Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, America needs more energy. Today we import around 60 percent of our oil from OPEC countries, many of which shield our enemies and disagree with our way of life. But we find ourselves dependent on these countries to supply the energy we need. We continue to import a lion's share of our energy from these countries, while refusing to increase our domestic energy supply. Much of the energy legislation being proposed by my Democratic colleagues turns a blind eye to the reality that our economy depends on fossil fuels. Opponents of oil and gas continue to sponsor legislation to raise taxes on our domestic energy producers and refiners. Making American energy more expensive than foreign sources defies logic. Comprehensive energy solutions must include provisions to promote all sources of energy. We must invest in research and development for technologies to promote the use of renewable and alternative sources of energy for the future, but at the same time we must also support the domestic oil and gas industry in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The oil industry works just like other sectors of the economy, through the laws of supply and demand. Demand is increasing and has been for years, yet we are not increasing our domestic output. Refineries are operating at near-capacity and we haven't built any new ones since 1976. Congress needs to start realizing that fossil fuels are going to continue to be our major source of energy for decades to come, and make policy to reflect this reality. As Ranking Member of the Science and Technology Committee, I strongly support a diverse portfolio of investments in both short-term and long- term energy R&D. I believe that one day, renewable and alternative sources of energy will provide America with energy on a widespread scale. However, it will be years, if not decades, before these investments can help America achieve energy independence. In the meantime, we must be realistic about what makes our cars run and our light bulbs glow. We must not legislate to make headlines. We need to build on comprehensive energy policies that recognize the importance of all energy sources, including fossil fuels, to ensure national energy security.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share an article written about a young man who serves as a member of the city council-- guiding and planning for a city that the Dallas News pointed out last February to be in the county seat of the fastest growing county in the United States. I wish to place this article in the Congressional Record to highlight the service of one unusually well-qualified young family man who finds time to also guide the destiny of my hometown of Rockwall, Texas, as it sheds its rural status and grows into the city of tomorrow. The article speaks for itself as set out in a recent issue of ``Texas Super Lawyers 2007 Rising Stars Edition.'' Great Scott By Paul Sweeney Why is Matthew Scott, a 39-year-old Dallas attorney, so often described as ``a go-to guy''? Just ask Greg Supan, a former law partner and colleague at the Dallas firm of Bell Nunnally & Martin. Not long ago, Supan got a last-minute, out-of-the-blue telephone call: An old fraternity brother from the University of Texas was relocating his oral surgery practice from Houston to Dallas. He urgently needed help in structuring an employment agreement between him and his new dentistry group. Unfortunately, the attorney who assured Supan he could handle the assignment called back three days later and announced he was going on vacation. ``He told me that I didn't tell him it was time-sensitive,'' Supan recalls, exasperation creeping into his voice. So he turned to Scott, all 6 feet 6 inches of him. The former basketball player at the University of Iowa has, over the last decade, become an avid Texan--so much so that he won election to the city council in the bedroom community of Rockwall. ``At that point we had 24 hours to get the assignment done,'' Supan says, ``and Matt, an expert in employment law, dropped everything to help out. He ended up doing a great job on what was actually a very complicated partnership. The client was thrilled.'' Supan adds: ``When you're down by two, you pass the ball to him. He's a real buzzer-beater.'' Amid the book-lined suite of offices at Bell Nunnally one hears similar stories, not just about Scott's dependability but also about his work ethic. Sherri Alexander, who heads the litigation section at the firm, says, ``At our business- development meetings, where the partners get together to talk about work, and about which new clients have been contacted recently, Matt's always willing to participate.'' Praising his sense of timing, she adds, ``Not too much--but not too little either.'' ``And when I have to go out of town on business,'' she says, ``I can always trust him to deal directly with a client and handle things well in my absence.'' The bottom line? ``He has his own docket,'' she says, ''plus the city council. But if somebody needs help, he always goes the extra mile.'' The only son of a union printer and his Iowa farm wife, Scott grew up in Des Moines, where his childhood had its rough patches. He was bused to schools across town, an experience that put him in contact with a tough crowd. The experience helped teach him how to get along with people from different backgrounds, an ability that he inherited from his mother, who set an example of unpretentiousness. Scott attributes his work ethic to his father, a veteran of World War II who saw plenty of action--and bloodshed--in the Pacific. He describes his father (both of his parents are deceased) as someone who insisted on order and neatness, took pride in his work, seldom missed a day on the job in 44 years and was always straight with people. ''Dad was the most honest person I've ever known,'' he says. ``And loyal, too.'' Those loyalties extended to his employer, his co-workers and his labor union. But there was never any question that