On the recordJuly 12, 2012
I am simply saying that this underlying bill lays out four strategic areas in which we should have minerals to support those areas. And then we say there should be a timeframe, a defined timeframe, in which, unless there is an agreement it should be longer, activity should be done. It's pretty straightforward. This amendment, as offered, would very narrowly say what is critical. I think that's the wrong approach. So with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko). The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
