Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Boy Scouts of America, Troop 301, of Temecula, California, for 25 years of service and commitment to their community. On February 8, 2002, Troop 301 celebrated their 25th anniversary as a member of the California Inland Empire Council. This troop, established in 1977, has shown a strong commitment to training the leaders of tomorrow by teaching service and developing character, today. Every year, Troop 301 organizes programs to provide food, aid and comfort for those in need: the troop adopts families who are in financial need, decorates senior-citizen homes, and participates in community clean-up events including Temecula's ``Make a Difference Days.'' In addition to teaching community service, Troop 301 emphasizes service to the country. Following the devastating terrorist attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001, Troop 301 raised over $1,500 for the Red Cross disaster relief fund. This troop provides a valuable service to the city of Temecula by providing color guard presentation of the American flag at community events and celebrations such as Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, the Temecula Mayor's Prayer Breakfast and Temecula City Council meetings. Troop 301 is dedicated to supporting the scouting tradition and has helped 39 young men achieve the rank of Eagle Scout Mr. Speaker, I too was a Boy Scout for much of my early life. I can say that I am very proud to have achieved the rank of Life Scout before entering the Army. Today, my contributions to scouting are at a different level. I am very proud of what Troop 301 has done for the citizens of Temecula and I would like to extend my congratulations to the troop for a wonderful first 25 years. They should be very proud of what they have accomplished.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed to learn that the Central Committee of the Likud party in Israel recently voted in favor of a resolution never to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. This decision is so troubling because it refuses to address the paradox that all Israelis have wrestled with since the end of the six-day war in 1967. 1 like to call this the paradox of the occupation. The paradox of the occupation is that the modern state of Israel, post 1967, has not been able to achieve the Zionist dream of a Jewish, democratic state. There are over 3 million men and women who live in land that was occupied by the Israeli Defense Forces in 1967, who are not allowed to take advantage of Israel's nationality law. They are required to carry a special identification card that greatly restricts their freedom of movement throughout the country. They are at the mercy of the Israeli judiciary if they want to become naturalized citizens, regardless of where they were born. They are denied these basic rights of nationality because of their ethnicity. These are Palestinian Muslims and Christians, and they are not citizens in the Jewish state of Israel because they do not have the right ethnic ancestors or religious affiliation. Mr. Speaker, doesn't the current state of affairs in the occupied territories stretch beyond recognition our definition of ``democracy?'' Isn't the President making the right decision to call for an end to the occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state? According to a public opinion poll taken by the Dahaf Institute in Israel, 67% of all Israelis agree with the President, believing that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories. To say, as the Likud party said Sunday night, that there will never be a Palestinian state is to say that Israel will exist either as a Jewish state or a democratic state, but not both. Or it could be implicitly saying that the Palestinian people will somehow cease to exist. This is troubling, particularly in light of the fact that so many in the Israeli government have openly discussed the prospect of driving Palestinians out of their homes as a means to solving this conflict. Mr. Speaker, we should state openly as President Bush has stated, that the United States will never tolerate the forceful removal of Palestinian people. Driving the Palestinian people out of the occupied territories is not an option. Mr. Speaker, there is a solution to the paradox of the occupation. This solution would allow Israel to be both fully Jewish and fully democratic. It would dispel forever the notion that Israel has no right to exist, and it would take away the fear of so many Palestinians that they will one day be driven out of their homes. This solution is, as the President has articulated so many times, to have ``two states living side by side'' in a climate of peace and security. For the first time in the history of this conflict, this vision has become possible. Based on the formula of land for peace, Saudi Arabia has led the Arab states in an unequivocal call for peace with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation of pre-1967 Arab lands. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, how different this troubling region could be if all states were to live together in peace and security? The Middle East would change beyond our imagination. This change is possible, but only if both sides are given a fair shake in working out a lasting agreement. We need to make the right decisions now, without the taint of political agendas, to create a lasting peace for the future children of Israel and Palestine.