Ml. K '11)17 AT ( I.IM II RIVLR 



893 



forward on the conceptual design study and the $504 million LMFBR 

 program. 



The McCormack subcommittee, in 1979, voted $183. 8 million for 

 CRBR, stipulating the funds had to be used for continued procurement 

 of prototype and plant components, detailed engineering design of the 

 plant and ongoing development activity. The conceptual design study 

 for a bigger, more advanced breeder plant was slashed from $55 million 

 to $15 million, on the grounds the higher figure would divert engineer- 

 ing design teams from their work on the CRBR. The stage was set for 

 another shootout in the full committee, which occurred on April 26, 

 1979. 



THE 1979 FIGHT OVER THE CRBR 



Brown made the first move by introducing an amendment pat- 

 terned generally along the lines of the administration proposal, but 

 preserving the amounts the McCormack subcommittee had voted for 

 various nuclear programs. He explained that the administration pro- 

 posal had realigned the funding of other nuclear construction projects: 



I was told, and I do not vouch for this, that this reflected an agreement made by 

 the President with Senators McClure and Church last year and dealt with some projects 

 in Idaho and possibly some in Washington. I have not chosen to include that section 

 because first I didn't necessarily agree with all the changes, and preferred to remain 

 with the figures that the subcommittee had reached in their deliberations. 



Brown's amendment repealed the 1970 law authorizing the CRBR. 

 Wydler's point of order that the repealer went beyond the scope of com- 

 mittee authority, by amending permanent law, was sustained by Chair- 

 man Fuqua. Brown then revised his amendment to read "notwith- 

 standing" the basic law, and survived another point of order. 



Fuqua attached an important proviso to the Brown amendment, 

 directing DOE to initiate site selection and licensing activities for the 

 new, larger breeder reactor. Brown later explained: 



While the amendment by Chairman Fuqua was not part of the President's com- 

 promise package, I supported it in the hopes that the Members who wanted to vote 

 in support of the breeder reactors and who generally wanted to end this futile struggle 

 over the CRBR would feel more assured with this additional language. 



Representative Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard argued against the 

 amendment, on the grounds the CRBR was badly needed, was not 

 obsolete "and it is in fact the most advanced breeder facility prototype 

 that we do have." Wydler and Goldwater spoke strongly against the 

 Fuqua proposal, with Goldwater noting: 



The way to solve the impasse is to go ahead and build this breeder at Clinch 

 River, and then begin discussion at the same time of a larger, more sophisticated, 

 more advanced technical concept. I think until we have that kind of commitment, I 

 find it very difficult to support this amendment. 



