mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to the amendment , and i wish those that were arguing against the amendment read it and see what it says ; and then i think they will be convinced that this is a commonsense change . 
first of all , let me say that the asylum law was designed to provide safe haven to those who are fleeing persecution in their homeland . 
it is not to be used as a crutch for economic migrants who are coming to the united states because the grass is greener on our side of the border . 
now , the bill as it is currently before us takes away the cap of 10 , 000 approved asylum applicants who are admitted to permanent residency every year . 
the nadler amendment strikes that . 
the bill as it is before us states that the applicant for asylum has the burden of proof to prove that he or she is eligible to receive asylum in our country . 
the nadler amendment strikes it . 
but every petitioner , whether it is a plaintiff in a lawsuit or someone who is applying for social security disability benefits , has got the burden of proof to show that they are entitled to the relief that they are seeking . 
this bill makes it clear that asylum applicants have to make the same burden of proof as others , and the nadler amendment strikes that . 
the other thing that the nadler amendment strikes is a detailed explanation of how the immigration judge is to determine the credibility of the applicant and the witnesses that the applicant and the government put before the judge . 
every trier of fact in court makes the determination based on the credibility of witnesses . 
criminal juries can send someone to their death or to prison for life based on their determination of the credibility of the witnesses , and immigration judges should do so also . 
the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 says that 100 percent of the people who show up at the airport claiming asylum are detained . 
that is not right . 
ninety percent of those people are released . 
only 10 percent are detained past the airport . 
the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 says that all of the statements or the instances that we raise were pre-1996 law change cases . 
i will give you two that were after that . 
nuradin abdi who was a somali national stood accused of providing material support to al qaeda . 
the government alleged that abdi admitted al qaeda member iyman faris and others initiated a plot to blow up a columbus , ohio , area shopping small . 
mr. abdi was granted asylum in 1999 . 
later after traveling to a terrorist camp in ethiopia , he was arrested when he reentered the united states , and his asylum status was revoked . 
it was revoked , as the u.s. attorney 's office puts it , because with the exception of some minor biographical data , every aspect of the asylum application he submitted was false . 
now , giving a judge an opportunity to deny a claim based upon a determination that the applicant is lying is in my bill and the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 tries to strike that . 
again , in 1999 an egyptian national who had been granted asylum , despite the fact that the ins had provided classified evidence that the alien was a known member of a foreign terrorist organization designated by the secretary of state , and according to the committee-hearing witness , the ins submitted a report from a new york city detective showing the alien 's participation in a meeting with the infamous sheik omar abdel rahman , dedicated to planning acts of terrorism in which the pros and cons of hijacking an airplane were discussed . 
he got asylum too . 
now , while it is true that many terrorists are statutorily barred from receiving asylum , members of terrorist organizations are explicitly allowed to receive asylum . 
further , despite any statutory bar to the contrary , asylum regulations and the courts have made it practically impossible for the government to ferret out terrorists who apply . 
there are a number of reasons for this , including the fact that government attorneys are barred from asking foreign governments about any evidence they may possess about the veracity of asylum claims . 
thus , the only evidence available to the government to support an asylum applicant is the lack of credibility to the applicant . 
however , the ninth circuit is preventing immigration judges from denying asylum claims when it is clear that the alien is lying . 
furthermore , the ninth circuit has held that an alien can receive asylum on the very basis that the alien 's government believes he is a terrorist , even if we agree . 
this bill brings back sanity to the asylum laws by overturning these rogue precedents from the ninth circuit . 
and if any jury in the country can convict a defendant based on its determinations of credibility , certainly an immigration judge should be able to do the same thing . 
vote down this amendment , and let us put some common sense into our asylum laws as well as giving hope and shelter to people who can legitimately claim and receive asylum . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