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as part of National Small Business week, I rise today to recognize all the men and women who work in or for a small business in America. Small business is the heart of our economy and culture. It is where the American Dream time and time again is realized. Prior to my election I was a small business owner. I started like millions of entrepreneurs with a vision and lifesavings. My wife Cathy and I started with $7,000 and founded Directed Electronics and within 10 years built a company that is an industry leader in automobile security products. I understand the workings of small business and want to take this time not only to commemorate, but to remind everyone the important role that small business plays in our economy. Small Business is not only the backbone of our economy, but has also changed our culture. More small businesses are owned by women and minorities. There are now 9.1 million firms owned by women: these firms employ 27.5 million Americans. Minority-owned firms are the fastest growing segment from less than 7 percent of all U.S. firms in 1982 to 15.1 percent in 1997. Women and minorities are changing the face of business by helping break old sentiments of prejudices. I appeal to my fellow colleagues to work to help small business to continue to flourish so that all Americans are able to realize their dream. Right now, small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all employers and employ 52 percent of the private workforce. This is a large block of the American people. The President, in March, announced his small business agenda which included tax incentives for small businesses, making affordable health care available to more employees, and making the federal contract process more accessible to small businesses. Small business is America. It is the future of our economy and culture. Let's not strangle it with regulation, but continue to help hardworking American workers and entrepreneurs by supporting the President's plan to help small businesses.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion here today on a lot of science and a lot of what-ifs, and I am not going to try to address what has already been said. Rather, what I would like to do is take what has been said by many of the Members from Nevada and clarify it. They say they are putting it here because we have very little population. Well, for a moment I will agree with that, because over one-half of all Americans live within 75 miles of high-level nuclear waste, most of it above ground, none of it ever tested to take a 757 crashing into it. I rise in strong support of the basic concept that we will get these wastes into an area that will survive that attack and more. I rise because every day in my district over 200,000 men and women drive within a few hundred yards of San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant, not designed as a permanent-storage facility. I ask my colleagues to consider whether the 10 million people who live within the downwind hazard of that nuclear facility should be granted some final relief.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. J. Res. 87, the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. I am happy to join my colleagues as we approach the end of this 20 year journey to find an appropriate repository for spent nuclear fuel. Common sense dictates that nuclear waste belongs in a secure and remote location, not the coast of Southern California. Today, this House will vote to support one of President Bush's national security objectives: the construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. Congressional approval for the President's plan to build the Yucca Mountain facility will be a step toward resolving California's power crisis and will protect our communities from the unnecessary risk to storing nuclear waste. Centralizing the storage of hazardous nuclear waste at the remote Yucca Mountain facility clearly makes more sense than the current system of storing nuclear waste at 131 different storage sites including San Onofre, a nuclear power plant located in my district. Today 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of at least one of these 131 storage facilities. The future security, efficiency and environmental advantages of storing spent nuclear fuel at the completed Yucca Mountain facility surpass those of any other viable alternative, including the continuation of the current system. Consider the advantages of the proposed Yucca Mountain facility. Located on remote federal land, it would be more than 90 miles away from any major population center. In terms of security, the facility would be buried 1,000 feet below the desert surface, the site is surrounded on three sides by the Nellis Air Force Range, the airspace above Yucca Mountain is restricted and the facility would have its own elite rapid-response security force. Scientific studies conducted by the Department of Energy have, since 1982, evaluated the risks to the site posed by volcanoes, earthquakes, underground water, human intrusion and many other potential threats; after carefully considering these factors scientists have concluded that the risk to the Yucca Mountain site over the next 10,000 years are minimal. The centralization of spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain facility will allow a more efficient allocation of resources to manage and safeguard nuclear waste than is possible under the current system or any other current proposal for the future. When the technology that recycles spent nuclear fuel becomes a reality, the concentration of resource at Yucca Mountain will speed efforts to reduce or eliminate nuclear waste. Environmentally, even if no additional nuclear power plants are built, the need to securely store existing spent nuclear fuel will continue. Nuclear power is environmentally friendly, economical and