On the recordApril 30, 2024
If mining were permitted, these economists find that there would be an initial but temporary net growth in employment. But over time, any economic benefits of mining would be outweighed by the negative impacts of mining on the existing recreational industry and on folks moving to this area. Under any scenario where sulfide-ore copper mining is allowed, it leads to a boom-and-bust cycle where the local economy is left worse off than before. Look, these leases sat for decades and decades with no mining used. Now, when it is economically convenient, they want to mine. That illustrates that this is a boom-bust economy and what will be destroyed, though, is of enduring, lasting, economic value. By protecting this region and the land this will help preserve and grow the 22,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual visitor spending, including its small businesses, which are essential for a strong and robust diversified economy. The other choice, the alternative, is to allow a Chilean mining company to pollute our land, take our minerals without paying a royalty, ship them overseas to China, smelt them, and sell them on the global market, including to our competitors. What is best for our American economy is to protect the strong recreational economy we have now in this area and continue to protect these public lands. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.





