SHOOT< hi \ l ( I IN< II KIV1 K 



863 



\\ hat will be the tm.nu i.il costs of the termination? What will be the costs in 

 technical leadership for breeder technology? What will the impac ts be tin the technical 

 community which has been gathered for the effort? And finally, if we terminate now 

 to find that we must restart the program later, how can we minimize the effects of the 

 shift by a thoughtful structuring oi the underlying research and development program? 



Yet if anyone had difficulty ascertaining Flowers' basic viewpoint 

 on the CRBR, such was certainly not the case with Wydler. On June 7, 

 Wydler announced as the subcommittee hearings opened: 



Mr. Chairman, I believe that the issue we are reviewing this morning has arisen 

 as a result of a seriously misguided policy. The chairman of the full Committee, Mr. 

 Tcague, myself, and other committee Members have just returned from discussions 

 with officials of foreign governments and the International Atomic Energy Agency on 

 the breeder question. 



There is overwhelming evidence that the Clinch River decision will not slow 

 other nations' breeder programs one bit. 



Further, it is clear that unilateral action by the United States outside the existing 

 international mechanisms for modern safeguards is an unfortunate strategy. If the 

 policy is indeed a well-informed attempt at reducing proliferation of nuclear weapons, 

 I think we are proceeding in exactly the wrong direction. 



BROWN OPPOSES THE CRBR 



During the June hearings, Brown through his questioning emerged 

 as a strong opponent of the CRBR. But the subcommittee majority 

 quite clearly indicated that its position was stiffening. The full com- 

 mittee met on June 14 to take another vote on the CRBR, after the 

 Flowers subcommittee had recommended by 17 to 7 to stick by its 

 guns and continue to support a funding authorization of $150 million. 

 Flowers stated his position to the full committee: 



What was once a prudent approach to increased electrical power and a wise 

 husbanding of world uranium supplies is now being presented as a threat to world 

 peace and a tool for nuclear weapons proliferation. * * * I share the President's deep 

 concern about proliferation of nuclear weapons, but I do not feel that by continuing 

 the work begun for a liquid metal fast breeder reactor we are furthering proliferation, 

 but rather furthering the demonstration of technology which may be needed in the 

 years ahead. 



On the negative side, Harkin and Fish argued that to limit the CRBR 

 to $33 million would still leave close to $500 million in the bill for 

 further breeder technology and that the time had come to start empha- 

 sizing alternative sources of energy. Downev produced a letter from 

 Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, underscoring the dangers of 

 nuclear proliferation. Mrs. Lloyd, Wydler, Lujan, Myers, and Gold- 

 water all spoke for keeping the figure at $150 million. McCormack 

 warned that to cut back CRBR would mean: 



The anti-nuclear activists will come roaring in with all sorts of lawsuits under 

 NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act in which they will hope to delay any modification 

 of the program for another five years. 