safe. Yucca Mountain will open the door to the possibility of building new nuclear power plants, instead of more coal and oil plants, to meet California's energy needs and to avert a future power crisis like the one experienced last summer. Storing spent nuclear fuel in a central, secure and remote location that minimizes the threat of contaminating water sources, the atmosphere and our nation's wildlife is the most environmentally responsible policy possible under given conditions. The proposal to build a single storage site at Yucca Mountain will protect the environment and public safety better than building and maintaining several smaller storage facilities throughout the United States. The arguments of those who oppose the Yucca Mountain project revolve around the fear of uncertainty. These arguments point to the possibility that the scientific assessments of the Yucca Mountain site could be flawed. They note that despite all planned precautions and the extensive experience our nation already has in transporting spent nuclear fuel, an accident could occur in transport. Finally, they hold out the hope that American ingenuity will develop new technologies that can easily recycle spent nuclear fuel or even eliminate the need for nuclear power through advances in solar, wind and other energies--thus eliminating the need for new spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. While these points cannot and should not be ignored, they are themselves uncertainties. Uncertaintly, in fact, is a major reason why the Yucca Mountain facility should be built. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham has noted that existing nuclear waste storage facilities, like the one at San Onofre, ``should be able to withstand current terrorist threats, but that may not remain the case in the future.'' Any uncertainty involving spent nuclear fuel is better addressed 1,000 feet below the surface of the desert and 90 miles away from any major population center than in the middle of highly populated places like Southern California. The construction of the Yucca Mountain facility is a national security issue. I intend to support President Bush's decision to build the facility and hope that my colleagues in Congress also will back the President. Mr. Speaker, our journey is about to be completed regarding Yucca Mountain. I ask that my colleagues support passage of the resolution.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, not because it is perfect, or even because it is as balanced as it could be. I support this resolution because it says something that needs to be said and can never be repeated enough. It states, once again, that terrorism cannot and will not be tolerated, no matter where it occurs. Mr. Speaker, the series of suicide attacks that have been perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist networks against the people of Israel are attacks against hope itself, and they must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. But Mr. Speaker, the efforts to rebuild hope has to begin with the realization that violence will never bring peace. Israel certainly has a right to defend itself, but it cannot assume that it will be able to beat the Palestinian people into submission. Palestinians need to have their dignity recognized, just like any of us. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we often ignore the fact that many of the 1400-plus Palestinians killed in this violence were civilians who, like the rest of us, only want to build a home and family and live in peace with their neighbors. Let us be clear: we will not support the domination of one people by another. We do not believe that people should have to live in subjugation to their neighbors simply because of their place of birth, their religion, the language they speak, or their ethnicity. We affirm the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side in a state of peace, and I, along with many of my colleagues have stated that principle over and over again. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I cling to a hope that peace in the Middle East will one day become a reality. I have personally committed myself to the issue of middle East peace, trying to reinvigorate the hope that seems to have been lost during the past year and a half of violence. I will continue to be sincere in my efforts. I urge my colleagues to examine their own hearts on this issue, and move forward in a way that is constructive and helpful. Peace is possible, Mr. Speaker, but it will take a courageous effort from everyone to make it so.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yield me this time to speak in favor of a bill, not because it is perfect, because like many of our resolutions, and like many Members have said, it is less than perfect. It does not speak in a balanced fashion about some of the other shortcomings. But I believe on the floor today we have to make a statement, a statement that the violence must end. A statement that now that Chairman Arafat has at least limited freedom of movement again, that he use this second chance to bring about an end to violence and a resumption in the altogether too necessary compromises that must be made if we are going to have peace in the Middle East, peace that will benefit both sides, that will end the violence on both sides, that will save lives on both sides. So although we could all speak and speak rightfully about what is not in this legislation, or even what is maybe wrong in the resolution, I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this, to make this strong statement.