mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that members may have five legislative days to include extraneous material on h.r. 982, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 403 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 982. the chair appoints the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 982 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend title 11 of the united states code to require the public disclosure by trusts under section 524-g of such title, of quarterly reports that contain detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition of claims for injuries based on exposure of asbestos and furs. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read fo

mr. goodlatte. mr. odlatte: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and include remarks extraneous material on h.r. 2655 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i recognize myself for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for such time as he may consume. madam speaker, h.r. 2655, the lawsuit abuse reduction act, would restore mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits filed in federal court. many americans may not realize it, but today under what is called rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure, there is no requirement that those who file frivolous lawsuits pay for the unjustified legal costs they impose on their victims. as a result, the current rule 11 goes largely unenforced when there is no guarantee of compensation, the victims of frivolous lawsuits have little incentive to spend even more money to pursue addi

mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit.he speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, the fact act is a simple measure to address an obvious problem. the lack of transparency that exists in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system cannot be allowed to continue. fraudulent claims are diluting the ability of too many trusts to provide for the recoveries of future asbestos victims, including our nation's veterans, who must often rely solely on the bankruptcy process to obtain a recovery for their asbestos injuries. the fact act will help preserve the finite amount of trust resources available for all future victims by increasing transparency in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system, thereby facilitating a reduction in fraud. the fact act achieves transparency through a measured approach, carefully crafted to provide strong privacy protections and respect states' rights, strong privacy protections for veterans and all other victims. this will not delay compensation to asbestos victi

mr. goodlatte's thoughtful, considered steps to fix a broken immigration system. all i'm asking is, now for the fourth time, will you bring one or more of these bills to the floor? we may not be for them, but at least they put, as the gentleman keeps saying, a bill before the house so the house can work its will. and frankly if they're defeated, bent would be income upon us to move in a different direction -- incumbent upon us to move in a different direction. but if they're just sitting there, without consideration of the house, without the ability of the house to work its will, then it continues to cause inaction on a subject that all of us have expressed needs action. if the gentleman wants to respond to that i'll yield. if not i'll go on to another subject. want to go on to another subject? rather than go on to another subject, let me urge the gentleman, again. because when the gentleman says, let the house work its will, that's a wonderful phrase. hopefully it resonates with the american people. but the house is not allowed to work its will. ultimately, as th

mr. goodlatte's thoughtful, considered steps to fix a broken immigration system. all i'm asking is, now for the fourth time, will you bring one or more of these bills to the floor? we may not be for them, but at least they put, as the gentleman keeps saying, a bill before the house so the house can work its will. and frankly if they're defeated, bent would be income upon us to move in a different direction -- incumbent upon us to move in a different direction. but if they're just sitting there, without consideration of the house, without the ability of the house to work its will, then it continues to cause inaction on a subject that all of us have expressed needs action. if the gentleman wants to respond to that i'll yield. if not i'll go on to another subject. want to go on to another subject? rather than go on to another subject, let me urge the gentleman, again. because when the gentleman says, let the house work its will, that's a wonderful phrase. hopefully it resonates with the american people. but the house is not allowed to work its will. ultimately, as th

mr. goodlatte as well as the chair of the rules committee, mr. sessions yesterday in the rules committee, what the plan was for immigration reform, why we were bringing forth bills with regard to asbestos, a legitimate problem to be sure, a bill that passed this chamber before, a bill that will not likely be taken up by the senate, but a bill that comes in the judd of the judiciary committee. why are we spending days and days debating this bill rather than solving a problem of immigration reform? mr. speaker, i know there are victims of asbestos poisoning, but i can tell you honestly, i haven't heard from any constituents who called my office begging congress to take up asbestos reform. it's an issue and we should deal witness. i hope there is a bipartisan approach, not one of my constituents last week, last month, last year, not one, called my office and said we demand action. we demand action on as bless toss reform. not -- asbestos reform. not one. thousands -- i never had thousands of people with the archbishop, my good friend from chicago, t

mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for introducing this commonsense legislation on which i'm also an original co-sponsor. this bill extends the authority of the u.s. marshal service and the supreme court police to provide for the security of the justices on and off the grounds of the supreme court for an additional six years. i also authorizes those enforcement agencies to protect supreme court employees performing their official duties and official guests of the court when they are not on court premises. in 1982, congress first responded to the call of chief justice warren burger to provide for the safety of the justices while traveling or away from the court grounds. since then, congress has regularly re-authorized the statute for various lengths of time. h.r. 2922 provides for an extension for a period of six years, because the current authorization expires in a matter of months on december 31, 2013, it's imperative that we act to provide the justices the security we have sanctioned over the years. workers

goodlatt. there was long conferences. these conferences drug on and on and on. i know you were there, mr. chairman, for those. but we got our work done. i take what colin peterson said earlier to heart. you know, these things are long. we get involved, but if we're left alone, we can do our job. we can reach the agreements that are needed. as you said, we have to always keep in mind when we're hammering out our agreements the farm bill won't become law unless it's passed by both houses and signed by the president. we have to keep that in mind. so again, balanced, bipartisan solutions. i'm proud of the fact we did that twice in the senate. we had a bipartisan farm bill that passed in 2012 and came back and passed again in 2013. i might also point out that in the 2008 farm bill, we had it vetoed twice and had to override the veto twice. that was all bipartisan. it was not a partisan effort at all. just a couple of thoughts on this bill. we have asked our farmers in this country to produce more and more and more, and they've responded. but as we produce more, we see more and more of our soil going down the river