his son would have a different kind of life. His father often lamented the fact that he had not taken advantage of the educational opportunities offered by the GI Bill, Scott says, ``and it was always very clear that I was going to college.'' He majored in psychology and played basketball as a walk-on shooting guard. He didn't get a lot of playing time; yet his coach, Tom Davis, hails him as an important asset to a team that sent several players to the NBA. ``I remember Matt Scott as a motivated and aggressive athlete, a good team player who fit in well,'' says Davis, now the head coach at Drake University in Des Moines--where Scott graduated from law school. ``And he was also coachable, someone who could accept criticism and was willing to make changes that would help the team. ``Maybe he was the 10th man on the team when we could only play five,'' the coach adds. ``But I recall what a good teammate Matt was. He was somebody people liked to be with, and practice with, and travel with--and he had a great work ethic.'' Some 40 minutes east of Dallas, such comments are echoed by colleagues in the chambers at the spanking-new city hall in Rockwall, seat of Rockwall County, the fastest-growing county in Texas. Scott, who describes himself as a staunch Republican, nonetheless works well with all members of the seven-person council, including dyed-in-the-wool Democrat Margo Nielsen. ''He's brash and he's smart and he's passionate about the issues,'' says Nielsen, ex-director of Rockwall County Helping Hands, a nonprofit social services agency. ``And as a lawyer'' she adds, ``he's trained to think holistically and broadly.'' Nielsen sings Scott's praises for his efforts to bring city services to Lake Rockwall Estates. Despite its impressive name, the ``estates'' is actually a dilapidated mobile-home park that had long been ignored by the city. But, thanks largely to Scott's efforts, Nielsen says, the city is in the process of annexing the unincorporated area and will soon provide, among other things, water and sewer services, trash pickup and improved roads. ``It's not the kind of issue that most city leaders look for,'' Nielsen says. ``There are no political rewards. But under Matt's leadership, it's getting done.'' Although he is still in his first term on the council, Scott has also won the confidence of Rockwall's mayor, Bill Cecil, a retired contract-director with the Department of Defense. ``He's my mayor pro tem,'' Cecil says, bragging about Scott the way the famous outlaw Butch Cassidy might say: ``That's my sidekick, `The Sundance Kid.' '' Together, Scott and Cecil share a keen interest in economic development, typified by $20 million in public spending that the city is lavishing on a new harbor at nearby Lake Ray Hubbard. Replete with fountains, pools, a waterfall and even a ``mini-riverwalk,'' the public-works project is luring private-sector financing for lakeside condominiums, retail stores and office space. On a tour of the Mediterranean-style construction that is under way, both men are buoyant. ``This will be a big economic engine for the city,'' says Scott. In junior high school, Scott says, he visited Texas during a winter break and played tennis in shorts and a T-shirt while several inches of snow blanketed the ground back in Des Moines. He vowed that he would someday make balmy Texas his home--a pledge that he kept soon after he completed law school. Staying on a friend's sofa in Dallas, he studied for--and passed--the Lone Star State bar exam. Newly married and with his ticket punched for practicing law, Scott and his wife pulled up stakes and set out for Texas. Arriving in Dallas, neither had a job lined up. ``We had two cars, the stuff in our apartment, and a couple of thousand dollars in wedding money,'' he says. ``That was it.'' After honeymooning in Cancun, the couple job-hunted in earnest. His wife found work as a legal secretary and Scott worked as a contract attorney. Ever the walk-on, he landed a job at Cooper, Aldous & Scully in the same way that he made the team at Iowa: by being aggressive. He met one of the partners, Dallas lawyer Charla Aldous, during a deposition. ``I asked her if she was hiring,'' he recalls, ``and she said `maybe' and I pulled out a resume and then I got an interview.'' He got hired and moved to Bell Nunnally in June 1999. At Bell Nunnally, Scott has been making a name for himself handling the full panoply of employment law, including discrimination, workers' compensation and sexual harassment cases. His expertise was ratified when District Judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana selected him to chair the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' draft of the pattern jury charges for employment law. It took more than three years of effort getting the seven-member committee to find common ground. His skill at being a team player came in handy there as well. One of his law partners, Thomas Case, lauds Scott for his ability to build bridges between the plaintiff and defense attorneys who were evenly represented--and divided-- on the committee. ``The way he ran [the committee] was by trying to reach consensus,'' Case says. ``When they couldn't reach agreement, they put their differences in the footnotes'' (That makes it ``subject to further development by the district courts,'' Case adds.) Case--who is 20 years Scott's senior and is something of a mentor to him--says that employment law cases are often ``emotionally charged.'' He says people become so attached to their jobs--and so identified by what they do--that ``trying employment cases is an awful lot like dealing with death or divorce.'' Although Texas is an ``employment at will'' state--which means that, in the absence of a contract or labor-union agreement, termination does not require cause--juries may nonetheless feel sympathy for a plaintiff who has lost his or her job. But one of Scott's strongest suits is that ``he has a good appreciation for what will or won't play with a jury,'' Case says. ``Jurors have