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The INS has an essential role in ensuring the national security of the United States and is failing in that role. Reforming the INS without addressing the personnel reform issue is simply an error. This amendment extends greater management authority to deal with problem employees, which will lead to a higher level of service and a greater expectation. The type of personnel flexibility is exactly what Commissioner Ziegler has asked for when testifying before Congress earlier this year. I believe this amendment is offered for true INS reform. I do not ask for much in the way of reform; I only ask for the same standard, the same standard as today we expect from the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies. In fact, nearly 20 percent of all agencies have the same rules I am asking for here today, and disproportionately, these rules are used in those organizations in which public trust and safety is most vital. Without this amendment, I do not believe true reform can take place, because we would not be addressing the entire organization from the structure of the organization to the personnel within. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, we in fact would not have the ability to terminate people, even if once again the gross failures that led to the unfortunate loss of life in the tragedy in the Twin Towers in New York occurred. We need the authority to get rid of, not promote or transfer, people who in fact cannot or will not do their job. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3231, ``The Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act.'' This amendment requires that all employees at the new Office of the Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs and the two new bureaus be excepted service (Bureau of Citizenship and the Immigration Service, and the Bureau of Immigration Enforcement) employees. Simply stated, this bill will extend greater management authority to deal with problem employees, which will lead to a higher level of service we have a right to expect. This amendment is the type of personnel reform Commissioner Ziglar asked for when he testified before Congress this year. I believe this amendment will offer ``true'' INS reform, by making every INS employee a part of the excepted service, thereby assuring accountability from top of the agency to the lowest level employee. Earlier today, I spoke of Mohammed Atta and his multiple entries into the United States prior to his attack on our nation and INS's role. The employees that were responsible for his entry were not dismissed and still remain within the INS. With regards to Mohammed Atta, the INS: Failed to act to cancel Atta's training visa after Atta abandoned the application by leaving the country; Failed to recognize that Atta had abandoned his application even when his departure was established by his attempt to reenter the United States on January 10, 2001; Disregarded Atta's apparent intent to continue his flight training without a proper visa in January and admitted him as a visitor; and Ignored evidence that Atta first entered the United States intending to commence flight training immediately without the proper visa. If this amendment is adopted, we will no longer protect incompetence that allowed Mohammed Atta into the United States. This amendment is a vote for greater accountability of the INS and for national security. Let's not forget that there are 3,000 dead . . . and no one is held accountable. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, while they are bringing up the appropriate face of this amendment, I think it is important to answer the criticisms made by my colleagues, most of them fellow Committee on the Judiciary members. I agree with the chairman that this bill is an improvement, a considerable improvement in the characteristics of the INS. But it does not go far enough at all unless it addresses the question of whether managers can be fired. I, myself, was a manager for 20 years in business. And I served at will. You serve at will as a manager because your ineptness pays a dear price for many, many more people. At the present time, the people who allowed Mohammed Atta to come to this country wrongly, once, twice, three times have not been fired. The people who, in fact, failed to protect us have not been made accountable. They may have been moved, transferred or even promoted. That is not accountability. And when we talk about patronage, and I respect my colleagues' defense of the status quo of jobs for life that often exist within the Federal service, I might remind them that the FBI does not enjoy that and the FBI is not a patronage organization. The CIA does not enjoy that, and no one would say it was patronage. The United States Army, the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, the Coast Guard does not enjoy the job protection that they presently have at the dysfunctional INS. I ask my colleagues one more time to ask should this man having gone into flight training against the regulations, continued flight training and learned how to fly a 757 into the World Trade Center, should he in fact have been admitted once, twice, and yet a third time. I have no doubt that there has been plenty of discussion.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, this is yet another example of when a manager's deal is done, some things get left out. And this is a very worthwhile part of the reform, this is just as bipartisan. My colleague from California, my colleague from Utah, in fact, are often opposed on bills, but not this time. Why? Because we want a streamlined organization. We want to empower this organization to do what it needs to do and do it efficiently. That has been the complaint for more than 30 years. INS failure is bipartisan. Administration after administration have failed to do what we seek to do here today, and I strongly support the Lofgren-Cannon amendment because it is bipartisan. It will lead to efficiencies. It is about making this organization do a better job for all of us.