Jon Kyl: “I will speak for a moment. I am responding both to the senior Senator from Idaho and also the Senator from Arkansas. The…”

“I will speak for a moment. I am responding both to the senior Senator from Idaho and also the Senator from Arkansas. The Senator from Idaho is correct. Under existing law, we have had numerous shipments since 1992, and we have been producing these medical isotopes, and everything has been fine. That is what the Schumer amendment seeks to do--to ensure that the existing law is in place. So that condition the Senator from Idaho spoke to is precisely the good condition that would prevail if the Schumer amendment is adopted and we return to existing law. The problem is that an amendment was inserted in the Energy bill in committee which strikes existing law and eliminates the requirement that the recipient of this highly enriched uranium provide assurances to the United States that it is cooperating with us to move to a low- enriched uranium target. That is everybody's goal. Nobody disagrees with that goal. But because of that amendment, we would no longer have the assurance that we could eventually get off of highly enriched uranium--which is used to build nuclear bombs--and get to low-enriched uranium. This is a proliferation issue, not a medical issue. That is what I say to the Senator from Arkansas. There is no suggestion that there is going to be any lack of medical treatment as a result of the existing law. Since 1992, we have had medical isotopes available for treatment, and we are going to have them available in the future.…”