SHOOTOUT AT CLINCH RIVtR 



891 



Lloyd of California, a past supporter of the CRBR, told the House: 



We can talk about it until we arc blue in the face, but we are not going to 

 accomplish anything. 



Mrs. Lloyd pointed out that "No one in the nuclear industry or in 

 the utilities industry" supported the Flowers amendment. She added: 

 Clearly the breeder is not dead. But this amendment would bury it alive. 



"I do want to try to get something done. I do not want to just 

 sit and spin wheels," urged Teague. I'uqua pointed to the $375 million 

 in the DOE authorization bill as representing a "major commitment 

 by the administration to the nuclear breeder." In arguing for the 

 Flowers amendment, Harkin tried to persuade his colleagues they 

 "should not get tied to some symbol, some old worn-out symbol that 

 is going to bog us down and cost the taxpayers money and which may 

 in the long run do more harm to our overall energy efforts in the future 

 than anything else." But Goldwater and Myers insisted that to vote 

 for the Flowers amendment was a vote to kill CRBR and "abrogate 

 our leadership." 



When the roll was called, the Flowers amendment was defeated 

 by 187-142, a narrower margin than the CRBR vote in 1977, but a 

 disappointing loss for those who had worked long and hard for a 

 compromise. The committee split evenly as follows on the July 14 

 vote, with 18 votes on each side: 



