Sanford should explain strategic minerals vote

info@islandpacket.comSeptember 26, 2013 

I was perplexed and concerned to read that our congressional representative, Mark Sanford, voted against an amendment that would have prohibited exports of strategic minerals mined from federal lands in the western United States to China, Iran, or any country that has violated sanctions against Iran.

Ensuring that strategic minerals do not make their way to Iran or China, with a high risk that China would re-export them to Iran or North Korea, ought to be considered essential to reducing the threat those countries pose to the United States and our allies, such as Israel.

I can think of only three reasons Sanford would have voted this way:

  • He did not understand the issue and its implications.

  • He voted against the amendment simply because it was proposed by Democrats.

  • He really believes that U.S. corporations should be able to mine and export taxpayer-owned minerals to our country's enemies.

  • I have asked Sanford which of these reasons was the basis for his vote. I'll let you know his answer.

    Lesley C. Gilbert

    Hilton Head Island

    The Island Packet is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

    Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service