Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" in multilateral fora.

Madam Speaker, I am submitting the following summary of the Goldstone Report as part of the debate on H. Res. 867.

Excerpt From United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

(The Goldstone Report)

B. Methodology

11. To implement its mandate, the Mission determined that

it was required to consider any actions by all parties that

might have constituted violations of international human

rights law or international humanitarian law. The mandate

also required it to review related actions in the entire

Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel.

12. With regard to temporal scope, the Mission decided to

focus primarily on events, actions or circumstances occurring

since 19 June 2008, when a ceasefire was agreed between the

Government of Israel and Hamas. The Mission has also taken

into consideration matters occurring after the end of

military operations that constitute continuing human rights

and international humanitarian law violations related to or

as a consequence of the military operations, up to 31 July

2009.

13. The Mission also analysed the historical context of the

events that led to the military operations in Gaza between

during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009

and the links between these operations and overarching

Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Occupied Palestinian

Territory.

14. The Mission considered that the reference in its

mandate to violations committed ``in the context'' of the

December--January military operations required it to include

restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms

relating to Israel's strategies and actions in the context of

its military operations.

15. The normative framework for the Mission has been

general international law, the Charter of the United Nations,

international humanitarian law, international human rights

law and international criminal law.

16. This report does not purport to be exhaustive in

documenting the very high number of relevant incidents that

occurred in the period covered by the Mission's mandate.

Nevertheless, the Mission considers that the report is

illustrative of the main patterns of violations. In Gaza, the

Mission investigated 36 incidents.

17. The Mission based its work on an independent and

impartial analysis of compliance by the parties with their

obligations under international human rights and humanitarian

law in the context of the recent conflict in Gaza, and on

international investigative standards developed by the United

Nations.

18. The Mission adopted an inclusive approach in gathering

information and seeking views. Information-gathering methods

included: (a) the review of reports from different sources;

(b) interviews with victims, witnesses and other persons

having relevant information); (c) site visits to specific

locations in Gaza where incidents had occurred; (d) the

analysis of video and photographic images, including

satellite imagery; (e) the review of medical reports about

injuries to victims; (f) the forensic analysis of weapons and

ammunition remnants collected at incident sites; (g) meetings

with a variety of interlocutors; (h) invitations to provide

information relating to the Mission's investigation

requirements; (i) the wide circulation of a public call for

written submissions; (j) public hearings in Gaza and in

Geneva.

19. The Mission conducted 188 individual interviews. It

reviewed more than 300 reports, submissions and other

documentation either researched of its own motion, received

in reply to its call for submissions and notes verbales or

provided during meetings or otherwise, amounting to more than

10,000 pages, over 30 videos and 1,200 photographs.

20. By refusing to cooperate with the Mission, the

Government of Israel prevented it from meeting Israeli

government officials, but also from travelling to Israel to

meet with Israeli victims and to the West Bank to meet with

Palestinian Authority representatives and Palestinian

victims.

21. The Mission conducted field visits, including

investigations of incident sites, in the Gaza Strip. This

allowed the Mission to observe first-hand the situation on

the ground, and speak to many witnesses and other relevant

persons.

22. The purpose of the public hearings, which were

broadcast live, was to enable victims, witnesses and experts

from all sides to the conflict to speak directly to as many

people as possible in the region as well as in the

international community. The Mission gave priority to the

participation of victims and people from the affected

communities. The 38 public testimonies covered facts as well

as legal and military matters. The Mission had initially

intended to hold hearings in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank.

However, denial of access to Israel and the West Bank

resulted in the decision to hold hearings of participants

from Israel and the West Bank in Geneva.

23. In establishing its findings, the Mission sought to

rely primarily and whenever possible on information it

gathered first-hand. Information produced by others,

including reports, affidavits and media reports, was used

primarily as corroboration.

24. The Mission's final conclusions on the reliability of

the information received were made taking into consideration

the Mission's assessment of the credibility and reliability

of the witnesses it met, verifying sources and methodology

used in reports and documents produced by others, cross-

referencing the relevant material and information, and

assessing whether, in all the circumstances, there was

sufficient information of a credible and reliable nature for

the Mission to make a finding in fact.

25. On this basis, the Mission has, to the best of its

ability, determined what facts have been established. In many

cases it has found that acts entailing individual criminal

responsibility have been committed. In all of these cases the

Mission has found that there is sufficient information to

establish the objective elements of the crimes in question.

