mr. woodall. >> thank you. i rarely find myself in disagreement with my good friend from florida. more often than not i find myself educated by him. i have to disagree with him today because this is all about process. it's all about process. i don't know how many minds were changed when the gentleman from florida were changed again. i suspect none. folks know what they think that they know, but to my friend from florida's point, is there a verbatim transcript somewhere? i don't know. you asked the question to the two witnesses that we had called to testify, two of the brightest members of congress in my estimation. they don't know. if i understood my friend from georgia correctly, there were no witnesses that are working on that transcript that you had an opportunity to talk to directly? >> no, we had no witnesses in judiciary. >> so my friend from florida is rightly outraged by his perception of wrongdoing. i hope that he's equally outraged by the inability to get information, not just our abilit

mr. woodall: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from colorado for yielding the time. we had to hustle over here today, mr. speaker. you were already here, i appreciate your timely beginning of the house. but this is a different kind of day. ordinarily we have more one-minutes, more folks celebrating high school teachers and local newspaper folks, local philanthropic efforts. but as you might imagine, there are other things going on on the hill today and that's unfortunate. because i come down here today, not with a heavy heart i often come down with from a rules committee perspective, mr. speaker, as you know, the rule committees is in charge of deciding whether or not to allow amendments, what to schedule for the floor. as a member of the minority, there are four of us there in the rule committees, nine members in the majority, so we lose a lot. the time for bipartisan partnership happens before a bill gets to the rules committee. and yet -- and yesterday, what we saw transpire in the rule committees was

mr. woodall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rarelily find myself in disagreement with my goodent friend from florida. more often than not i find myself educated with him. i've got to disagree with him today because this is all about process today. this is all about process. i don't know how many minds were change when the gentleman from florida read the transcript again. i suspect none. probably the most single read transcript in american history. folks know what they think that they know. but to my friend from florida's point, is there -- is there a verbatim transcript somewhere? i don't know you asked the question of the two witnesses we called to testify, two of the brightest members of congress in my estimation. they don't know. and if i understood my friend from georgia correctly, there were no witnesses who are working on that transcript that you had an opportunity to talk to directly? >> no we had no witnesses in judiciary. >> so my friend from florida is rightly outraged by his perception of wrong doing. i hope that h

mr. woodall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rarelily find myself in disagreement with my goodent friend from florida. more often than not i find myself educated with him. i've got to disagree with him today because this is all about process today. this is all about process. i don't know how many minds were change when the gentleman from florida read the transcript again. i suspect none. probably the most single read transcript in american history. folks know what they think that they know. but to my friend from florida's point, is there -- is there a verbatim transcript somewhere? i don't know you asked the question of the two witnesses we called to testify, two of the brightest members of congress in my estimation. they don't know. and if i understood my friend from georgia correctly, there were no witnesses who are working on that transcript that you had an opportunity to talk to directly? >> no we had no witnesses in judiciary. >> so my friend from florida is rightly outraged by his perception of wrong doing. i hope that h

mr. woodall? >> as we heard, on one for their point, i may not have explained my motion appropriately. i agree with you in the nations of the rules committee, our standard practice of waiving all points of orders, to allow the majority to conduct its business without dilatory tactic. i want to keep that section that waves all points of orders with the one exception of this minority witness. if i can read from the house practice manual, whenever a hearing is called on a measure or matter, minority members may have a right to call witnesses of their own choosing. that has not happened here. that has not happened here, as has been said so often today, those facts are undisputed. undisputed. >> five witnesses that have testified, to in the judiciary committee and three by the republican minority, that at least five witnesses and the president was invited to present a case, which he refused to do. >> i appreciate my friend raising that but, what you heard from the ranking member is that he was given choices by the chairman, take it or leave it. you can invite a professor of your own choosin

mr. woodall. mrs. torres. dr. burgess. mr. burgess: if i could just ask a question of the labor-h portion. someone perhaps on the staff can direct me as to where i can find the funds for the research and development of methods of combating acute flaccid myelitis. this spikes every other year and while i've been working on authorization language this coming august will be another one of those spikes. so if we don't -- if we aren't doing something now, we'll miss the next episode where that could increase in frequency. >> $5 million for c.g.c. for that purpose. mr. burgess: thank you. i yield back. >> mr. perlmutter. mrs. lesko. no other questions? thank you very much. the panel is dismissed. ms. delauro: thank you very much. thank you. tom. tom. thank you. thank you. mr. mcgovern: thank you, lucille. thank you. >> well done. mr. mcgovern: ok. all right. next panel. next panel is mr. bishop, mr. aderholt. ms. mccollum. mr. joyce, mr. ryan, ms. herrera beutler, and mr. graves. and we will begin with mr. bishop. mr. bishop: thank

mr. woodall? >> as we heard, on one for their point, i may not have explained my motion appropriately. i agree with you in the nations of the rules committee, our standard practice of waiving all points of orders, to allow the majority to conduct its business without dilatory tactic. i want to keep that section that waves all points of orders with the one exception of this minority witness. if i can read from the house practice manual, whenever a hearing is called on a measure or matter, minority members may have a right to call witnesses of their own choosing. that has not happened here. that has not happened here, as has been said so often today, those facts are undisputed. undisputed. >> five witnesses that have testified, to in the judiciary committee and three by the republican minority, that at least five witnesses and the president was invited to present a case, which he refused to do. >> i appreciate my friend raising that but, what you heard from the ranking member is that he was given choices by the chairman, take it or leave it. you can invite a professor of your own choosin

mr. woodall. listening i enjoy to the partnership conversation. i want to come from a different perspective. i want to talk about the partisanship conversation. when i was 6 years old and list to the partnership senator isakson was elected as a u.s. house member, it was 23 out of 180 members of the house, as i recall. i don't know how many there were before you got there, senator. but being a republican in georgia in 1976 was not a popular thing to do. and i think about all the things that we want to do together in this body, senator. and i think about folks who say, oh, we can't do that, it's too hard, it's going to take too long, let's do something today, but let's not focus on those long-term goals. you might think that when ronald reagan was elected in 1980 that that was a big jump in georgia. as i recall, there were still 23 members in the u.s. -- in the georgia house in georgia in 19 80. 23 out of 180. somebody had to be the first one to stand up and we talk about partisanship in this institution, madam speaker, like it's a bad thing what i

mr. woodall. >> if i can pull that with our substitutionalist there on the panel and mr. hoegland, you are burdened with that responsibility. there is a difference to me about producing all of that information and if i'm aggressive, i can find all that information as i sit here today, we certainly see it on the budget committee, the bill introduced by my colleagues in the 110ings congress is to have the comptroller come to congress and present it. i put that in the same category as sticks. i've already been elected. i'm already supposed to be doing my job. to have an unelected person come and stand in the house chamber and chastise me for not doing my job. i don't know how that had advances the process. from an institutional perspective, is there merit in having the unelect come and make that pitch orb would you target your sticks elsewhere? >> first of all i think having information, good information is always helpful, as you say, quite frankly, with all due respect, the information is out there. you can get the information if you need it. you know what the issues are. y