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, this amendment was made simple and understandable so in fact to be brought to the House floor. I asked that this kind of amendment be incorporated in the management amendment, but it was a deal breaker. It was a deal breaker because people did not want to go far enough in INS reform. It is very easy for this body to come back and trim around the edges as quickly as they would like and define those people who should be granted the ability to make this mistake and not be held accountable and not be fired. That would be the right of this body and the right of the other body and the right of the President. I am here today saying that we must today end the possibility that the people who allowed this to happen because of their negligence or because of an absence of their willingness to look at the INS agent's own notes that said that Atta had admitted that for 5 of the 6 months he was a visitor he was unlawfully getting flight training; and if they had called, they would have found out that he was only learning to fly, not to take off and land. Mr. Chairman, I am from San Diego County; and I have met with the Border Patrol agents. I have met with them in Texas. I have met with them in California. And I will tell you something, they are quick to tell you the problems, they are quick to tell you the problems, but so is the FBI. And the FBI has helped me in understanding why we need this reform. The Border Patrol has helped me, and they have not helped me because they have exemption from whistle blowing. They have helped me because they care a great deal about getting the kind of management reform they need so they can be proud of the jobs they do. I would certainly ask my Members to think twice about saying this is an imperfect amendment when, in fact, only with this amendment will management have the ability to terminate the people who should have been there to protect us and were not.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that we need restructuring of the INS is to keep the Mohammed Attas out of the United States. Reports state that Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian citizen, piloted the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center. Let us take a look at the INS record of Atta. On June 3, 2000, Atta was admitted to the United States solely for the purpose of being a visitor, a tourist. On July 6, just a month later, after being admitted, he started his flight training in Venice, Florida. INS regulations prohibit him from doing that flight training. That is a student status. It is not, I repeat, is not a tourist status event. On August 29, 2000, after he had begun training, the flight school, pursuant to INS regulations, applied for a student visa for Atta from the INS. On September 19, 2000, Atta changed his status from nonimmigrant visitor to nonimmigrant student. By this time, he was already flying. In December 2000, before an approval of this application to be a student pilot arrived, he departed the country for travel to Madrid. We can only imagine what he went there for. Should Atta have been admitted? Let us look at the facts. First, there was evidence before the inspector that Atta obtained a visa by fraud by concealing from the State Department when he applied for the visitor's visa abroad that he actually was coming to the U.S. for flight training. The inspector's notes on January 10 show that Atta admitted that he had been in flight training for 5 to 6 months, almost the entire period authorized for his previous stay, to enter and immediately undertake the business of learning to fly, and now we know learning to kill. There is also evidence from the inspector's notes that Atta admitted he was returning to attend flight school. The commissioner himself testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary that Atta's unapproved application for training visa was abandoned upon his departure from the United States. According to INS regulations, if the inspector thought that Atta was coming to the United States to go to flight school, he should have sent him back to get a proper approval. Nevertheless, Atta was admitted on January 10, 2001, as a visitor. Six months later, even after Atta had left the United States a second time, Atta's flight training visa application was approved. This application was approved 11 months after it was filed, despite the fact that he had departed the United States on two occasions. Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious. This man should not have been admitted once, not twice, and certainly not three times. Does this mean we have a need for immigration reform? You bet. I plan on supporting this reform. I plan on offering additional amendments, because we can never, never again tolerate the ineptness in the INS that allowed this man to come here, not once, not twice, but a third time, and to train and kill Americans on September 11.