In almost all of the cases the Mission has also been able to

determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question

were done deliberately or recklessly or in the knowledge that

the consequence that resulted would result in the ordinary

course of events. The Mission has thus referred in many cases

to the relevant fault element (mens rea). The Mission fully

appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence:

the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of

that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the

individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do

they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in

criminal trials.

26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an

opportunity to submit additional relevant information and

express their position and respond to allegations, the

Mission also submitted comprehensive lists of questions to

the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the

Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and

findings. The Mission received replies from the Palestinian

Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel

Recommendations

1769. To Israel

The Mission recommends that Israel immediately cease the

border closures and restrictions of passage through border

crossings with the Gaza Strip and allow passage of goods

necessary and sufficient to meet the needs of the population,

for the recovery and reconstruction of housing and essential

services and for the resumption of meaningful economic

activity in the Gaza Strip.

The Mission recommends that Israel cease the restrictions

on access to the sea for fishing purposes imposed on the Gaza

Strip and allow such fishing activities within the 20

nautical miles as provided for in the Oslo accords. It

further recommends that Israel allow the resumption of

agricultural activity within the Gaza Strip, including within

areas in the vicinity of the borders with Israel.

Israel should initiate a review of the rules of engagement,

standard operating procedures, open fire regulations and

other guidance for military and security personnel. The

Mission recommends that Israel avail itself of the expertise

of the ICRC, the United Nations Office of the High

Commissioner for Human Rights and other relevant bodies, and

Israeli experts, civil society organizations with the

relevant expertise and specialization, in order to ensure

compliance in this respect with international humanitarian

law and international human rights law. In particular such

rules of engagement should ensure that the principles of

proportionality, distinction, precaution and non-

discrimination are effectively integrated in all such

guidance and in any oral briefings provided to officers,

soldiers and security forces, so as to avoid the recurrence

of Palestinian civilian deaths, destruction and affronts on

human dignity in violation of international law.

The Mission recommends that Israel allow freedom of

movement for Palestinians within the OPT--within the West

Bank including East Jerusalem, between the Gaza Strip and

the West Bank and between the OPT and the outside world--in

accordance with international human rights standards and

international commitments entered into by Israel and the

representatives of the Palestinian people. The Mission

further recommends that Israel forthwith lifts travel bans

currently placed on Palestinians by reason of their human

rights or political activities.

The Mission recommends that Israel release Palestinians who

are detained in Israeli prisons in connection with the

occupation. The release of children should be an utmost

priority. The Mission further recommends that Israel cease

the discriminatory treatment of Palestinian detainees. Family

visits for prisoners from Gaza should resume.

Israel should forthwith cease interference with national

political processes in the OPT, and as a first step release

all members of the Palestinian Legislative Council currently

in detention and allow all members of the PLC to move between

Gaza and the West Bank so that the Council may resume

functioning.

The Government of Israel should cease actions aimed at

limiting the expression of criticism by civil society and

members of the public concerning Israel's policies and

conduct during the military operations in the Gaza Strip. The

Mission also recommends that Israel set up an independent

inquiry to assess whether the treatment by Israeli judicial

authorities of Palestinian and Jewish Israelis expressing

dissent in connection with the offensive was discriminatory,

both in terms of charges and detention pending trial. The

results of the inquiry should be made public and, subject to

the findings, appropriate remedial action should be taken.

The Government of Israel should refrain from any action of

reprisal against Palestinian and Israeli individuals and

organizations that have cooperated with the UN Fact Finding

Mission on the Gaza Conflict, in particular individuals who

have appeared at the Public Hearings held by the Mission in

Gaza and Geneva and expressed criticism of actions by the

State of Israel.

The Mission recommends that Israel reiterates its

commitment to respect the inviolability of UN premises and

personnel and that it undertakes all appropriate measures to

ensure that there is no repetition of violations in the

future (ref Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the

UN). It further recommends that reparation to the United

Nations be provided fully and without further delay by the

State of Israel, and that the General Assembly consider this

matter.

I770. To Palestinian armed groups

The Mission recommends that Palestinian armed groups

undertake forthwith to respect international humanitarian

law, in particular by renouncing attacks on Israeli civilians

and civilian objects, and take all feasible precautionary

measures to avoid harm to Palestinian civilians during

hostilities.

