tor convention could be agreed to. The pressure of the U.S. Government for less and the desire of other of nations to ensure that our President attends the Earth Summit combined a result in an agreement that was significantly weakened.

The President will shortly announce that he will go to Brazil for the Earth Summit, probably for a brief appearance. This will be one of the most expensive photo opportunities in history. The cost of the trip? A lost opportunity for the United States to lead; deferral of a vigorous U.S. role in a new world order; the loss of commitment by developing countries who ask if the richest country will not stretch to change, why should we; a loss of market opportunities for the United States; the loss of a set of forest principles and a watered-down earth charter; and most alarming, the loss of precious time. These are major costs, major losses for our country and history will not be kind to this administration which reflexively responds to the politics of an old world order while preaching the need for the new.

This cost results from what can be described at best as an ambiguous compromise between those in the administration who know what we can and should do and those who have made this an ideological litmus test for the President.

Unhappily, it appears as if the agreed upon convention was the best possible at this time even though it is a tremendous disappointment to the rest of the industrialized world who have been willing to change when we have not and to all those committed to protecting our fragile environment. More can be done and more will be done with or without the current administration and independent of political lurches in an election year.

The world is passing this administration by. The Europeans and the Japanese are willing to look ahead and protect the environment while developing new markets for their products and their economies. The business community is moving forward, private citizens and nongovernmental organizations are moving forward.

Unhappily, shamefully, and disappointingly, old think is winning in this administration. The tired old arguments and false choices that were drawn up in the 1970's and 1980's about jobs versus the environment have won this day. But tomorrow is a new day, and new think eventually will prevail.

The cold war is over. People the world over recognize that fundamental changes need to be made, new alliances drawn to halt the war we are waging against our most basic life support systems, the destruction of soils and forests, the depletion of the ozone layer, and water resources, the fouling of the atmosphere and air. These trends are on paths that cannot be sustained.

Sadly, while much of the rest of the world is ready to change, this administration has told the rest of the world that the United States is not. We will not lead either. We will just wait for a while longer for reasons of the 1992 election and the lack of political courage.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to have my full statement be included in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

Senator WIRTH. Thank you, and I would like to just quickly, if I might also note, Mr. Chairman, related to last week's testimony.

First of all, it was not I would say an endorsement. This refers to the comments made earlier that the witnesses were endorsing the approach taken by this administration. Three out of the four witnesses were making it very clear that they thought we ought to be taking very aggressive action and that the threat possibilities of global climate change certainly require that we be moving much more aggressively.

While there was uncertainty about the exact timing and the exact place and the level of global climate change, I think there was broad agreement, as also reflected in the administration's own paper, that global climate change is coming and that we should respond.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Wirth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO Last week, almost two years of negotiations came to a close in New York City. Despite the best efforts from the community of nations, only a lowest common denominator convention could be agreed to. The pressure of the United States government for less and the desire of other nations to ensure that our President attends the Earth Summit, combined to result in an agreement that was significantly weakened.

The President will announce shortly that he will go to Brazil for the Earth Summit-probably for a brief appearance. This will be one of the most expensive photo opportunities in history.

The cost of the trip?

• a lost opportunity for the United States to lead;

• deferral of a vigorous U.S. role in a New World order;

• the loss of commitment by developing countries who ask: if the richest country won't stretch to change, why should we?

• a loss of market opportunities for the United States;

⚫ the loss of a set of forest principles, and a watered down Earth Charter;

• and most alarming, precious time.

These are major costs, major losses for our country, and history will not be kind to this Administration, which reflexively responds to the politics of an Old World order, while preaching the need for the New.

This cost results from what can be described at best-as an ambiguous compromise between those in the Administration who know what we can and should do, and those who have made this an ideological litmus test for the President.

Unhappily, it appears as if the agreed upon convention was the best possible at this time, even though it is a tremendous disappointment to the rest of the industrialized world (who have been willing to change when we have not), and to all those committed to protecting our fragile environment.

Last week, I went to the United Nations to see the last leg of negotiations on a global climate convention. What struck me, and had to have struck anyone following the negotiations, was the tremendous power of the United States.

Many in our country despair of our future. Some fear that we are in a period of protracted decline. To me, last week's negotiations were an affirmation of our immense power. It was clear in New York that the world is looking to us for leadership. If the United States sets a course, the world will follow. Unfortunately, our lead was too timid, and so was the result.

Our unwillingness to lead stands in sharp contrast to a world eagerly awaiting a signal from us. From the industrialized to the developing countries, there existed in New York great expectations for the United States to lead the world in a common effort to protect the global commons.

The European nations demonstrated their willingness to change by setting a goal of stabilizing their carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Call it a target or a timetable, call it what you will, but make no mistake that it was a goal of trying to reach out to other nations to reduce emissions of the primary gas that is building up in the atmosphere and that will result in climate change. Where other nations have signalled their willingness to change, we did not.

Of course we, too, can change and reach these rather modest goals; the Administration's own analysis demonstrates that we can meet the goal at little or no cost,

perhaps at a net savings. But we failed to make the political commitment here at home, to shout down the ideological short term, and selfish naysayers. Some day we will, but not with this President in this election year.