all been employees, and it's likely that a few of them have had an adverse experience with an employer.'' One of the hardest parts of Scott's job can be convincing a client that what seems like an obvious argument for an employee's dismissal will not only leave a jury unmoved but could be inadmissible. Scott recalls a recent case in which the owner of an apartment complex fired a maintenance worker who was not only doing sub-par work but had a criminal record. But the, employer was miffed when she learned that Scott was not willing to introduce the ex-employee's criminal record. ``She was British and frustrated that someone could file a lawsuit against her but she couldn't bring up the person's criminal record,'' Scott. says. ``She wasn't familiar with the U.S. judicial system.'' Despite his best efforts at negotiating a compromise, Scott says that he had to remove himself from the case. ``The sticking point was what I told her I would--and wouldn't-- do,'' he says. ``She thought we could use [the plaintiff's criminal record] to make the lawsuit just go away,'' he adds. ``Smaller clients get frustrated and don't understand that the process takes time.'' In a state known for its flamboyant trial attorneys, Scott's colleagues cite his straightforwardness and plain speaking as a key asset in the courtroom. ``He does a good job at presenting his position and of being himse1f,'' Case says. ``Young lawyers don't realize that what works best is just being who they are. Juries appreciate someone like Matt who comes across as solid and sincere and prepared. Juries have a knack at seeing through an act.'' Now the father of three young children, Scott has ambitions for higher office when he is finally term-limited after six years on the Rockwall City Council. ``Anyone who runs for public office and says he doesn't have higher political ambitions is a liar,'' he says. ``Sure, I have higher political ambitions. I already ran for the state House [in Iowa] when I was in law school. ``So, yes, I'd like to hold other offices. But the Texas Legislature is out because it is a part-time job that would destroy my full-time job. So I'd have to look at something that either allowed me to continue practicing law, as the city council does, or something that would be a fulltime, paying job that replaces my legal pracrlce. ``So right now I have no idea what my ambitions are,'' he says. ``But, yes, I do have them.''

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record a thoughtful comparison of U.S. military strategy in Vietnam and present-day military operations in Iraq written by Jerry Hogan, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who lives in Heath, TX, in the Fourth Congressional District. I urge my colleagues to review and reflect upon this as Congress faces critical decisions in the upcoming months on funding the war on terror. Comparison and History Teach us a Lot (By Jerry Hogan) Sometimes it is important that we look at what we have done in the past to make sure we don't make the same mistakes again. In 1950, believe it or not, the United States established a military assistance and advisory group in Vietnam to advise the French puppet government on strategy and train Vietnamese soldiers. This started America's longest war that did not end until April of 1975 with the infamous ``Fall of Saigon'' that we saw in our living rooms thanks to the modern miracle of television. For the almost three million of us who served in that war, those pictures on our TV sets burned holes through our heads as we saw first hand what we had done to a country and its people as we abandoned them without finishing the job we helped start. Unfortunately there are many similarities between the U.S. involvement in Vietnam and our current involvement in Iraq. While we had advisors in Vietnam starting in 1950, our real combat role that saw the buildup of our forces go from 16,000 to 553,000, did not start until after the Gulf of Tonkin incident where, on August 2, 1964, one of our Naval ships was attacked by torpedo boats along North Vietnam's coast. Two days later, another ``attack'' occurred in about the same place against two more of our ships. These ``attacks'' led to retaliatory air strikes on our part and caused Congress to approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave the president power to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without declaring war. Later it was determined that the second ``attack'' was questionable which caused many people to say we entered this conflict under false pretenses. Sound anything like how we got into Iraq according to the opponents of that war? The Vietnam War is viewed by many historians as a Cold War conflict between the United States, its allies, and the Republic of Vietnam on one side, and the Soviet Union, its allies, the People's Republic of China, and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on the other. Many others, particularly the vocal opponents to the U.S. involvement in this war, viewed the conflict as a civil war between communist and non communist Vietnamese factions. Today, the War in Iraq is viewed as a battleground between the US, its allies, and the Republic of Iraq versus the Islamist Jihadis and their allies, Syria and Iran, in the International War on Terrorism. Exchange the words ``communist and non communist'' with ``Sunni and Shiite'' and you hear the same arguments today about this war being just a civil war between two opposing religious factions in Iraq. Isn't it amazing how history seems to repeat itself with us Americans? While actual U.S. combat operations did not start in Vietnam until 1964, U.S. forces assumed full responsibility for training the South Vietnamese Army in 1956 and President Kennedy increased our troop strength from 500 to over 16,000 when he took office. In his inaugural address, he made that famous pledge we know so well: ``the U.S. will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.'' Remember what President Bush continues to say