The Mission recommends that Palestinian armed groups who

hold Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in detention release him on

humanitarian grounds. Pending such release they should

recognize his status as prisoner of war, treat him as such,

and allow him ICRC visits.

1771. To responsible Palestinian authorities

The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority issue

clear instructions to security forces under its command to

abide by human rights norms as enshrined in the Palestinian

Basic Law and international instruments; ensure prompt and

independent investigation of all allegations of serious human

rights violations by security forces under its control; and

end resort to military justice to deal with cases involving

civilians.

The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority and

the Gaza authorities release without delay all political

detainees currently in their power and refrain from further

arrests on political grounds and in violation of

international human rights law.

The Mission recommends that the Palestinian Authority and

the Gaza authorities continue to enable the free and

independent operation of Palestinian non-governmental

organizations, including human rights organizations, and of

the Independent Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire whether the gentlewoman from Florida is opposed to the resolution. If she is not, I request the time in opposition to the resolution, because I am, in fact, opposed to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

I would like to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their openness and professionalism in this debate.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose H. Res. 867, a resolution that condemns the Goldstone Report regarding the conflict in Gaza. This resolution should be opposed because it suppresses inquiry, inquiry that is the hallmark of democratic societies.

The resolution contains factual errors and undermines Israel's ability to conduct its own investigation. The resolution goes against President Obama's foreign policy direction. I ask my colleagues to review the facts about the Goldstone Report's integrity and the content of his report.

First, what is there to fear about Judge Goldstone? Judge Goldstone has a stellar reputation. He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina and for serving as a chief prosecutor for the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals. He is a self-described Zionist. He serves as a trustee at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Judge Goldstone has said that bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, the debate about the Goldstone Report has been diverted by serious problems with the original U.N. resolution called for in the report. I agree that the first U.N. resolution calling for an investigation of the Gaza war was one-sided and focused unfairly on Israel. Let me repeat: I agree that the original U.N. resolution was unfair. But Judge Goldstone pushed back. He succeeded in expanding the scope of the mission to include an examination of actions of both Hamas and Israel.

So what does the Goldstone Report really say? Four sections of the report deal with abuses by Hamas, including the launching of rockets into civilian towns in Israel. The report explicitly states these rocket attacks are war crimes. The report recounts actions by Israel in Operation Cast Lead that harmed the civilian population in Gaza.

I repeat the point I started with. The word ``inquiry'' is an essential hallmark of democracy, and Israel is strong enough to withstand an investigation of its actions in the Gaza war. Hamas should investigate its actions as well and be held to account.

What if Israel would have participated in the review from the beginning? It could have pointed out that the United Nations Humans Rights Council has a history of unfairly singling Israel out for criticism. It could have pointed out the consequences of the Hamas rocket attacks.

Let's consider the following question: Why are we going to pass a resolution without holding a single hearing? Why is the House voting for a resolution which condemns a report that few Members have fully read?

House Members should know that Israeli leaders, like Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, a Likud party member, and National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau have called for Israel to conduct its own investigation.

I urge Members to oppose this resolution because it will undermine President Obama's commitment that all countries, including our own and our allies, should be accountable for their actions. This resolution complicates the President's current Middle East initiative.

I conclude with a letter written by Israeli human rights groups who oppose the resolution. ``We are concerned that H. Res. 867 may derail the momentum towards an Israeli investigation. Resolution 867 contains factual inaccuracies, both about the Goldstone Report and the measures taken by Israel to date, that must not guide choices by policymakers. We urge interested parties and Members of the House to show their support for the internal democratic conversation taking place in Israel today and to call on Israel to demonstrate that it can ensure genuine accountability at home.''

When nations like the United States, Israel, South Africa, and others have pursued truthful investigation, however uncomfortable, their people have emerged stronger. The House of Representatives is poised to condemn the Goldstone Report today because the report says that both parties to the conflict engaged in possible violations of international law. What is the logic of the action? How does it advance the cause of peace in the Middle East?

I urge my colleagues to look closely at the Goldstone Report, which is right here on this table, and what actions truly advance the cause of peace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield an additional 5 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman 10 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Baird).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. John Dingell.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

May I inquire as to time, Madam Speaker?

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota, Congresswoman McCollum.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 5 seconds.

