Thus, any proposal to block the flow of raw materials currently needed to produce medical isotopes, as does H.R. 3276, represents a serious threat to the health and treatment of U.S. patients.

I support the goals of H.R. 3276 to promote U.S. domestic production of medical isotopes and phase out the current process necessary to provide raw materials for the production of medical isotopes.

I know Senator Murkowski is on her way as well and will be here shortly.

Yes. Well, or interests. I mean, it is oil and gas? What are the special interests?

the comparison, I think, is that China and Hong Kong and France and others--and we're going to probably hear from them--are investing a lot more.

I think the short answer would be that where we invest millions, our colleagues are investing billions.

I am proud that Sandia Science and Technology Park, located in Albuquerque, was recognized by the Association of University Research Parks (AURP) as the Nation's 'Outstanding Research Park of the Year' in 2008.

Senator Pryor's bill to promote science parks, the 'Building a Stronger America Act,' would help research parks across America by providing grants and loan guarantees.

the area of technology transfer.

I want to thank Chairman Pryor for holding this hearing today and for his leadership in promoting innovation and job growth through stronger science parks.

investing in science parks, investing in wetlabs, investing in incubators, graduation facilities, that's all very critical infrastructure for the 21st century economy.

Countries as diverse as China, Singapore, France, and Mexico are undertaking very substantial national efforts to develop research parks of significant scale and significant scientific and innovative potential.

And I also think, Mr. Chairman, you have a very good bill--S. 583, Building a Stronger America Act--and I'd like to be included as a co-sponsor on your bill, because I think----

China, in particular, is a leading practitioner of research-park strategy for economic and regional development.

Any unilateral action by the Federal Government without any consultation and consent from the tribe is an abrogation of tribal sovereignty.

And the reaction was a result of learning who was behind the corporation?

Not S. 1690, no.

And so could you tell us who the small special interest group heading up the whole thing on the otherwise, I guess you are talking about, that you are opposed to?