about our support for Afghanistan and Iraq as they held their elections and voted for a democratic form of government and how we would stand with them in their desire for a free and elected democracy? Sounds like two of our presidents so heavily involved with two separate unpopular wars had the same views! During the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a Draft for supplying personnel needed in the military. President Johnson refused to mobilize the Reserve units during the war as he feared a political backlash. This led to larger draft call ups and the extension of some tours of duty. It also put a heavy strain on U.S. forces committed to other parts of the world. While the military today is an all-volunteer force, the same problems face the services today; tour extensions in Iraq for the Soldiers and Marines, equipment shortages, limited capabilities in other areas of the world, repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continued pressure on families of the service men and women. Again, you might think we learned from previous mistakes. In January of 1968, the forces of North Vietnam launched the surprise ``Tet Offensive'' in hopes of sparking a national uprising. While the military objectives were not achieved, the U.S. public was shocked and confused over the war as General Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, had just predicted ''the end comes into view.'' The American media, which had been largely supportive of the administration, turned on President Johnson for what had become an increasing credibility gap. His approval ratings dropped from 48% to 36%; he declined to run for re-election; and the public's support for the war started a rapid decline. Any of this sound like something you may have heard recently? In December, 1974, the Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government. The act went on to restrict the number of U.S. military personnel allowed in Vietnam to ``no more than 4000 within six months of enactment and 3000 within one year.'' By April of 1975 only four months after the cutoff of funds and the removal of essentially all U.S. forces, the Republic of Vietnam fell to the victors from the North. During the Vietnam War, over 250,000 South Vietnamese military were killed and about 1.2 million were wounded. It is estimated that somewhere between two and five million Vietnamese civilians were killed. 58,000 Americans lost their life while 153,000 were wounded. In Iraq today, about 3,500 Americans have been killed and about 18,000 have been wounded. Close to 350 U.S. personnel have been killed in Afghanistan. Statistics on Iraqi and Afghanistan's military and civilian casualties are not available but estimates show they are high as well. So what does this all mean today? Clearly there are two opposing views as to what should happen in Iraq. The President has been consistent in his view that we are fighting an International War on Terrorism and that freedom and democracy need help in the Middle East. Iraq is a fledgling democracy trying to establish itself after decades of dictatorship and after being made a main battleground by the worldwide Jihadist forces. Strong religious and political forces, both within and outside Iraq, are making the process of democracy very difficult. A military solution will not solve the problems in Iraq; it must be a political solution with a military component. Political will, as much as military might, is a decisive factor in this outcome. The second view being expressed daily by some of our elected officials in Washington calls for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. In my considered military view, this outlandish stupid course of action takes us right back to the days of Vietnam and is nothing more than a political proposal that leads us once again to watching the ``Fall of Saigon'' in our living rooms, but this time it will be the ``Fall of Baghdad.'' I really don't want to go through that again . . . and I hope you don't either. Let your elected officials know how you feel.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I speak as the ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee, and I support Dr. Gingrey of Georgia. And the problem is the process. Actually, this committee oversees on some of the most exciting parts of the Federal Government. We hear from astronauts at NASA about new discoveries in space. We work with scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to ensure that the best technology informs decisions, such as new materials, even for bulletproof vests, standards for the nanotechnology industry. At the Department of Energy, we support research and the technologies to make America energy independent. And I guess through the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, we oversee the $2 billion interagency climate change science program. In fact, on Wednesday, the Science and Technology Committee will consider a bill, H.R. 906, to reauthorize this very important research program. This is exactly why I was a little disturbed when I read H.R. 2643 and saw the provision establishing a commission on climate change, which is supposed to review the science challenges associated with adapting to climate change. That mission is the same as already existing interagency climate change science program. Also, establishing an interagency commission clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI which prohibits changing existing law in an appropriations bill. The current interagency climate change science program was established by a Science Committee bill in 1990, the Global Change Research Act. Actually, climate change science falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the Science and Technology Committee, and this provision of H.R. 2643 clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI. For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support the rules of the House and the jurisdiction of the committee and vote ``yes'' for the Gingrey amendment.