I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Capps.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I am going to take the balance of my time to close. As I do, I would like to first of all have entered into the Record a letter from Israeli human rights organizations, including B'Tselem, Gisha, the Public Committee Against Torture, Rabbis for Human Rights, and Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights.

In regards to: House Resolution 867 regarding the Goldstone

Commission report on Operation Cast Lead.

To: Interested Persons.

From: Israeli Human Rights organizations.

To Whom It May Concern: We appeal to you as representatives

of the human rights community in Israel regarding House

Resolution 867.

From day one, the Israeli human rights community has

consistently called for Israel to conduct an independent and

impartial investigation into the conduct of its forces during

``Operation Cast Lead'' in the Gaza Strip. Today, this call

is increasingly echoed by Israelis across the political

spectrum. Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (Likud), Minister

of Improvement of Government Services Michael Eitan (Likud),

Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman (Labor), and

National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael

Beiteinu) have all called for such an inquiry, as has Aryeh

Deri, former leader of the Shas party. The US State

Department has called for such an inquiry as has National

Security Advisor James Jones.

Such an investigation, provided it meets international

standards for scope and independence, would put an end to the

polarizing international debate around the Goldstone Report

and show that Israel is a law-abiding state that can ensure

accountability at home.

However, we are concerned that H. Res. 867 may derail the

momentum towards an Israeli investigation. Resolution 867

contains factual inaccuracies, both about the Goldstone

Report and about the measures taken by Israel to date, that

must not guide choices by policy makers.

We urge interested parties and Members of the House to show

their support for the internal democratic conversation taking

place in Israel and to call on Israel to demonstrate that it

can ensure genuine accountability at home.

Sincerely,

B'Tselem.

Gisha.

Hamoked--Center for the Defence of the Individual.

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.

Rabbis for Human Rights.

Yesh Din--Volunteers for Human Rights.

I would also like to enter into the Record the Goldstone Report itself. This voluminous document, 574 pages, which I hope Members will take the opportunity to read.

I can't yield with the short time I have.

The point is I have already received unanimous consent and do intend to enter the document into the Record. But what I ask for, from all sides, it is clear that everybody in this body is very concerned about peace in the Middle East. We all have to assume best intentions from everyone, and we have to look to this issue with a mind toward helping Israel and the Palestinians to come to a lasting peace. Two states, two people, in security, side by side.

I don't think this resolution helps us achieve that. So I will be voting ``no,'' and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask unanimous consent to extend the debate time in light of the fact that we have three factions asking for time. I would ask for unanimous consent to extend equally the debate time, because we have so many requests for time.

I yield to the gentleman from California for the purpose of talking about debate time, not taking from my time.

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

This past winter, Operation Cast Lead in Israel exercised its right as a sovereign nation and its obligation to defend its citizens, and its very existence, against attacks by Hamas and other violent extremist groups in Gaza.

Israel did so while taking extraordinary measures to minimize the risk of civilian casualties. Indeed, as Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, has stated: ``During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.''

Then, in January, the Human Rights Council, dominated by dictatorships, voted to authorize a so-called fact-finding mission. Notably, most free democratic nations did not render their support for this sham. The mission's mandate had nothing to do with fact-finding and everything to do with persecuting Israel for defending herself. The mandate prejudged Israel's guilt, targeted only Israel, and Richard Goldstone agreed to head this mission.

Mr. Goldstone claims that he got the Human Rights Council president to modify the mandate. Well, my colleagues, just as the Speaker of the House cannot unilaterally change a resolution once adopted, neither could the president of the council change the mandate without the council's approval. Claims of a revised mandate are false since the council did not take any action to approve any modifications.

Fast forward to September, Mr. Speaker, when the so-called fact- finding mission released its report. Indeed, it's a 575-page hatchet job commonly known as the Goldstone Report.

While this report contains sweeping accusations that Israel had deliberately attacked civilians, in contrast the report disregarded evidence that Hamas and other such groups in Gaza used innocents as human shields and deliberately launched attacks from schools, from hospitals, from mosques. To fully appreciate the Goldstone Report's bias, one need only look at the testimony of an Israeli doctor whose clinic was hit by a rocket launched from Gaza.

The doctor, who was severely wounded in the attack and had already undergone seven operations to address her injuries, says, ``Judge Goldstone, in July you invited me to testify. I told you my story.

``I testified in good faith.

``But now I see your report. I have to tell you: I am shocked.

``Judge Goldstone, in a 500-page report, why did you completely ignore my story?

