On the recordJuly 18, 2018
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. Well, simply put, I urge our colleagues on both sides to come together and kill this job-killing regulation and support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment. Climate change threatens the health and welfare for current and future generations. As the gentlemen have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, industry has moved-- has moved, in part, because of pressure from the EPA, and, in part, because of just the financial loss of allowing this methane gas to escape into the atmosphere. It is dollars that are burning up. These are precious resources that we are taking from the Earth, and we should make sure that we don't waste any of it, and that is why I think the EPA rule should not be delayed. As has been pointed out, industry has the ability to capture this methane. It has the ability to make money from it, and I want to just make sure that we encourage everyone in the industry to move forward. Mr. Chairman, let me the give you an example. The Bakken Oil Field, which is in North Dakota--I am very familiar with it because I spent many a summer in that area--burns brighter than the entire metropolitan area of the Twin Cities at night because of the flares from the methane that are being burnt. That energy should be captured. It should be saved. We should be conservationists for future generations.…





