community. Material that disperse organic 
     pollutants prove to be a very important part of an effective 
     bioremediation process. Even at relatively low levels 
     compared to the pollutant concentration.
       Simple Green has proven to be outstanding for this kind of 
     intermediary function. Simple Green's chelating capacity 
     decreases metal toxicity problems and its formulation 
     significantly increases the bioavailability of many types of 
     pollutants.
       Bacterial viability is a critical consideration for any 
     additive proposed for use in a bioremediation effort. Simple 
     Green has properties that will increase the effectiveness of 
     bioremediation, and could be used safely with no deleterious 
     effect on the indigenous bacteria.
       According to Celia Bonaventura, Co-Director, Marine 
     Biomedical Center Duke University Marine Laboratory, ``The 
     part that Simple Green plays in this process is facilitating 
     the hydrocarbon bacterial juxtaposition. Hydrocarbons tend to 
     stay in oily pockets and bacteria likes to live in watery 
     places and Simple Green works well to help these come 
     together.''
       Simple Green's cutting edge formulation and superior 
     results is something chemists call Micro-Particulate-
     Fractionalization, or MPF.
       Simple Green uses special ``surface active'' agents to 
     break down large globs of oil, grease and fat to create much 
     smaller microscopic droplets called ``micelles.''
       Unlike ordinary industrial cleaners and dispersants, Simple 
     Green's special MPF properties continue breaking down these 
     microscopic droplets even further.
       These droplets are made increasingly smaller and more 
     numerous by Simple Green's MPF process, which provide 
     increasingly greater surface area for Simple Green and water 
     to attack. The end result of the MPF process is the pollutant 
     is much more available to the microbial community.
       Simple Green has invested millions of dollars in 
     independent testing and research to thoroughly evaluate the 
     products, the efficacy and safety.
       According to Dr. John Todhunter, President, Science 
     Regulatory Services, International, and former head of 
     toxicology for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
     ``Simple Green's unprecedented MPF process is a 
     scientifically advanced method of achieving effective 
     cleaning.''
       In the past, surfactants have been used in bioremediation 
     with minimal success. What makes Simple Green different? 
     Simple Green's combination of surfactants has been found to 
     actually encourage bacterial activity. While surfactants 
     alone such as Tergitol can actually inhibit bacteria growth 
     due to toxicity.
       H & H Eco Systems of North Bonneville, WA, founded by Terry 
     Horn, has established itself on the leading edge of 
     biological systems.
       Terry Horn, President of H & H Eco Systems and with 20 
     years of experience in the field, realized that no one single 
     bioremediation approach would work. Bioremediation needs to 
     be individually assessed for every site.
       Because of heterogeneity in the distribution of pollutants, 
     indigenous micro-organisms and soil components, 
     bioremediation methods in a given project vary from site to 
     site.
       The approach developed by H & H Eco Systems, Inc. is unlike 
     any other. It's called ``the bio-triangle'' approach.
       The ``attack'' on contaminants involves a combination of 
     Simple Green, biological and mechanical components. Simple 
     Green chemically acts to alter the physical composition of 
     the contaminant whileH & H Nutrients provide a balanced 
     biological diet, and the System 614 Turbo-rator serves as the 
     mechanical component to enhance this process.
       Simple Green is also an extremely effective vapor 
     suppressant able to keep vapors below state and Federal 
     levels. Its deodorizing properties, even at diluted levels, 
     help overcome tough odor problems, particularly a concern 
     when doing sites in residential areas.
       Celia Bonaventura states ``as a cleaner Simple Green makes 
     a good dispersion between the hydrocarbon or oily material 
     and water. As the material is held in that contact it's 
     tendency to vaporize will be much less. Thus there is a very 
     nice complimentary between the cleaning properties of Simple 
     Green and it's ability to act as a vapor suppression.''
       Today, we are working on sites and showing that we have 
     improved the efficiency of the biological systems and that 
     our approach works.
       ``We've looked at the growth rates of these bacteria under 
     different conditions in laboratory settings where we would 
     control the temperature and everything in the environment of 
     the bacteria and we're able to see how Simple Green is one of 
     these facilitators which actually enhance the growth of the 
     bacteria in ways that promoted degradation of the 
     hydrocarbon.''
       The results produced by this collaboration between Simple 
     Green and H & H Eco Systems are both encouraging and 
     impressive.


         bremerton, washington--contaminate: heating oil (b-2)

       Date and levels: 12/03/93, 2,400 ppm; 02/08/93, 53 ppm; 
     Outside Ambient Temperature, 20 deg. F; Cell Temperature, 
     70 deg. F.