``I feel humiliated.

``Why are there only two pages about Israeli victims like me, who suffered thousands of rockets over 8 years?

``Why did you choose to focus on the period of my country's response, but not on that of the attacks that caused it?''

Mr. Goldstone claims that the report never sought to deny Israel its right to self-defense, but the report sought to cast Israel's actions in response to rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza, not as carefully targeted defensive measures, but as the deliberate infliction of violence on civilians.

This is not surprising. The fact-finding mission includes a member who, even as the operation was taking place in January of 2009, signed a statement entitled, ``Israel's bombardment of Gaza is not self- defense, it's a war crime.''

Indeed, this statement began by categorically rejecting Israel's right to defend herself against such attacks. Further, the words ``self-defense'' or similar terms never appear in the report. The report recommended further action by multiple U.N. bodies, including the General Assembly, the Security Council and International Criminal Court. The Human Rights Council has already used this report to condemn Israel. No surprise there.

Tomorrow, the General Assembly will likely to do the same. As Israel is being ostracized at the U.N., violent extremists in Gaza continued to fire rockets and mortars at innocent Israelis, 265 of the last 9 months alone. Just yesterday, militants in Gaza fired another rocket, which exploded near an Israeli residential area. No surprise there.

Israel's military intelligence chief testified yesterday that Hamas has test-fired a rocket with a 60-kilometer range, far enough to hit the Tel Aviv area, threatening up to 3 million Israelis.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am so honored to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), our well- respected and esteemed Republican whip.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Indiana, Mr. Burton, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), a member of the Agriculture, Transportation, and Veterans' Affairs Committees. A busy man.

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a member of the Agriculture, Education, and Veterans' Affairs Committees. Another very busy man.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.

We must recognize what is at stake here. The Goldstone Report asked for this matter to be considered by the International Criminal Court, equating Israel with the genocidal regime in Sudan. Today enemies of freedom seek to haul democratic, political and military leaders of Israel before an unaccountable court for defending their nation against Hamas, but how long before U.S. officials will have to face the same persecution for defending our Nation against al Qaeda or any other such threat?

Madam Speaker, the way forward is obvious. We must support the right of all democracies to defend ourselves and our citizens. We must reaffirm our support for Israel and her efforts to defend herself from violent Islamic militants and their state sponsors. We must oppose any attempts to grant consideration or endorsement to this irredeemably biased Goldstone Report.

House Resolution 867 achieves these goals, and 170 of our colleagues who cosponsored it agreed. My colleagues, we have a choice to make: stand with free democratic nations or send a message to those who seek Israel and America's destruction that they can continue unhampered as the U.N. and its apologists sweep under the proverbial rug incessant attacks like the ones Hamas and other violent extremists launched from Gaza against Israel. The choice is clear. Support this resolution.

Would the gentleman yield?

You asked unanimous consent to put the Goldstone Report in the Congressional Record, I object.

If my colleague would yield, I would like to know how much it will cost the taxpayers to put 575 pages of the Goldstone Report in the Congressional Record.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Is it correct that after a certain number of pages, there will be a cost estimate for the printing in the Congressional Record? This report is 575 pages, and I am wondering the cost to the taxpayers for the printing of this biased report.

I just want to be clear, when you asked under general leave for unanimous consent, that I will object to that for the printing in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 867) calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ``Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict'' in multilateral fora, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to divide my debate time equally with the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Could the gentlewoman, on her unanimous-consent request, which is not going to be entertained, yield to me?

I am told that as much as I would like to, because I am flooded with requests for time, and I think it's worthy of a longer debate that because of the schedule, the long delay today and the 1- minutes, the fact that tonight is an election night and a number of people have to get back to their districts, I cannot make such a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I plan to be the last speaker. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that under the rules, I have the right to close, so I will reserve my time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not correct that I sought and received unanimous consent for extraneous material to be introduced into the Record related to this resolution?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Is it not correct that with the exception of items introduced of more than a certain page, wherein the cost has been to be established and leave sought, that large items can also be put into the Record as part of that unanimous consent request?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The question is raised by several of the opposing speakers: Why are we doing this now? What's the rush? And the only rush, because I would prefer we have more time, I prefer we have more discussion, is that tomorrow the General Assembly, in its rush to adopt a resolution to send this matter to the Security Council and to the international criminal courts if there is not an investigation within 90 days, is speeding to a judgment, and I personally think it is very important for us to act on this matter before the General Assembly meets, debates, and votes.

