mr. speaker , hearing the chairman of the committee on rules describe this restricted rule as fair and balanced reinforces the fact that when people on the right in america politically tell you something is fair and balanced , you had better ask for another deck of cards . 
the rule not only limits the amendments ; and it makes sense , the chairman 's defense makes sense if you start from the perspective that no amendments ought to be allowed . 
and then when you let in two out of 10 , or two out of six , somehow you have been generous . 
ought not the assumption be in favor of openness , especially since the house has not been doing very much ? 
then the chairman said , well , we do not have to have long debate on these things ; after all , we had a hearing in the committee on rules , and it was streamed on line . 
anyone who thinks that a hearing in the committee on rules that is streamed on line is a substitute for open and free debate in the united states house of representatives , or anyone who says that , ought to remember , i would give just one piece of advice . 
no matter how pressed one feels in a debate , try to avoid saying something that no one is going to believe . 
it really does not help your cause . 
no one thinks that an online hearing in the committee on rules with a handful of members in a room that has 30 seats substitutes for free and open debate in the house of representatives , and particularly when you only give 10 minutes on a particular amendment . 
i want to talk about the amendment on asylum . 
we heard a lot of discussion last year in the election from people complaining that religion had been driven from the public square . 
well , guess who is ignoring religion this year ? 
the majority . 
the provisions on asylum have evoked overwhelming opposition from the various religious communities in america . 
i noted yesterday that the commission on interreligious freedom set up by this congress to protect religious freedom in the world put out earlier this week a report saying that our asylum procedures are too restrictive . 
and what is the response of the majority ? 
to make what the commission on interreligious freedom says is a bad situation much worse . 
i noted yesterday , in leviticus it says , and i have looked at various translations , various renderings , and in every one it sometimes says `` stranger , '' it sometimes says `` alien. '' it is clear it means people we would describe as immigrants . 
it says , treat them as you would treat the native born . 
now , i do not purport to be a religious scholar . 
i do not purport to be an expert in religious interpretation , but i am puzzled . 
can we turn leviticus on and off that way ? 
i mean , often i have heard leviticus quoted as justification for measures that are critical of homosexuals . 
do you not have to take it as a package ? 
i mean , if you are going to use leviticus to disadvantage homosexuals , do you not have to use it to be nice to immigrants ? 
is it not true that what is leviticus for the goose is leviticus for the gander ? 
again , i acknowledge i am not a theological expert , so i will turn to some who are . 
i got a copy yesterday from the interfaith statement . 
`` the real id act , '' it says , `` threatens the ability of victims of persecution to find safe haven in the united states , '' signed by a variety of jewish and catholic and protestant groups , the jesuit religious service , the episcopal migration ministries , the church world service , the jubilee campaign , the lutheran immigration and refugee service . 
mr. speaker , because i do not think that religion ought to be driven from the public square on an issue on which there is such an overwhelming religious consensus , i will offer a statement condemning this bill and its asylum provisions be inserted here . 
real id act threatens ability of victims of persecution to find safe haven in the united states as representatives of various faith traditions , we are deeply concerned that the real id act , legislation proposed by representative jim sensenbrenner ( r-wi ) , would make asylum a more remote possibility for hundreds of persons who need protection . 
we understand that safeguarding our national security is an urgent issue , and we support measures that honor that concern . 
we also subscribe to core beliefs which require that we provide safety to victims of persecution , particularly those who have no recourse to the projection that democratic societies traditionally provide . 
restricting access to asylum beyond current practice and does not serve the cause of national security and , moreover , erodes a sacred and legal responsibility to give safety to those whose only protection comes from asylum . 
each of our traditions has witnessed the suffering of persons whose beliefs often place them in jeopardy and possibly in mortal danger . 
as american-based faith communities , we have cherished the ability of asylum seekers to find safety in communities around our nation . 
we are , therefore , saddened by a further erosion of our asylum system under the pretext of national security . 
we urge members of congress to reject the notion that all asylees are prospective terrorists and that the current system needs to be made more restrictive . 
the belief that we must receive persons who have been rejected and persecuted because of their ideas and religious practices is anchored in both our histories and sacred texts . 
we have contributed over the years to supporting and enriching practices which embrace hospitality as not only a religious but an american value . 
we also appreciate the need to prevent terrorism from violating both our freedom and safety . 
we believe that hospitality to the stranger -- particularly one who has been persecuted -- and security are compatible national goals . 
we , therefore , reject legislation that subverts hospitality in the name of security . 
the current asylum system includes rigorous safeguards against terrorists abusing the asylum system . 
the changes proposed by the real id act raise a false issue in further victimizing legitimate asylum seekers . 
requiring unreasonable levels of evidence to prove an asylum claim , placing a greater burden on asylum seekers to convince reviewers of the key motivation of their accusers , and allowing subjective considerations to guide the review process all send a chilling message to those who desperately seek the safety and protection which they have a right to expect of our great nation . 
we have all seen how fear can pervert justice . 
we believe that the religious traditions which we embrace calls us to oppose a narrowing of the door to asylum by some of the world 's most at-risk persons . 
we are committed to resisting a fear driven agenda which violates our faith-based principles . 
mr. speaker , the asylum provisions make it much harder for people to get asylum . 
we will have 20 minutes to debate this issue . 
it would take me half of that time to read the full list of signers . 
last week , we were visited , those of us on the democratic side , by a representative of the catholic bishops , who asked us specifically to oppose this bill and particularly to condemn the asylum provisions . 
i do not think there has been any showing that asylumees have been terrorists . 
but , in any case , i do want to stress , those of you who have said we have insufficiently paid attention to religious values , mr. speaker , i urge them not to turn their back on the religious community now and not to give the religious communities , a broad range of them , 10 minutes in which we can make the case that this bill violates biblical injunctions about aliens and undercuts our mission to be a haven for the religiously persecuted . 
