[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 15, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S694-S696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Biden Administration
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, over the past year, the Biden
administration has put out some truly absurd propaganda, but last week,
they released something that was so over the top that I had to double-
check to make sure that it was real. Yes, of course, it has up here
that it was issued February 7, 2 p.m., and it is going to expire June 7
of this year at 2 p.m. It had all the markings of something that was
legitimate, but it is so outrageous that I confirmed that it was
actually a government-issued document.
Of course, I am referring to the Homeland Security memo that is
summarizing the current terror threat to the United States. Under
normal circumstances, you would expect a threat assessment to be a
helpful document. That is what we have come to expect. But in this
case, it wasn't obvious before, but now it is so obvious. It is crystal
clear that conventional definitions of the word ``normal'' no longer
apply to this administration.
If you have not read this, you will not believe your eyes. What makes
it so uniquely infuriating is the ease with which DHS used an official
document to equate violent terrorists with Americans who refuse to fall
in line with the Biden administration's narrative of the day. They did
it so easily, just laying out their case of threat assessments to the
United States.
Alongside descriptions of actual violence and threats against
churches and schools, DHS warns of ``the proliferation of false or
misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in
U.S. Government institutions.'' The bulletin specifically identifies
``widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives
regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19'' as
``[k]ey factors . . . contributing to the current heightened threat
environment.''
Yes, you heard me correct. They identify widespread online
proliferation of false and misleading narratives regarding
unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.
So let's decode this. They are not just talking about acts of
violence committed to achieve a political or an ideological goal; they
are talking about dissent. What does DHS suggest someone do if they
find themselves menaced in the court of public opinion? They want you
to report the offender to law enforcement. That is right--report the
offender to law enforcement.
I have come to the floor time and again to detail just how frightened
the American people are of Joe Biden's radical agenda, but this
bulletin is the best evidence I have seen to date of just how
frightened Joe Biden is of the American people. They must be scared to
death over there in that White House. How dare anybody question them?
How dare anybody call them into question for the agenda that they have?
I would even go so far as to suggest that this betrays his
administration's desire to police the speech,
[[Page S695]]
thoughts, and opinions of American citizens and to deputize the public
to help keep dissenters in line.
The Biden administration is as close as they ever have been to
declaring that expressing public disagreement with their agenda is akin
to an act of domestic terrorism. Think about this. It isn't just an
outrage; it is dangerous for a few different reasons, the most
important of which is that it ignores the line differentiating violence
and threats from constitutionally protected speech. The former have no
place in public discourse. Let me be very clear about that. The former
have no place in public discourse. The latter is essential to the
functioning of our democracy.
Indeed, this Nation's democracy--one of the reasons we have stayed
free and have stayed a democratic republic is because we share respect
for robust, respectful political debate. But it appears, with this
administration, they have thrown that out the window to say: It is our
way or it is the highway. We don't want to hear any dissent. We don't
want to hear a point, a counterpoint. We don't want to entertain an
objection. We are busy. We are busy pushing our socialist agenda. We
don't have time for free-thinking, independent individuals to raise
their hands and ask a question. It is ``get in line'' time. We have a
short window. We have to make this happen.
I would suggest also that it cheapens the horrors of actual terrorism
and dilutes the perceived danger of violent extremism. It is an insult
to the memories of those who died in the September 11 attacks and the
Oklahoma City bombing and to those who were at gunpoint at a
Colleyville, TX, synagogue. But lastly and most despicably, it suggests
that Americans will never be safe until we consent to live in a
constant state of fear. According to this bulletin, security is
impossible in the face of dissent. It betrays a nightmarish and
completely un-American end game.
Today, I sent a letter to Secretary Mayorkas urging him to make it
clear that this is just sloppy communication on their part.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
February 15, 2022.
Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas,
Secretary of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Mayorkas: On February 7, 2022, the
Department of Homeland Security (``the Department'') issued a
National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin (``the
Bulletin'') that summarizes the current terrorism threat to
the United States. Among other terrorism threats, the
Bulletin warns of ``[t]he proliferation of false or
misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public
trust in U.S. government institutions.'' The Bulletin
specifically identifies ``widespread online proliferation of
false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated
widespread election fraud and COVID-19'' as ``[k]ey factors
contributing to the current heightened threat environment.''
To combat these threats, the Bulletin recommends that
Americans report ``potential threats'' and ``maintain digital
and media literacy to recognize and build resilience to false
or misleading narratives.''