Secondly, there have been glowing tributes, and I am sure they are deserved, to the record, the resume, the judgment, the reputation of Justice Goldstone. Several of my favorite Supreme Court justices voted in a decision called Korematsu to pick up Japanese Americans who resided in different parts of the United States and put them into detention camps. They are still my favorite justices, but they made a mistake. A wonderful jurist can issue a flawed report, and I would suggest this is such a situation.

Next, let's talk about the Human Rights Commission. The U.N. Human Rights Council is obsessed with Israel. They have had 24 negative resolutions on Israel in its 3 years of existence, which totals more than every other resolution on any other country regardless of their human rights record. Total, 24 on Israel; less on all of the other countries of the world. It is the only country which is on the permanent agenda of the Human Rights Council, and it is discussed every year automatically. The only country.

Now, we corrected what I think were some inaccuracies in the initial language regarding the mandate, and we recognize the efforts. Never, as my ranking member points, to formally change the mandate, but for Justice Goldstone to operate. But I would not rest my opposition, my support for this resolution, and my disagreement with the opponents simply based on the reputation and conduct of the Human Rights Council. The fact is I too believe the report is flawed.

I am going to take a couple of moments to quote from this coming week's New Republic an article by Moshe Halbertal. I want to quote two paragraphs which I think reflect better than I can say on my own the problem here and ask my colleagues to come to grips with this.

He writes, ``The commission that wrote the report,'' that is the Goldstone Report, ``could have performed a great service if it had concentrated on gathering the testimonies from Gaza and assessing them critically, while acknowledging (as the Goldstone Report failed to do) that they are partial and incomplete.''

By definition, they did not talk, for reasons that we all know, they did not talk to the Israeli forces that were involved in the crimes this commission found them to have committed.

``This would have forced Israel to investigate various matters, provide answers, and take appropriate measures.''

Continuing, ``But instead, the commission opted to add to its findings

three unnecessary elements: the context of the history that led to the war; its assessments of Israel's strategic goals; and long sections on Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Why should a committee with a mandate to inquire into the operation in Gaza deal with the Israeli- Palestinian conflict at large?

``The honest reader of these sections,'' and I have read those sections, ``cannot avoid the impression that their objective is to prepare a general indictment of Israel as a predatory state that is geared toward violating human rights all the time. It will naturally follow from such a premise that the Gaza operation was yet another instance of Israel's general wicked behavior. These long sections are the weakest, the most biased, and the most outrageous in this long document. They are nothing if not political. In Goldstone's account of the history that led to the war, for example, Hamas is basically described as a legitimate party that had the bad luck to clash with Israel. The bloody history of the movement--which, since the beginning of the Oslo accords, was determined to do everything in its power, including the massacre of civilians, to defeat the peace process--is not mentioned.''

We are in a very strange situation. Israel has conducted numerous investigations on this issue. I would like to see Israel conduct a formal inquiry on this particular issue. But until we in this Congress come here and recommend that some outside commission recognize the U.S. military because a number of civilians died in the asymmetrical war or when we dealt with Taliban forces in Afghanistan, or other issues that come in an asymmetrical war where the soldiers wear no uniforms and there is no front, don't start telling us that democratic allies like Israel have to have these investigations. Their process will produce the right result, I truly believe.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for the resolution.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for introducing and working with the chairman on this resolution.

I rise to voice my objection to the unfair, unbalanced, and inaccurate report of the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict, otherwise known as the Goldstone Report.

The report not only paints a distorted picture of Israel's legitimate efforts at self-defense, in my opinion, but it epitomizes the practice of singling Israel out from all other nations for condemnation.

The Goldstone Report does little to build confidence that the U.N. or its Human Rights Council can deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an evenhanded manner. I agree with those who spoke before me that it ought to, but the Goldstone Report does not give us much confidence that that's what's happening.

For one, the Human Rights Council's mandate for the report specifically targeted Israeli actions, ignoring, ignoring the deliberate Hamas attacks on civilians that provoked Israel's self- defense in Operation Cast Lead.

The report's lead author himself, Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, objected to that one-sided Band-Aid. Let me repeat that. Goldstone himself, when the commission issued its report, objected to that one-sided mandate that they issued. But notwithstanding his objection, it was not formally altered.