[[Page H10367]]

       cleelum, washington--contaminate: pentachlorophenol (pcp)

       Date and levels; 06/18/93, 87 ppm; 06/25/93, 9.5 ppm.


               cleelum, washington--contaminate: creosote

       Date and levels: 06/18/98, 1000 ppm; 06/25/93, 9 ppm.


                cleelum, washington--contaminate: diesel

       Date and levels: 06/18/03, 530 ppm; 06/25/93, 20 ppm.


            sauvin ford, oregon--contaminate: used motor oil

       Date and TPH level: 11/14/92, 35,000 ppm; 12/16/92, 13,000 
     ppm; 01/21/03, 850 ppm.


        olympia, washington--contaminate: gasoline and kerosene

       Date and levels: 06/14/93, 3000-6000 ppm; 06/23/93, 32 ppm.
       Terry Hom states, ``This was a really high clay soil and 
     now it's a real mealy soil, very fine texture able to be used 
     in agriculture, in lawns and gardens. Compared to what we 
     started with, it was nothing but a slab of silt and clay. 
     Silt and clay level on this was 87 percent fines which means 
     you could squeeze it together and play baseball with the 
     hunks. We've ended up with a soil that now will grow 
     anything. Before it sat for 2\1/2\ years without any growth 
     on it at all, now we have stuff coming out of it within two 
     weeks.''
       At Simple Green, the research and development we fund, the 
     products we make, and the soil bioremediation techniques 
     we're helping to pioneer, all share a common goal: To help 
     make the world a cleaner and better place.
       But perhaps Bruce FaBrizio, Founder and CEO of Simple 
     Green, describes the company's philosophy best:
       ``The world is a finite piece of ground, the environment is 
     finite and not infinite, and if we don't do something 
     aggressive now it won't be there for our grandchildren and 
     yet there is plenty of time to make it a better place for our 
     grandchildren if we just start doing things that are in our 
     ability today.''
       Our atmosphere, attitude and actions haven't been concocted 
     to achieve a certain appearance. They stem from a natural 
     dedication to excellence and improving the environment--
     something that's been with us from the very beginning.
       It's a dedication all of us at Simple Green invite you to 
     share.

  While at Simple Green, we also visited with representatives of 
Microbics, which is a company based in Carlsbad, CA. They demonstrated 
a biological toxicity test the company has developed with private 
funds. They believe that this test is faster, less expensive, and more 
precise than test methods currently approved in the United States. So 
they showed us a test that would demonstrate biological toxicity in a 
way that we then, we have used that knowledge to try to clean the 
environment and know the threats around us.
  Although approved in Canada and in eight European countries, our EPA 
has yet to see the value of this very effective, low-cost test for 
toxicity. Thus, it has been hampering its commercial use in the United 
States. This reconfirms the hesitation many of us have about increasing 
government's role in most endeavors. While in Gridcore there was an 
example, of course, where working together and getting the Government 
involved actually did help that company produce a similar, a new 
product that will help the environment; but in this particular case 
with this company down from Carlsbad, the Microbics, we found that the 
Government's power that it has through the EPA has been used to 
actually thwart innovation and progress.
  So that is one of the drawbacks. Government can be helpful on one 
hand and you strengthen it, but you have to remember you are also 
strengthening the Government's hand to be an obstructionist in the game 
of human progress.
  Our final stop at the field briefing was at a site of a former 
leaking underground storage tank behind the Fountain Valley City Hall. 
That is Fountain Valley, CA, city hall. There the Regenesis Co., and it 
is based in San Juan Capistrano, demonstrated a bioremediation 
technique known as oxygen release compound. By inserting the compound 
into a well, naturally occurring micro-organisms flourish and use the 
petroleum hydrocarbons as a food source. What has developed then is a 
product that protects our valuable water resources and cost-effectively 
reclaims that water that has already been contaminated.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the Regenesis project results for the Record.
  The information referred to is as follows.
                                           Environmental Science &


                                            Engineering, Inc.,

                           Fountain Valley, CA, September 4, 1996.
     Mr. Craig Sandefur,
     Regeoesis Bioremediation Products, San Juan Capistrano, CA.
       Dear Mr. Sandefur: Environmental Science & Engineering, 
     Inc. (ESE) is pleased to submit this report of current 
     activities at the subject site. A figure, tables and 
     appendices of current and historical data are attached.
       On August 6, 1996, ESE installed oxygen release compound 
     (ORC) in Well MW-9. ESE is evaluating the effects of the ORC 
     at 2-week intervals by collecting a grab sample (non-purge) 
     and monitoring the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons 
     in the well. As the rate of biodegradation of petroleum 
     hydrocarbons is controlled partly by the availability of 
     dissolved oxygen (DO), ESE believes that by monitoring the 
     amount of DO, you can better evaluate the effectiveness of 
     the ORC. The historical monitoring data is presented on the 
     next page.
       The results of this groundwater monitoring event shows that 
     petroleum hydrocarbons decreased several orders of magnitude 
     in 2 weeks time. The concentrations in this well had remained 
     high for approximately 5.5 years prior to the application of 
     ORC. The levels of petroleum hydrocarbons increased at the 4 
     week sampling. ESE will conduct groundwater monitoring in the 
     future to track the fluctuations in these levels.

