598 



But I think the point is that we did try, and I know my own rec- 

 ommendation as a member of the delegation would have been to 

 support the Spanish resolution if, in fact, the clarifying language 

 sought to be inserted by the Canadians had been inserted. 



All of this is fairly technical, I know, but I think it is reflected in 

 the record of the proceedings and we feel very strongly that, as I 

 said, even given the late circumstances under which this Spanish 

 proposal was presented, the U.S. delegation did nevertheless at- 

 tempt to achieve consensus that would have meshed very nicely 

 with the consensus that we had earlier achieved on the Kiribati- 

 Nauru proposal. 



With respect to your comments on the South Pacific convention, 

 we have, as I said in my testimony, not been aware of any regional 

 considerations in the South Pacific that would dictate a regional 

 ban. 



In other words, we feel that the questions underlying radioactive 

 waste disposal in the South Pacific are identical to the global ques- 

 tions that are now under intensive review in London, and we 

 prefer to focus our efforts on that intensive review in London. 



That is the position that we took in the past, and the delegation 

 will take next week. 



Mr. D' Amours. Why don't you support the moratorium? Why 

 don't you go along with them on the moratorium? 



Ms. Hughes. Well, the various versions 



Mr. D'Amours. It is amazing to me how the bureaucracy can — I 

 was there, I saw what happened, and I am beginning to wonder if I 

 am now listening to the bureaucratic explanation of what occurred 

 in London. You were hell bent to defeat the moratorium. Now you 

 make it sound like you think it wasn't a bad idea. 



If that is true, why don't you support it in the South Pacific? 



Ms. Hughes. If I can clarify again, none of the proposals in the 

 South Pacific have been couched in terms of moratorium. They are 

 all couched in terms of an absolute ban, some of them including a 

 ban on 



Mr. D'Amours. Why don't you modify them? Why doesn't the 

 United States go and try to convert the proposals into a moratori- 

 um consistent with U.S. law and LDC VII results? 



Ms. Hughes. As I said earlier, we attempted to reach a resolu- 

 tion of this issue in London by supporting the fullest possible scien- 

 tific review. That review is under way now. It will hopefully be 

 completed on schedule if the United States has anything to do with 

 it. We feel that that would be the most responsible outcome. 



Mr. D'Amours. There is no way, no way you are going to support 

 any kind of moratorium, is there? 



Ms. Hughes. Well, I don't believe that the issue has been 

 framed. 



Mr. D'Amours. Why don't we exert leadership and frame the 

 issue, we the United States, the traditional leaders in the world? 

 Why don't we exert leadership consistent with LDC VII action and 

 consistent with the U.S. law? 



Why don't we do that? 



Ms. Hughes. As I have said, Mr. Chairman, we feel that the 

 issue is being appropriately addressed in the context of LDC. That 



