Sanford should explain strategic minerals vote | Island Packet

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.

SIGN UP

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