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 100 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Paul Ecke, Jr. For more than 50 years, Paul Ecke, Jr., has sent poinsettias and other exotic and beautiful flowers throughout the world. His company, Paul Ecke Ranch, has been the world leader in the development and distribution of poinsettias of every color and description. Paul has given generously of his time and talent to his country, the State of California, and the people of San Diego County. On a more personal note, Paul has been a friend and mentor to me before and after I became a member of Congress. Often, when he disagrees with me and offers constructive criticism, I appreciate him most. This Monday, the people of San Diego County will honor Paul Ecke, Jr., for his lifetime achievements and his contributions to the community. I know that Congress will join the people of San Diego in celebrating this great man and his ongoing achievements.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening, along with so many of my colleagues, to express my frustration and disgust with the situation that is currently boiling over in the Middle East. How long can we allow this bloodbath to continue? How long will we have to witness Israeli families blown apart by maniacal, suicidal murderers; Palestinian children lying dead on the street; young Israeli men and women buried alive in collapsed buildings; or Palestinian families huddling inside their homes, terrified to step out even to buy food? The latest news of more people--human beings with friends and family-- who have been killed today is heartbreaking. The Israeli and Palestinian people are on a downward spiral, heading quickly toward that state of nature conceived by Thomas Hobbes, where Palestinian and Israeli children born into the world can expect only one thing: a life that is ``nasty, brutish, and short.'' This situation is an outrage. I am outraged that Hamas and other Palestinian groups are spreading their poisonous lies of suicidal ``martyrdom.'' I am outraged that some members of the Palestinian leadership are apparently using suicide attacks as a tactical weapon against the Israeli people. This cult of martyrdom is disgusting and I vigorously condemn it. As President Bush stated so accurately last week, suicide bombers ``are not martyrs, they are murderers.'' I call on the Palestinian leadership to understand this fact and acknowledge that these attacks are an assault on civilization itself. We cannot hope to see progress in the Middle East until suicide bombings stop. As the elected and recognized leader of the Palestinian people, Yasser Arafat must unequivocally denounce this barbarism and crack down on those who are unwilling to cooperate. At the same time, we cannot expect to see an end to this horror until the Israeli government ends its military assault in the West Bank. Too many Palestinian civilians have needlessly suffered over the past few weeks. I am horrified at reports of Palestinian families having their homes bulldozed over their heads, children being shot on their way to buy bread, and families being forced out of their homes because their houses are being used as Israeli military outposts. Palestinian children have been witness to scenes that we can hardly bear to watch 6,000 miles away on television--scenes of their homes and homeland destroyed, their friends and family killed in crossfire, their brothers and fathers taken away by the Israeli military, not knowing when or if they will return. This new generation of Palestinian youth will grow up with these images burned into their psyches. They will never forget them. This military assault may bring short-term results, but it tears down the long-term prospects for true reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. Mr. Speaker, peace between these two proud peoples has seemed an impossible goal for so many decades. But I refuse to believe that peace is impossible. Over the past half-century, we have been witness to incredible historical reconciliation between people who we thought would always hate each other. I stubbornly believe that peace in the Middle East is inevitable. It may be elusive and it may be complicated, but it will happen and I, along with so many of my colleagues tonight, will rejoice when it does.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Administration to continue its diplomatic efforts to end the violence in the Middle East. Today I introduced H. Res. 374, which affirms the House's commitment to the principles stated in UN Security Council Resolution 1397 and expresses support for the diplomatic efforts of the General Anthony Zinni, to restart the peace process in the Middle East. This resolution is a positive statement of our support for the Israeli and Palestinian people who are needlessly suffering. It is also a statement of support for President Bush's renewed diplomatic initiative to bring both parties back to the peace table. Over the past 18 months, the Israeli and Palestinian people have been locked in a cycle of violence that has only grown worse with each passing day. The violence has become particularly bloody in recent weeks, with over 270 Palestinian and Israeli people killed in the month of March alone. There are two unmistakable conclusions that we must draw from this violence. First, it is clear that there is no military solution to the conflict. Palestinian terrorists must know that murdering innocent civilians and forcing the Israeli people to live in fear will not be tolerated and can never lead to a fair, just, or lasting peace. Likewise the Israeli government must also know that the indiscriminate use of force against Palestinian civilians, the targeting of medical personnel and ambulances, and effectively forcing the entire Palestinian population to live under house arrest, will only further enrage the Palestinian people. It will also do little to provide security to the Israeli people. Second, it is now painfully obvious that the United States cannot afford to remain on the sidelines of this conflict. It is clearly in our national interest to see a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution to this issue--to see, as UN Security Council Resolution 1397 states, ``two sovereign states able to reside in peace with one another.'' Over the past 18 months, both sides have demonstrated that, left to their own devices, peace will remain an impossible goal. It is time for the United States to reinvest its diplomatic resources in this conflict, and to push both sides back to the peace table. Mr. Speaker, I remain stubbornly optimistic that peace is inevitable. As the Israeli statesman Abba Eban once said, ``nations are capable of acting rationally--but only after they have exhausted all the other alternatives.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe that maybe, just maybe, the nations of the Middle East have finally exhausted all the alternatives and are ready to make peace. I am encouraged by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's proposal to have ``full normalization'' of relations with Israel as part of the package for a negotiated political settlement. This proposal, coming from one what has historically been one of Israel's fiercest enemies, should be fully embraced and encouraged by our government. My good friend and colleague, John Dingell and I have sent a letter to President Bush asking him to continue to further develop this idea with the Saudi government. I look forward to the upcoming Arab Summit, where this idea will be made into a concrete proposal, and I hope and pray that one day we will see the men, women, and children of the Holy Lands, live in peace together.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I and my fellow colleagues are introducing legislation today because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has not sufficiently proven to Congress that they can fix their organization on their own, and because they are continually being plagued by the same problems year in and year out. We are offering H.R. 4009 because we believe accountability is integral to any organization. The INS has been inept, irresponsible and deficient in their ability to the performance of their duties. This bill will make the entire organization responsible, from the highest level down to the entry- level employee, by taking away restrictions on dismissing INS employees and placing them in the same category as FBI employees. This bill will also make permanent the authority of the Attorney General to remove, suspend, and impose other disciplinary actions on the employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). We are introducing this legislation in direct response to a hearing that was held on March 19, 2002 in the Judiciary Committee. During the hearing, Commissioner Ziglar accepted responsibility for his Agency's action, or non-action. However, I am not confident that this will be the last time he will come before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee for his Agency's mistakes. My legislation will give the Department of Justice and the INS the proper tools to promote accountability. I believe it is a good first step on a long journey towards INS reform.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2341, ``The Class Action Fairness Act of 2002.'' I thank Congressman Bob Goodlatte, author of this bill, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner and the Judiciary Committee staff for their leadership on this bill. Class action lawsuits serve a very important role, but the legal system is being compromised because attorneys have been the benefactors of class action lawsuit settlements, not the plaintiffs. These lawsuits should be weighed on their own merits. The decision to file in a certain state or region should not be based on the possibility of the courts having favorable attitudes toward certifying class action suits against out- of-state corporations. Many times, attorneys find a topic or angle for a class action lawsuit and then begin to seek plaintiffs, sometimes in a different region than where the problem occurred. When they register a large number of plaintiffs, the lawyers file a class action suit in a favorable state forum and modify the case so that it will be exempt from federal jurisdiction. These attorneys then are not beholden to any one individual, allowing them to broker a settlement that provides minimal benefits to the class members, but may reward the attorneys handsomely. Additionally, lawyers in other states can bring forward an identical ``copy cat'' lawsuit, forcing companies to defend the same case in another court, with potentially different results. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for their products. H.R. 2341 brings fairness to the class action arena by providing a federal forum for out-of-state defendants and out-of-state plaintiff class members. Instead of having plaintiffs in multiple states bring forward the same lawsuit. This bill will only allow one lawsuit and it must be handled at the federal level. It emphasizes efficiency by ensuring only one bite at the apple. The current system has judges from one state deciding the fate of plaintiffs from other states, and binding them to whatever decision the judge brings down or the lawyers reach in a settlement. This legislation will provide the plaintiff an opportunity for settlements that benefit them. H.R. 2341 protects the rights of the plaintiffs or class members with inclusion of a Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights. It will begin to address reform on an issue and at a time where numbers of class action suits have skyrocketed. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill and I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.