Mr. HALL of Texas. The House favorably voted on this provision in 2001, 2003, and 2005 and again on the conference report in 2005. Additionally, the House overwhelmingly voted last year to uphold the program by voting against an amendment to strike it by a vote of 161- 255. These votes send a clear message that Congress supports this research and development program and all the benefits it will bring to the American public. Like my colleague, Mr. Lampson, I have deep admiration and respect for Chairman Norm Dicks, and accept his assurance to work with us in the future for the greatest good for the greatest number.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for those comments, and I would also point out this program will provide new technologies that will allow us to tap nearly 50 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil remaining in this country. The United States has 55 years of natural gas resources in the lower 48, but much of it requires new technologies in order to produce it. Some 80 percent of these resources are on lands that are not subject to any access restrictions. New technologies will increase domestic energy supplies and increasing supplies will lower energy costs to consumers. These technologies will enable less expensive, more efficient and more environmentally friendly domestic natural gas production. The universities and research institutions participating in this program are as follows: Colorado School of Mines; Florida International University; Jackson State University; Louisiana State University; MIT; Mississippi State University; New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; Penn State University; Rice University; Stanford; Texas A&M; University of Alabama; University of Alaska-Fairbanks; University of Houston; University of Kansas; University of Michigan; University of Oklahoma; University of South Carolina; University of Southern California; University of Texas; University of Tulsa; University of Utah and West Virginia University. In addition, the following national labs are funded through this program: Idaho National Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. We have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act, and the primary goal it seeks to achieve. If implemented correctly and efficiently, health information technology, which we call IT, can revolutionize our health care system. However, we have to have an educated workforce properly trained in health IT in order for it to be successful. This is what H.R. 1467 is all about. NSF is already doing incredible work in the IT area, but this measure focuses specifically on health IT by providing grants on new innovative approaches for health care hardware and software solutions. Creating health medical informatics research centers and making improvements to undergraduate and master's degree programs for health care informatics, it also expands the Advanced Technology Education Program to include health IT. The activities supported by H.R. 1467 are important if we are to have a sufficiently trained health IT workforce, and I encourage my colleagues to adopt this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, of course, in support of H.R. 1867, which authorizes funding for the National Science Foundation for the next 3 years. As most of us know, NSF is one of three agencies targeted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. The ACI aims to double the Federal investment in physical science research over the next 10 years. Appropriate investment in research development technology and math and science education will ensure that our country remains the world leader in competitiveness and innovation. The National Science Foundation is the primary source of Federal funding for nonmedical basic research conducted at colleges and universities and serves as a catalyst for science, for technology, for engineering, and mathematics education reform at all levels. The return that we receive from our NSF investments far exceeds the cost. In addition, the NSF peer review process for receiving Federal funding is to be an example for all Federal agencies and one in which I hope all of my colleagues more fully recognize as an appropriate means of investment. As reported, this is a good bill. I thank Chairman Gordon and Dr. Baird for working with Dr. Ehlers and with me to make improvements in the measure. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just want to rise to first thank Dr. Ehlers and reiterate my support for H.R. 1867. I think we have a good bill here that propels us on down the innovation and competitiveness path that the President is on and that we have been on. I also thank Chairman Gordon and Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers, I thank you again for helping to make this a better bill. In fact, I would argue that there is no one in this body more familiar with NSF than you are. I thank you for your work for and against some of these amendments. I rise in support of the bill and urge an ``aye'' vote on it. And, Dr. Baird, I thank you personally for your kindness and the classy way you've handled yourself today.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I certainly from a policy standpoint don't have an issue with the amendment; in fact, I think it might go a long way in enticing retired STEM professionals to get their teacher's certification and to put their many years of expertise to work in the K-12 classroom, educating and inspiring our next generation of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. One of the key elements of this bill is a grant program at NSF designed to help scientists and engineers at early stages of their careers at institutions of higher learning. Eligible applicants are tenure-track faculty, and allow the existing faculty early career development program to be designed and designated as the mechanism for awarding such grants that we are talking about here. We also require the director of the NSF to allocate at least 3.5 percent of funds appropriated to the NSF research and related activities account for the purposes in the bill. This amendment would modify the 3.5 percent allocation provision to include the following clause: ``except to the extent that a sufficient number of meritorious grant applications have not been received for a fiscal year.'' I did this out of concern that the bill required the allocation of 3.5 percent of the funds appropriated to the earlier career awards for science and engineering, without taking into account there may be years in which there are not sufficient meritorious grant applications in that area and NSF could use the funds more effectively maybe in another area. I hope my good friend, Chairman Gordon, and my colleagues will join me in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Yes.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Yes. It really provides a way for them to use the funds in other areas if they are not used up.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Dr. Ehlers, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.