Mr. Chairman, the supporters of this legislation are completely correct that obviously real terrorist threats exist and we must act forcefully to safeguard our national security. But this bill is really three or four or five separate bills entirely, some of them unexceptional, some of them very questionable.

Under the excuse of national security, for example, the asylum provisions in this bill completely gut the possibility of many legitimate victims of persecution to be granted asylum. Asylum law is supposed to be about protecting individuals, including women and children, from serious human rights abuses; it is not supposed to be about seizing on any possible basis to deny a claim or return people to persecution.

Proponents of this bill have been making dramatic claims about terrorists abusing the asylum system to get into this country to perform acts of terrorism. But since 9/11, in fact, since the 1996 act, most asylum-seekers are in jail while resolution of their cases are pending so they cannot pose a threat. What this bill does is to change the standards by which the judgment is made as to whether they should get asylum; but while it is being judged, they are in jail. So this has nothing to do with alleviating a threat to this country.

For example, one provision would change current law to require that the applicant prove that his or her race, religion, et cetera is a central reason instead of merely a major reason for the legitimate fear of persecution in order to get asylum. This would force asylum applicants to prove the state of mind of their persecutors. What is the central reason of several different reasons? It makes it almost impossible to grant asylum.

Now, this was not, and some of the points in the manager's amendment were not in the bill before us last year. No one has ever seen some of these provisions until yesterday. This provision, at least, and I am gratified that the Committee on Rules made the amendment to be in order by me and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to strike this section of the bill, and in order for it to be passed tomorrow so that the Committee on the Judiciary can properly vet this bill or the asylum provisions can be properly looked at and we can deal with it adequately.

This section, in my judgment, would subject hundreds, maybe thousands, of people to being tortured or abused or shot because of their race, color, religion, creed, or opposition to a dictatorial regime back home, because it would make it impossible for them to get asylum. I think when this House examines this carefully, and when the committee examines this carefully, it will come to that conclusion. Maybe we out to change the asylum provisions, but we ought to do it after careful consideration.

So I hope that this bill will not be passed in its current form, and that my amendment will be passed so that we can give proper consideration to some of these provisions that do not really aid the national security, but do gut protection for people who need those protections.