mr. chairman , i thank the distinguished gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 . 
i thank him for protecting so many of our constitutional rights . 
mr. chairman , let me say that the asylum laws , as i was reminded by my good and dear colleague from florida , started in world war ii when we were reminded of the ugly scene of turning away the st . 
louis , the 1 , 000 jews who were fleeing persecution . 
let me just suggest that we do have an opportunity to review this issue and make it right , but i can tell you that commissioner kean and commissioner hamilton indicated that in advocating that these are recommendations of the 9/11 commission ; these are not recommendations of the 9/11 commission . 
there is no proof or facts that terrorists have been able to pull one over on us in large numbers . 
it is very important to let the comptroller general 's study go forward that evaluates the extent to which weaknesses in the united states ' asylum system have been or could be exploited by terrorists . 
we need to understand this . 
i do not expect that the report will show that that is happening . 
it is extremely important that we realize that the 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the united states as nonimmigrant visitors . 
they were not individuals who sought asylum . 
let me correct my good friends about the 1993 bombing . 
these individuals sought asylum , but they were denied asylum . 
there is not a crisis here ; but what is a crisis is when you turn people away from our shores who have come here downtrodden , who are seeking asylum because of religious persecution , because of mutilation of women , because of enormous child abuse or potentially child soldiers , and you turn them away because they do not look like you and because , in fact , they can not make their case . 
i would ask my colleagues to consider opposing this amendment . 
i rise in support of the amendment that i have offered with my colleagues representatives nadler and meek . 
it would strike section 101 of h.r. 418 , the real id act , which is entitled , `` preventing terrorists from obtaining relief from removal. '' notwithstanding that title , the provisions in section 101 codify evidentiary standards for asylum proceedings . 
the supporters of section 101 believe that terrorists are gaming our asylum system to enter and remain in the united states . 
it is not clear that terrorists actually are gaming our asylum system . 
section 5403 of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act requires the comptroller general to conduct a study to evaluate the extent to which weaknesses in the united states asylum system have been or could be exploited by terrorists . 
we need to wait until this study is completed before we rewrite our asylum laws . 
we can not correct weaknesses that have not been identified yet . 
i do not expect that report to show that terrorists are gaming our asylum system . 
the 9/11 hijackers entered and remained in the united states as nonimmigrant visitors . 
visitors ' visas are easy to get . 
it only requires a 2-minute interview with an american consulate officer to get a visitor 's visa . 
the applicant just has to establish that he will return to his country at the end of the authorized period of stay . 
moreover , it would be naive to think that terrorist organizations do not have ready access to fraudulent entry documents . 
in contrast , it is difficult and time consuming to enter the united states as an asylum applicant . 
the terrorist choosing this method would have to present himself at a border and then prove in expedited removal proceedings that he has a credible fear of persecution on account of race , the approach taken by the real id act is to raise the bar on the burden of proof for everyone who applies for asylum , which would result in a denial of relief to bona fide asylum seekers without any assurance that the changes would discourage terrorists from seeking asylum . 
in fact , terrorist organizations are in a much better position to fabricate evidence of persecution than the typical bona fide asylum applicant who has fled his country in fear for his life without any thought of meeting evidentiary standards at an asylum hearing . 
for instance , in addition to showing that the alleged persecution would be `` on account of ' one of the enumerated grounds , the applicant would have to establish that the persecution was or will be `` a central reason for persecuting the applicant. '' in effect , the asylum applicant would have to establish what was in the mind of the persecutor . 
section 101 has a subsection entitled , `` credibility determinations. '' it states that the trier of fact should consider all relevant factors . 
this is fine , unnecessary but fine . 
then it provides that the trier of fact has the discretion of basing a credibility determination on any relevant factor , and it specifies relevant factors that can be the sole basis for a credibility determination . 
near the end it mentions inconsistencies and inaccuracies or falsehoods in statements , `` without regard to whether an inconsistency , inaccuracy , or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant 's claim. '' in other words , it permits an immigration judge to make an adverse credibility finding in asylum proceedings on the basis of an inconsistency , inaccuracy , or falsehood that has no relevance to the asylum applicant 's persecution claim . 
what has this got to do with preventing terrorists from obtaining relief from removal ? 
i urge you to vote for this amendment to strike section 101 . 
