Energy Policy Act of 2005
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (Senate - June 23, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 810
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Schumer amendment. Let me compliment Senator Kyl for his willingness, over the last 24 hours, to try to bring assurances, through some consensus legislation, of where we both agree we need to get to, that we had language that would do it. We do have a slight disagreement because I believe the language that is in the bill does meet the move towards low-enriched uranium. I believe that the health of the American public should be at the forefront of our consideration. Because if, in fact, we adopt a policy that eliminates the availability of radiopharmaceuticals, then we have greatly affected the diagnostic capabilities that exist, that technology has created over the last decade and, in many cases, the treatments for cancer. An interruption that happened from even the Canadian source before meant that doctors were rationed on what they could receive in radiopharmaceuticals. We know how fragile this is because we are reliant on reactors outside this country for those radiopharmaceuticals.
Senator Kyl and, hopefully, Senator Schumer agree that when this is all decided--and I hope it is decided with the language that the entire Energy Committee worked on and what is in the House language and has been there--when it is all said and done, I hope we find a way to either get the Department of Energy or somebody to begin to produce low-enriched uranium in this country. It is an awful policy that we still turn outside the country for those reactors to produce the medical isotopes, but there is a rich history of that. The Department of Energy has looked at this since 1992. They looked at Los Alamos and using the reactors there to begin to make low-enriched uranium. Then they looked at Sandia. Then they talked about privatizing Sandia. The net result was, in the year 2000, the Department of Energy came to the conclusion that they were going to disband this effort, that they couldn't figure out how to do it. The fact is, there is not a lot of profit generated from it. But this is clearly a treatment that will grow as researchers find new tools for it.
I know there is an attempt to try to address a time limit here, but I am not sure that we can put a time limit on all the patients in America that are relying on the decision we are going to make tonight. We would spend a lot more time on individual health bills.
Nuclear medicine procedures using medical isotopes are heart disease, cancer, including breast, lung, prostate, thyroid and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and brain, Grave's disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, epilepsy, renal failure, bone infections. Our ability to take radioisotopes and send them to an organ, where now we can see that organ without an incision, without opening a person up, a noninvasive way to determine exactly what is happening in the human body and, on the oncology side, a way to treat cancers, when we can take the chemotherapy product and send it right to where we want those cells to be killed.
I would like to submit, for the record, a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because they have commented on this language. I ask unanimous consent to print it in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have all the respect in the world for my colleague, Senator Kyl. I think it is reasonable in life that two people can disagree on what something says.
In this particular case, an entire committee looked at it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When the question is asked, Who asked for change? the answer is simple: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is with over 10 years of working with the current language. And as time has gone on and technology has changed, and as the requirement for the size of what we needed in radioisotopes has changed, it was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that, in fact, suggested they needed Congress's help.
Let me address the last fact Senator Kyl brought up. One, only Argentina currently produces medical isotopes using LEU target technology, which is unable to even meet the current needs in Argentina medical community. Indonesia has ceased any further testing of the U.S.-developed LEU through the technical obstacles. We all want low-enriched uranium. After this is over, I hope this body will take on that challenge, the challenge of domestically producing medical isotopes and the Department of Energy will probably have a hold of the tiger that we give them when we instruct the Department to go back to what they dropped in 2000, after they have reviewed it, and look at our reactors here and how we accomplish production, whether we can make money at it or not.
I want to go back to health, though. Some have suggested that health is not important. Health is important. I list it up here on the chart. Annually, over 14 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed in the United States that require medical isotopes manufactured from highly enriched uranium. Patients and doctors in the United States are 100 percent reliant on the import of medical isotopes that are used with highly enriched uranium. That is a fact. Every day, over 20,000 patients undergo procedures that use radiopharmaceuticals developed to diagnose coronary artery disease and assist in assessing patient risk for major cardiac-related deaths, such as strokes.
This is not just what we treat; this is what we prevent from happening through this diagnostic tool. The CDC estimates that 61 million Americans--almost one-fourth of the U.S. population--lives with the effects of stroke or heart disease, and heart disease is the leading cause of disability among working adults.
Medical isotopes are one of the tools used to diagnose and treat many forms of cancer, as we have listed. Medical isotopes are also used to help manage pain in cancer patients, such as decreasing the need for pain medication when cancer spreads or metastasizes to the bone. Thyroid cancer. Radiopharmaceuticals are used to diagnose and treat thyroid disorders and cancer which, according to the American Cancer Society, is one of the few cancers where the incident rate is increasing.
Mr. President, we are talking about dealing with real health problems that are on the rise, and technology can come up with new treatments. But that treatment is held in limbo until we decide. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma is the fifth most common cancer in the United States. According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 56,000 new cases of non-Hodgkins lymphoma will be diagnosed in the year 2005. The voice of proliferation, Alan Kuperman, of the Nuclear Control Institute, said this about the language that is currently in the Energy bill:
This provision is not controversial and, thus, likely to remain in the energy bill when and if it is enacted.
He went on to say:
Ironically, an amendment originally drafted to pave the way for continued HEU exports [which is his interpretation, not that of the committee] for isotope production may have the unintended consequences of terminating them.
That is exactly the opposite of what those who suggest the need for this amendment is. Even the person who is the most outspoken in this country says: You know what. What the Energy Committee has done will force us into the use of low-enriched uranium.
In fact, this tells me from the person who is the most outspoken that our committee has done exactly what we attempted to do. We have written exactly the right language.
Without a secure and permanent supply of medical isotopes, it is unlikely that new nuclear medicine procedures will be researched or developed. If, in fact, we suggest we will cut off this source, why would any researcher around this country look at how to further what they can do with medical isotopes?
My colleague from Arkansas stated it very well. This is not just Members of the Senate who are suggesting we have read the language and it is right; it is the American College of Nuclear Physicians, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology--and the list goes on. Every Member can see it. Can this many health care professionals be wrong?
Separate this, as Senator Kyl suggested. This is a proliferation issue, and it is a health issue. As to the health issue, I do not think anybody questions the value of this product for the health of the American people.
There is no better gold standard on deciding whether an application or license should be approved than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still in charge of this process. That has not changed. It will not change. If it is a national security risk, it will not just be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that screams, it will be the Government--the House and Senate, the White House--that screams.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes remaining to the opposition which has been allocated to Senator Bond.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to maintain the 7 minutes for Senator Bond. I thank Senator Kyl for the gracious way we tried to negotiate. I think it is unfortunate that we have not. I urge Senators to defeat this amendment. Protect the patients.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and would only make this point. Some have made the accusation that this legislation weakens existing law. Let me point out to my colleagues item 7 in the language, termination of review:
After the Secretary submits a certification under paragraph (6), the Commission shall, by rule, terminate its review of export license applications under this subsection.
This does fulfill the national security. It is reassured by the Nuclear Control Institute and the person who is most outspoken, Alan Kuperman. Ironically, he says this amendment, originally drafted to pave the way to continued HEU exports, would actually do away with them. We would go to LEU faster, is his conclusion.
We urge our colleagues to oppose the Schumer amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov