Honoring the life, legacy, and example of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his death.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House today honors the memory of one of the 20th century's most remarkable leaders.

It has now been more than a decade since Yitzhak Rabin was laid to rest. Just 3 weeks ago, it was my great honor to represent the Congress at the official remembrance ceremony for Prime Minister Rabin at his grave on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem. It was a deeply emotional event and a spell-binding experience.

Rabin was eulogized by many, but none spoke more eloquently and with more feeling than former President Bill Clinton and our current Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

As is the custom in Israel, I placed rocks on the graves of both Yitzhak Rabin and his wife, Leah, who were friends of mine and my wife, Annette, as well.

I was privileged to attend the opening of the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israeli Studies housed in Tel Aviv in a building designed by the incredibly talented architect Moshe Safdie. Through exhibits, seminars and scholarship, it will serve as an appropriate and permanent memorial to the late, great Prime Minister.

Many of us in this Chamber remember where we were and what we were doing and the devastation we felt on November 4, 1995, as if the tragedy had happened just moments ago. I was reading a book about Abraham Lincoln, the first American President to be assassinated. I remember telling my wife that despite all their difficulties, troubles and turmoil, the Israelis at least escaped seeing their leaders assassinated; and an hour later, the television reported that Rabin had just been shot to death.

Rabin's life was more majestic than the moment of his murder was horrible, powerful as the memory of that moment is. His life was rich with legendary achievements and, as befits the first native-born Israeli to lead his Nation, his life was also rich with symbolism:

He played a key role in Israel's War of Independence, and he was critical, of course, to Israel's historic success in the Six-Day War. As Ambassador to the United States, he helped lay the groundwork of U.S. support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War. His honest, piercing insights and sometimes gruff style seemed to epitomize a Nation renowned both for brilliance and directness.

In his last years, at times he publicly reflected on the meaning of peace and war and life and death. And, when he did so, he surprised many of us by revealing in a gravelly voice and in incongruously defined tones, a soul seemingly forged by the psalmists and the profits.

His story has been told and retold many times and is familiar to most of us. As a youth, he turned down a British mandate scholarship that would have allowed him to study hydraulic engineering at Berkeley, my alma mater, and perhaps pursue a life of more conventional success. Instead, he anchored his life to serving his people and his homeland. He became a warrior, a strategist, a politician, a diplomat, a statesman, and a peacemaker. He became a general, a chief of staff, an ambassador, a defense minister, and a prime minister.

My wife, Annette, and I were privileged to know him in all of his various roles. We knew him and his wife Leah well, and we loved them dearly. Rabin was already a giant of Israeli history when he initiated the period of intense peacemaking that began with the Oslo agreement. For all his many legendary accomplishments, it is that period that dominates our memory of him, in part because it contrasted so sharply with the military glories of his past and because he was cruelly and tragically forced to exit the scene before he found out if his labors for peace would bear fruit.

President Clinton has said that there undoubtedly would have been peace had Rabin lived. I am not so sure. But we will never know for certain. It is more than possible that Rabin's best efforts would have been thwarted by the devious and malevolent Arafat, just as the best efforts of Rabin's successors were.

But I do know this, Mr. Speaker. Rabin would have signed a final peace agreement only if he were absolutely convinced that it would enhance the security of the democratic State of Israel. The one final peace agreement he did sign, the treaty with Jordan, is today the sturdiest of all Israel's various agreements with Arab States, and Yitzhak was a peacemaker with a spine of steel.

To me, one aspect of Rabin's life stands out above all others. He was a leader. Shimon Peres said it well of Prime Minister Rabin at his funeral, calling him ``a rare leader, capable of uprooting mountains and blazing trails, of designating a goal and achieving it.''

Many qualities contributed to his supreme leadership skills, not least his thorough identification with his people, their aspirations, their anguish, and their sorrows. But his extra dimension, what made him a special leader, a giant among giants, was his remarkable intellect and his capacity for intellectual growth. As he aged, his mind seemed to grow ever more keen and supple. When he signed the agreement with Arafat in 1993, he explained it in part by saying that the Iraqi missiles that rained down on Tel Aviv convinced him that territory alone would not bring security, and that the intifada of 1987 had convinced him that Israel could never forever rule angry and hostile people.

When he embraced peace, Rabin implicitly created an operational paradigm for a two-state solution, subsequently adopted by our own government, a paradigm that remains at the heart of all realistic visions of peace today, a paradigm that has been embraced and elaborated upon by some of his fiercest critics.

Above all, Rabin believed passionately in democracy and its values. In his final speech, at the peace rally in Tel Aviv, and President Clinton and Condoleezza Rice and several of us, several tens of thousands of us attended a similar rally at the same place 3 weeks ago, his final speech indicated that he was aware of foreboding intelligence reports because he warned, and I quote, ``violence undermines the very foundations of democracy. Controversies may arise in democracy, but the decision must be reached through Democratic elections.'' Moments later, he became a martyr to a gunshot.

Today, 10 years after the tragedy, we look at Rabin even with the clear-headedness that was his own hallmark, and we recognize him as one of the towering figures of our lifetime. We miss him, but we are guided by his multiple legacy of courage and wisdom and belief in the unflagging importance of U.S.-Israeli friendship and his intertwined commitment to security and peace.

It is very appropriate that our body honor the memory of one of our great late friends, Mr. Speaker. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from New York for drafting this most important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on all these issues and for yielding me time. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) for all of her support for reforms at the U.N., as well as support for the State of Israel, what is right, and my dear friend and colleague on the House Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who has worked with me on a number of issues relating to reforms at the U.N. and various other issues that we hold very near and dear to our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, what if I were to ask you the following question? Maybe would you possibly guess what is the answer. As you know, the United Nations has about 190 countries in it, 190 countries in the United Nations. What if I told you that over the last 30 years, about on average one-third of each of the resolutions each year at the United Nations for the last 30 years, about one-third of the resolutions relate to criticizing one country, every year, one-third of the resolutions of the General Assembly of the U.N.

You would say, wow, one country gets one-third of the resolutions at the U.N.? What country deserves the attention, the energy, the money, the hot air of the U.N. and the condemnation of that world body? Well, you would say, maybe had to do with the slaughter in the Sudan, the genocide in Rwanda or Cambodia or Bosnia, or the actions of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Maybe those nations. Well, we are only talking about one, so it cannot be all of them. Would one of those be the one that for 30 years has gotten one-third of the resolutions condemning a country?

What if I told you that the country that for the last 30 years was condemned with 30 percent of the resolutions at the U.N., the only country, was the State of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East? They get one-third of the resolutions of the U.N. addressed to it, the State of Israel, condemning it.

You would say, wow, what did Israel do to deserve that? Is it because Israel is a democracy and the world does not like democracies? The U.N. is against democracies, so they attack the only democracy in the Middle East? Or maybe you are more cynical and you say, ah hah, the Arab world does not like the State of Israel, so since the Arab world has all the oil, maybe that is why the U.N. devotes one-third of its resolutions every year to criticizing Israel, because they have no oil and the Arabs do not like Israel. Or maybe it is because Israel is America's best friend in the Middle East, its most reliable and trusted ally in the Middle East, and maybe that is why the U.N. does not like Israel. Or maybe you might say maybe it is because Israel is the only Jewish state in the world. Maybe that is why the U.N., of the 190 nations, singles out Israel for one-third of its resolutions a year, every year, for the last 30 years.

The 5 million Jews in Israel deserve castigation and condemnation, out of the 6 billion people on the planet, and

we pay American taxpayer dollars to finance the U.N. to do that? It is absurd. It is immoral. It is shameful.

Yet just last week, the United Nations again passed six more resolutions condemning the State of Israel. And if it is on target for each of the last 30 years, this year the United Nations will expend one-third of its resolutions criticizing one nation in the world, the tiny state, the only democracy in the Middle East, the only Jewish state in the world, the State of Israel.

Something is terribly wrong, Mr. Speaker, and this resolution that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and I have put together, with the help and support of the leadership of both parties, on the IR Committee and in the House, simply says to the United Nations that they should stop supporting these resolutions, wasting their money attacking America's best friend, the only Jewish state in the world, and instead use their energy, if they want to focus on the Middle East, how about the slaughter going on in all the dictatorships in the Arab world?

Why does the U.N. not spend its money more constructively if they want to be a legitimate help in resolving issues in the Middle East? Maybe they want to introduce some pro-democracy movements in all of the Arab dictatorships in the Middle East, or maybe they want to introduce some resolutions about the torture in Arab nations around the world, or the genocide going on in every continent of the world.

But I must tell you this: The American taxpayers are sick and tired, as are the Members of this House of Representatives, of the United Nations wasting our taxpayer money to attack our best friend for no reason with double standards. It is shameful, it is fraudulent, it is slanderous. There is no way to describe their lies being offered up as truths. And we are paying for it as a member nation of the U.N.? That is wrong.

The U.N. must stop its double standard against the State of Israel, wasting one-third of its resolutions for the whole year attacking Israel, or they are going to have to deal with the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H. Res. 535, which honors Yitzhak Rabin on the 10th anniversary of his assassination. I am honored to be the sponsor of this resolution, and I would like to thank my colleagues on the International Relations Committee for their assistance and support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by my colleagues, November 4th marked the 10th anniversary of the brutal assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, a warrior turned peacemaker. In a recent national poll, Israelis ranked Rabin's assassination as the third most formative event in the Nation's history, after the 1967 and 1973 wars. Rabin's impact in life was tremendous and his loss to the world is incalculable.

I remember attending his funeral in Israel with many Members of this body and the other body as well, and many leaders, international leaders, and leaders of other nations. Who can forget the moving eulogy by then President Bill Clinton, who, among other things, said about Mr. Rabin, ``shalom chaver,'' which means ``goodbye friend.''

Mr. Speaker, my legislation highlights the legacy of the man. The Hebrew word for the anniversary of a death is Yizkor, which simply means remember. While mourning his loss, we must also celebrate his life.

Yitzhak Rabin dedicated his life to the cause of peace and security for the State of Israel by defending his nation against all threats, including terrorism, and undertaking courageous risks in the pursuit of peace. By adopting this resolution, Congress will honor the life, legacy, and example of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

This resolution expresses our admiration for Mr. Rabin's legacy and recognizes his historic service to the Israeli people, while extending our deepest sympathy and condolences to his family and the people of Israel. It also reiterates our continued support for the close ties and special relationship between the United States and Israel and the building of a just and lasting peace between Israel and all of its neighbors.

We also condemn any and all acts of terrorism, including one that happened just the other day in Netanya, and reaffirm unequivocally the sacred principle that democratic leaders and governments must be changed only by the democratically expressed will of the people.

Rabin was the first Sabra, a native-born Israeli, to become prime minister. He was born in Jerusalem and later volunteered for the Palmach, the elite unit of the Haganah, the predecessor of the Israeli Defense Forces. He served for 27 years, including during the 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Suez War, and as Chief of Staff in the June 1967 Six-Day War. In 1975, Prime Minister Rabin signed the Interim Agreement with Egypt, which lay the groundwork for the 1979 Camp David Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt. He also served as ambassador here in Washington, ambassador to the U.S., from 1968 to 1973, Minister of Defense from 1984 to 1990, and Prime Minister from 1974 to 1977 and from 1992 until his assassination in 1995.

On September 13, 1993, in Washington, D.C., Yitzhak Rabin signed the Declaration of Principles framework agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. I remember it well. I attended with my wife, who was then 7 months pregnant, and it had to be 95 degrees in Washington, but we sat on the White House lawn and watched the historic ceremony because we wanted to be a part of it. Upon signing, Rabin said to the Palestinian people, ``We say to you today in a loud and clear voice, enough of blood and tears. Enough. We harbor no hatred toward you. We have no desire for revenge. We, like you, are people who want to build a home, plant a tree, love, live side-by-side with you, in dignity, empathy, as humans beings, as free men.''

He received the 1994 Nobel Prize For Peace for his vision and bravery as a peacemaker. The following year, as was pointed out, Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan signed a peace treaty between their countries, and we know about the tragic assassination. And as was stated before, his last words were, ``I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace, are prepared to take risks for peace, peace is what the Jewish people aspire to.''

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, Israel and the world lost a leader of vision and strength. Former Prime Minister Rabin epitomized the essence of the State of Israel, fierce in his defense of his homeland, but always willing to go the extra mile for peace. As we remember him on the tenth anniversary of his death, let us express the hope that Israel and its neighbors will someday experience this peace that he worked so hard to achieve. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 535.

Mr. Speaker I rise in support and as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 438, which urges member states of the United Nations to stop supporting resolutions that unfairly castigate Israel and to promote within the United Nations General Assembly more balanced and constructive approaches to resolving conflict in the Middle East.

Israel is a critical strategic ally of the United States and is the only true democracy in the Middle East. The United States and Israel are built on a common set of core democratic principles and operate under the rule of law. The United States and Israel must continue to work closely together to eliminate terrorism and foster the spread of democracy and economic prosperity throughout the Middle East.

The state of Israel, founded shortly after the Holocaust, serves as a safe haven and strong voice for Jews around the world.

The Charter of the United Nations--adopted after the end of World War II--states that the U.N. was founded to ``maintain international peace and security'' and ``develop friendly relations among nations.'' The Charter also states that ``[this] Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.''

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has utterly failed to live up to the principles and obligations of its charter when it comes to its treatment of Israel. The United Nations has a long history of singling out Israel for unfair, biased, and one-sided criticism and treatment. Let me mention just a few examples. Israel is the only country that has three special committees set up to support propaganda against it. Israel is the only country that has had its own agenda item dealing with its alleged human rights violations in annual meetings of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, in contrast to all other countries which are combined into a separate agenda item. Israel is the only member nation of the United Nations that has consistently been denied full admission to its regional grouping, which violates the U.N. Charter guarantee of ``sovereign equality'' and denies Israel the right to fully participate in all U.N. functions.

Out of the ten emergency special sessions called by the United Nations General Assembly, six have related to Israel. During last year's session of the U.N. General Assembly, the body adopted a total of 71 resolutions by roll call vote, 21 of which (roughly 30 percent) criticized Israel. These resolutions are biased and one-sided, and I am disappointed that the U.N. has not focused its efforts on condemning and bringing an end to Palestinian terrorist attacks launched against Israel.

Finally, I want to cite the recent bipartisan task force report issued in June 2005 entitled ``American Interests and U.N. Reform: Report of the Task Force on the United Nations.'' The report, authored by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, found that ``systematic hostility'' against Israel is ``routinely expressed, organized, and funded'' within the U.N. system, which treats Israel as a ``second-class citizen.''

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has a critical role to play in the 21st century in its role as peacekeeper, election monitor, and humanitarian relief provider. The U.N. has also made great strides in promoting the rule of law and democracy. Unfortunately, the U.N. to date has not played a constructive role in resolving conflict in the Middle East, and the U.N. allowed itself to be hijacked by those with a political agenda. I have also written to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and expressed my concerns about anti-Semitic statements made by U.N. officers, and have urged him to follow the lead of the Helsinki Commission and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in combating anti-Semitism. I hope today's resolution will cause the U.N. and its member states to reevaluate their attitudes toward Israel and to reflect on how they can use the U.N. to make a constructive and meaningful contribution to international peace and security.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution. The primary pathology that infects the United Nations General Assembly is its continuing obsession with singling out and castigating the democratic nation of Israel by the passing of a series of outrageous resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my good friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for offering this measure which encourages the U.N. to confront this pathology.

Mr. Speaker, the U.N.'s obsessive focus on Israel is not just an obstacle to the promotion of peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. The massive amount of time and resources spent on this issue by the General Assembly and the so-called U.N. Human Rights Commission crowds out the consideration of truly critical problems such as the ongoing genocide in Darfur, the AIDS crisis in Africa, Mugabe's murderous campaign against his own citizens in Zimbabwe, and scores of other real issues.

The climate created by the repeated passage of anti-Israeli measures at the U.N. also emboldens the most hate-filled, ignorant, and pathological members of the international community such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently declared that Israel should be wiped off the map.

The U.N.'s repeated official condemnation of Israel's efforts to provide basic security for its citizens also emboldens further violence and terrorism against innocent Israelis.

Just yesterday, five innocent Israeli civilians were killed by suicide bombers. Since Israel's population is 1/60th of ours, this would have amounted to mass murder had it occurred in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, several recent developments have provided the U.N. with an opportunity to move past its shameful legacy of bias and hatred for Israel. After decades of exclusion from positions of leadership at the U.N., Israel has gained a more normal status at the organization, culminating in the recent historic election of Israeli Ambassador Gillerman as vice president of the General Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the U.N. currently has two bold and principled leaders who have committed themselves to confronting the U.N.'s lingering anti- Semitism. Secretary General Kofi Annan has made numerous statements on this issue and convened an historic commemorative session on the 60 anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps earlier this year.

The new president of the General Assembly, Sweden's former distinguished ambassador here in Washington, my dear friend Jan Eliasson, pressed the General Assembly to adopt a U.N. date to memorialize the suffering of the Jewish people in the Holocaust as the first official act of the 60th session.

Mr. Speaker, the current U.N. reform effort also presents the organization with an opportunity to eliminate the three entities that support anti-Israel propaganda: The Division For Palestinian Rights, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. That is quite a title for an organization, which is useless.

Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that the U.N. will take advantage of this moment and will begin to reverse its pattern of outrageous attacks on Israel. I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 438.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my good friend and distinguished colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), the sponsor of the resolution.

(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a distinguished member of the International Relations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.