                         ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES COLLECTED OVER TIME                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       EPA Method (g/L)                                
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------  Dissolved 
      Well ID and Sample date          8015M                            8020                         oxygen (mg/
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------      L)    
                                        TPH           B            T            E            X                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MW-9:                                                                                                           
  08/17/90........................        3,400          470          810           84          850           NA
  04/03/92........................       26,000          700        1,000          500        2,000           NA
  10/20/92........................       94,000       11,000       18,000       24,000        5,000           NA
  10/10/93........................       39,000        2,900        5,600        1,400        8,400           NA
  01/06/94........................       10,000        1,900        2,000          630        2,900           NA
  04/27/94........................        9,600          810          700          720        2,100           NA
  04/07/95........................        1,700           42           14          130          280           NA
  10/31/95........................        8,100        1,000          440          330          990         *2.3
  03/25/96........................       10,000          660          540          440          860           <1
  08/06/96........................           NA           NA           NA           NA           NA           <1
  08/20/96........................       ND<100         0.84       ND<0.3         0.55          4.0          1.6
  09/03/96........................       15,000      ND<12.5          320      ND<12.5        3,800          2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--EPA--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; TPH--total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline; M--modified   
  for volatile hydrocarbons; BTEX--benzene, toluene, ethylbenzens and total xylenes; NA--not analyzed; g/L--micrograms per liter; mg/L--milligrams per liter; ND--not detected; *--readings taken after purging.   

       If you have any questions regarding this report, please 
     call me at (714) 964-8722.
           Sincerely,
                                                David A. Ferreira,
                                    Senior Project Hydrogeologist.

  Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleagues on the Committee on Science, as 
I did, found these site visits to be enlightening and informative. The 
environment is too important simply to be relegated to a Federal 
bureaucratic program, and it is too important to just simply rely on 
the dictates of government employees to meet the environmental 
challenges facing America.
  Instead of Federal restrictions and mandates, new technology and the 
profit motive can and must be the primary forces at work in this 
effort. We can clean the environment and make a profit in doing so. 
That is what we learned at our field briefing. It is a lesson that we 
must keep in mind while making policy for this country.
  Many of our environmental problems have been and will continue to be 
solved not by reducing our standard of living, not by increasing the 
cost of government and hiring government employees to look over our 
shoulder and control our lives, but, instead, through innovative 
technology and commercialization developed in the

[[Page H10368]]

private sector, and motivated, motivated by the profit motive.
  Unfortunately, far too many people in government think that the 
profit motive is a dirty phrase.
  Instead, the profit motive can give people the incentive to do good 
things, rather than the alternative method, which is having government 
order people to do that which they think is a good thing.
  What we have seen throughout this competition between the Soviet 
Union and the United States is that societies that are based on 
incentives, societies which give their people a profit motive to 
produce and to do good things and to increase the standard of living 
and produce more wealth and to clean the environment, that those 
societies are the progressive societies. Those societies that rely on 
hiring more government bureaucrats or hiring more government employees 
and empowering them to give orders to other people in order to 
accomplish those ends have not succeeded. That is why when the Berlin 
Wall went down, people started rushing from the East to the West, and 
not in the other direction.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to Simple Green's 
motto: EGBAR, everything is going to be alright. This is not the 
blather of some unrealistic optimist. The EGBAR concept, everything is 
going to be all right, is in stark contrast to what is basically being 
presented to especially young people in this country in terms of the 
environment.
  I know that young people who visit from California come to visit me 
in my office, and I in fact have a policy that says any people from my 
district who want to see me, I am their Congressman, and they come all 
the way to Washington, DC, I spend time with them, especially the young 
people, especially students who come here as a group.
  It never ceases to amaze me, when I am talking to the young people 
and I ask them about air pollution. In southern California, we know all 
about air pollution. But what has happened is that the young people are 
being told that air pollution today is the worst it has ever been, and 
that their lives are being shortened, and they are frightened out of 
their wits.
  But I always take this poll and say to the young people visiting from 
southern California, ``Is the air cleaner today, or is it worse today 
than when I went to high school back in southern California 30 years 
ago?'' And it happens every time. Almost every student raises their 
hands and says, the air is much dirtier now than it was when you were 
in high school back in southern California 30 years ago. It is 
terrible, because now it is going to destroy our health, we are going 
to live worse lives, and it is terrible how the big companies are 
trying to hurt us so much. You have these young people telling you 
that.
  In fact, in southern California, the air is cleaner today than it has 
ever been in my lifetime. When I was in high school, and I tell these 
kids, when I was in high school, about every third day when you wanted 
to go out for a gym class they would say, there will be no exercise 
today because we are having a smog alert, a heath alert, and young 
people cannot go out and exercise and breathe in that air because it is 
unhealthy. Of course, there have only been about 20 such days like that 
in southern California per year for the last few years.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have is a pessimism, talking about global 
warming, global cooling. We are talking about factors that are gong to 
destroy all of mankind that immobilize us, when, instead, we should be 
giving incentives for people to develop new technologies that will make 
it a better place and encourage people to be active, rather than to 
give up. Mr. Speaker, this is a Republican message of hope, but it is 
also an American theme.

                          ____________________