I don't have any specific issues with the amendment either. I thought it was useless because it did not add anything. All it does is cut the paragraph and continue from there, but I have already read that.
However, in going over the English version, I thought an “or” was missing. I think that's on line 9. It says
“of nuclear material, ”, with a comma, and in my view it should be an “or” if we make it consistent with the French, where there is an ou in the French version. We say, “of nuclear material, a radioactive material, or a device”, and it should be, “of nuclear material, or a radioactive material, or a device”.
That's the only thing. When I was trying to see the intent behind the amendment—because I couldn't see it—I thought maybe he was just adding an “or”, but I thought it was a pretty long amendment for just an “or”. Anyway, I suggest that we should at least....
This doesn't change anything. I don't know if the specialists from the Justice department realize it, or maybe I'm not reading it well. I wouldn't want a bunch of lawyers starting a big debate on a comma versus ou.
Other than that, I don't have a problem with the amendment. I just think it's totally useless.