Similarly, former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, whom many of you know, Mary Robinson, not known as a great defender of Israel, Mary Robinson, who has criticized Israel's record in the past, also objected to this one-sided mandate. In her words, and I quote Mary Robinson: ``Unfortunately, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution seeking a fact-finding mission to only look at what Israel has done, and I don't think that's the human rights approach,'' said Mary Robinson.

Secretary of State Clinton agrees. She said this:

``We believe that the mandate for the Goldstone Report was one-sided and that many of the recommendations are appropriately dealt with by the institutions within Israel.''

And, indeed, if they were not, I would be here to say that we ought to support the United Nations' actions. The Goldstone Report largely neglects the context within which Israel's action took place. Why is that context so vital, and why is the report so empty without it? Because for years--for years--Israel has been the target of asymmetrical warfare for terrorists who hide behind civilians and aim to kill civilians. For 8 years before Operation Cast Lead, Hamas, aided by Iran and others, launched deadly rockets and mortar fire into Israel, even after Israel dismantled its Gaza settlements, even after it withdrew its military. More than 6,000 rockets have fallen indiscriminately on southern Israel's cities and towns. I can't imagine there is one of us in this Chamber that if Canada or Mexico rained down six missiles on our civilian population--not 6,000 on our population-- that there would be a Member here who would not want decisive response to stop that assault. Each was intended to kill the maximum number of civilians. These rockets did not target military targets. They targeted civilians. How do I know? I've been there, and I have seen the effectiveness firsthand of the fear that has been put in the minds of the people of Sderot and others.

In the Israeli town of Sderot, I saw children who had lost literally the ability to speak, who no longer had control over their bodily functions, who were condemned to play in an armored playground from fear of the rockets that could kill with only seconds' warning. There is no military establishment in Sderot. Families, children. That is the context of which the Goldstone Report makes such short shrift.

Tragically, civilians in Gaza suffered and continue to suffer. They suffer in major part from the determination of their imposed leaders to pursue indiscriminate terror. I have had a discussion with my friend Mr. Kucinich, for whom I have a great deal of respect. We ought to have great empathy for the Palestinian people who have been put at great risk by their leaders pursuing terrorism. We ought to have empathy for those children who live in the camps in Gaza. Terrible condition. I've been there. Is there anybody here who doubts that if those children living there for decade after decade after decade were European children or American children or Jewish children that they would still be there in those camps? I say to you, not the case. Why are they there? Because the Arab community does not want to absorb them, and their leaders will not seek a meaningful peace. That is why they're there.

Hamas, like its state sponsors, is notorious for using men, women and children as human shields and political props. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it earlier this year, ``Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage.'' They still do. Should we have empathy for those young people and not so young people held hostage? Absolutely, we should. Should we act to help their plight? Absolutely, we should. But that does not mean we ought to rationalize terrorists who attack children in Sderot or any other place. Hamas continues to hold them hostage, likely subjecting the Goldstone Report's Palestinian witnesses to intimidation and threats, a possibility that the report does not take into account, of course.

Unlike Hamas and its sponsors, Israel is a democracy with an independent judiciary, and all of us know that that judiciary frequently has said to the military and to the Israel Government, you cannot do this. You did it wrong. You're going to be held accountable. There is nothing like that in Gaza, little like that in the West Bank, although the West Bank is getting better. Its security is increasing. Abbas and Fayad are making progress. It is fully investigating its military for any--I am going back to Israel now--for any human rights violations that may have been committed in Gaza. That is appropriate. They ought to do that. Tragically, we know that when men and, indeed, women go to war, that there are those who do not always act properly on both sides. We need to hold that conduct accountable.

I believe in the integrity of Israel's investigations because I believe in its legitimacy as a democratic state, but I do not accept the legitimacy of singling out Israel for biased censure. It is essential to hold every nation to international norms of behavior in peace as well as in war. Israel must be held to the same standards as any other nation. It holds itself to such standards, I would add, even when its enemies do not. Indeed, few nations constrain themselves more than Israel, but no other nation has so many in the U.N. eager to condemn it, irrespective of facts and justification.

Soon, the U.N. General Assembly will vote on endorsing the Goldstone Report. Goldstone himself said that their report was not a fair report, but by doing so and by condemning Israel, the U.N. would also be threatening the just self-defense of any state endangered by asymmetrical warfare.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.