I am concerned about the appearance of the Department of
Homeland Security policing the speech, thoughts, and opinions
of American citizens. In issuing this Bulletin, the
Department of Homeland Security appears to endorse particular
narratives regarding controversial issues that are at the
center of our national political conversation. By identifying
dissenting beliefs as ``[k]ey factors contributing to the
current heightened threat environment,'' the Department comes
dangerously close to suggesting that publicly disagreeing
with the current administration is akin to domestic
terrorism. And by associating opinions that deviate from this
administration's chosen narrative with terrorism threats--and
asking the public to report these ``threats''--the Department
of Homeland Security is chilling public discourse across the
country.
I urge you to make very clear to the American public that
the Department of Homeland Security does not consider those
who disagree with this administration to be domestic
terrorists. I further urge you to clarify that the Department
will not interfere with the rights of all Americans to speak
publicly about their political views, including any views
that might conflict with the policies and political talking
points of this administration.
As the Secretary of Homeland Security, you took an oath to
uphold our Constitution. Enshrined in the Constitution is the
freedom of speech, and that includes the right to question
the government and its preferred narrative. Speech that
questions the President's position regarding issues like the
COVID-19 pandemic and election law reform falls within the
heart of the First Amendment's protections. In fact, the
Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that this kind of
``core political speech'' is ``the primary object of First
Amendment protection.'' It is your duty as the Secretary of
Homeland Security to ensure that your Department does not
interfere with this core protected speech in any way.
To be clear, violence and true threats of violence are not
constitutionally protected speech and have no place in our
public discourse. There are real threats to the United
States, our homeland. and our citizens from malign foreign
governments and terrorists. The Bulletin correctly recognized
this fact and aptly referenced the January 15, 2022 attack on
a synagogue in Colleyville. Texas as an example of the
continuing threat of violence that our nation faces. The
Department of Homeland Security is charged with protecting
Americans from these true threats. The Department should not,
however, police the public discourse of American citizens
simply because that discourse might ``sow discord or
undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions.''
Indeed, robust public debate--including debate that questions
the government and its policies--is central to any
functioning democracy.
Many Americans have expressed doubts regarding topics like
COVID-19 mask mandates and the origins of the COVID-19
pandemic. Many others have voiced frustration regarding state
and federal election laws. Whether this administration agrees
with these views is irrelevant; the First Amendment protects
all of them from government interference. I urge you to
revise the Bulletin to make clear to the American public that
it is decidedly not the role of the Department of Homeland
Security to enforce particular narratives or to quash the
speech of those who disagree with this administration.
Sincerely,
Marsha Blackburn,
United States Senator.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I would also like to briefly quote
for the record precisely what I asked him to do:
I urge you to make very clear to the American public that
the Department of Homeland Security does not consider those
who disagree with this administration to be domestic
terrorists. I further urge you to clarify that the Department
will not interfere with the rights of all Americans to speak
publicly about their political views, including any views
that might conflict with the policies and political talking
points of this administration. . . . I urge you to revise the
Bulletin to make clear to the American public that it is
decidedly not the role of the Department of Homeland Security
to enforce particular narratives or to quash the speech of
those who disagree with this administration.
This is a very simple request. My hope is that Secretary Mayorkas
recognizes his obligation to put everyone at ease by fulfilling it.
I can guarantee there are people in my beloved Tennessee who are very
upset, as they have read this bulletin, because they treasure their
free speech. They treasure the ability to have robust political debate.
They like talking with their friends and neighbors and having those
discussions and seeing if they can pull them to their side of an issue,
whether it is a local, State, or a Federal issue. They want to preserve
that freedom.
This memo says that freedom does go away, that it overrides the
Constitution, that it overrides the rule of law. If you do it, somebody
can report you, and it will be considered something not tolerated by
this administration.
The Biden administration put out this bulletin to highlight a
particular danger, but the real danger lies in the document's subtext.
Even if Secretary Mayorkas makes good on his oath to defend the
Constitution and if he moves forward to revise the bulletin, I fear
much damage has already been done. Through this document, the Biden
administration has made it abundantly clear that they view dissent as a
threat and that punishing dissent is the cost of maintaining public
safety.
I wish I could dismiss this as yet another political spat, but the
White House is the world's biggest and most powerful bully pulpit. When
the Biden administration talks, people listen, and they take them
seriously.
If what I have laid out today is not the position of the Biden
administration, it is their obligation to speak up and to correct the
record. If it is their position, it is our obligation as elected
representatives to put ourselves between the American people and any
official who would dare tolerate such a dystopian power grab.
[[Page S696]]
Also, we should remind those officials that how they feel about our
constitutional right to dissent is absolutely irrelevant.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.