Where do we go from here? Clearly, the business community is already moving: the natural gas industry is beginning to assert itself, recognizing that protection of delicate ecological systems bodes well for natural gas, the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels. The energy efficiency community is beginning to move; 25 executives wrote the President last week urging him to commit to a greenhouse gas reduction goal: we have come to the conclusion that the United States can achieve substantial reductions in its carbon dioxide emissions with existing technologies by relying on market-based policies."

The utility industry-from Pacific Gas and Electric to Southern California Edison and the New England Electric System-is moving forward with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the list goes on; much of the private sector sees opportunity and responsibility. It is too bad the Administration is not helping; the world is passing the White House by.

The Business Council on Sustainable Development, convened by Maurice Strong and led by the European Industrialist Stephan Schmidheiny, urges the phasing out of subsidies that encourage resource waste and environmental degradation. This group of powerful international business executives urges the use of revenue neutral pollution charges and other market-based environmental strategies as tools for integrating economic development and environmental protection. The Business Council came to the very simple but profound conclusion that conservative businesses principles are supportive of, not counter to, sustainable development and environmental protection.

Again, more can be done and more will be done, with or without the current Administration and independent of political lurches in an election year.

The world is passing this Administration by. The Europeans and the Japanese are willing to look ahead to protect the environment, while developing new markets for their products and their economies. The business community is moving forward. Private citizens and non-governmental organizations are moving forward.

Unhappily, shamefully, disappointingly, "old think" is winning in this Administration. The tired old arguments and false choices that were drawn up in the 1970s and 1980s about jobs vs. the environment have won this day. But tomorrow is a new day and "new think" will prevail. The Cold War is over. People the world over recognize that fundamental changes need to be made; new alliances to be drawn to halt the war we are waging against our most basic life support systems. The destruction of soils and forests, the depletion of the ozone layer and water resources, the fouling of the atmosphere and air, these trends are on paths that cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Sadly, while much of the rest of the world is ready to change, this Administration has told the rest of the world that the United States is not. We won't lead either. We'll just wait for a while longer, for reasons of the 1992 election and the lack of political courage.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wirth. Are there further statements?

Senator Domenici.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Senator DOMENICI. Well, I was not going to, but

[Laughter.]

Senator DOMENICI. I really cannot believe my ears, but nonetheless, let me be brief.

I was present last week, and I heard all four scientists answer. First they answered to another Senator and then they answered to me. We can dig up the record if you would like, and they actually said, all four of them, that the best approach to having a beneficial impact on the future in terms of global warming was the approach that the United Nations put in their treaty.

Now, I do not know how we from that conclude that we are not doing anything, that we have abandoned any notion that global cli

First of all, it was not I would say an endorsement. This refers to the comments made earlier that the witnesses were endorsing the approach taken by this administration. Three out of the four witnesses were making it very clear that they thought we ought to be taking very aggressive action and that the threat possibilities of global climate change certainly require that we be moving much more aggressively.

While there was uncertainty about the exact timing and the exact place and the level of global climate change, I think there was broad agreement, as also reflected in the administration's own paper, that global climate change is coming and that we should respond.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Wirth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO Last week, almost two years of negotiations came to a close in New York City. Despite the best efforts from the community of nations, only a lowest common denominator convention could be agreed to. The pressure of the United States government for less and the desire of other nations to ensure that our President attends the Earth Summit, combined to result in an agreement that was significantly weakened.

The President will announce shortly that he will go to Brazil for the Earth Summit-probably for a brief appearance. This will be one of the most expensive photo opportunities in history.

The cost of the trip?

a lost opportunity for the United States to lead;

⚫ deferral of a vigorous U.S. role in a New World order;

• the loss of commitment by developing countries who ask: if the richest country won't stretch to change, why should we?

• a loss of market opportunities for the United States;

⚫ the loss of a set of forest principles, and a watered down Earth Charter;

⚫ and most alarming, precious time.

These are major costs, major losses for our country, and history will not be kind to this Administration, which reflexively responds to the politics of an Old World order, while preaching the need for the New.

This cost results from what can be described at best-as an ambiguous compromise between those in the Administration who know what we can and should do, and those who have made this an ideological litmus test for the President.

Unhappily, it appears as if the agreed upon convention was the best possible at this time, even though it is a tremendous disappointment to the rest of the industrialized world (who have been willing to change when we have not), and to all those committed to protecting our fragile environment.

Last week, I went to the United Nations to see the last leg of negotiations on a global climate convention. What struck me, and had to have struck anyone following the negotiations, was the tremendous power of the United States.

Many in our country despair of our future. Some fear that we are in a period of protracted decline. To me, last week's negotiations were an affirmation of our immense power. It was clear in New York that the world is looking to us for leadership. If the United States sets a course, the world will follow. Unfortunately, our lead was too timid, and so was the result.

Our unwillingness to lead stands in sharp contrast to a world eagerly awaiting a signal from us. From the industrialized to the developing countries, there existed in New York great expectations for the United States to lead the world in a common effort to protect the global commons.

The European nations demonstrated their willingness to change by setting a goal of stabilizing their carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Call it a target or a timetable, call it what you will, but make no mistake that it was a goal of trying to reach out to other nations to reduce emissions of the primary gas that is building up in the atmosphere and that will result in climate change. Where other nations have signalled their willingness to change, we did not.

Of course we, too, can change and reach these rather modest goals; the Adminis tration's own analysis demonstrates that we can meet the goal at little or no cost,