John Shimkus: “upon conclusion of this debate, I will be offering the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit will require the House…”

“upon conclusion of this debate, I will be offering the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit will require the House conferees to adopt the House position, which was supported in a motion to instruct conferees on this floor only 2 days ago by a vote of 258-167, 69 of them being Democrats, including nine Science Committee Democrats. For fiscal conservatives, this would require the conferees to insist on the overall House authorization level, which is $20 billion less. For the second part of this motion, it would require the House conferees to again support the previously adopted House position with regard to giving priority grants to expand domestic energy production through the use of coal-to-liquid technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing. Again, this was the exact motion to recommit of 2 days ago. I have heard the debate of my friends: if we want to have a blueprint to where we want to go, we want to go for energy security. We are going to take up a bill on the House floor in a day or two that has no energy production. So how are we going to go advance science research, the next generation, if we don't have priority grants in nuclear reprocessing and coal-to-liquid technology? We heard the debate. We know that people want to go to coal-to-liquid technologies, but we don't know if it's going to work. We don't know if we can sequester. We don't know if we can refine it less than the barrel of crude oil. That's what this energy is for. Energy security.”