[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 92 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2713-S2721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 DOMESTIC TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2022--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 350, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to H.R. 350, a bill to authorize 
     dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic 
     terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take 
     steps to prevent domestic terrorism.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                H.R. 350

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today, the Senate will have a chance to 
act on a pernicious issue that has recently become an increasingly 
prevalent component in America's gun violence epidemic: the evil spread 
of White supremacy and domestic terrorism.
  In the past 2 weeks, the United States has endured two of the most 
traumatic mass shootings that we have seen in recent history. In my 
home State of New York, in the beloved city of Buffalo, 10 Black 
Americans were gunned down in broad daylight by a White supremacist 
armed with an AR-15 and whose mind was poisoned by online 
conspiracies--White supremacist conspiracies.
  And 2 days ago, 19 children--19 children: 8-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 
10-year-olds, kids on the verge of beginning summer, kids with their 
entire lives ahead of them; we saw them holding up their trophies and 
proudly in their T-

[[Page S2714]]

shirts, and a few hours later they were gone--slaughtered in the 
predominantly Latino town of Uvalde, TX. Two teachers, including a 
mother of four, were killed alongside them. Many more were injured and 
remain in critical condition.
  It was the worst school shooting in America since Sandy Hook. Last 
night, I looked at the pictures of each of those kids online, and I 
wept--taken from us, taken from their families through senseless gun 
violence. I can't stop thinking about the parents, too, who lost their 
kids. I can't stop imagining the paralyzing horror of being one of the 
parents showing up to the school after the shooting, wondering where 
their kid was--the anxiety that will live with these parents forever--
forced to wait hours before a DNA test--a DNA test--confirmed that 
their son or daughter was gone. I cannot imagine a hell--a hell--worse 
than that.
  And these families, my colleagues, don't want thoughts and prayers. 
They want their elected leaders to respond to their suffering. They 
don't want to be lifted up. They don't want good intentions. They want 
something to change. They want results.
  Yet the MAGA Republicans don't want to get results. They are ossified 
in their opposition to any action on gun safety. No matter the cause of 
violence and no matter the cost on families, nothing seems to move 
them.
  Yesterday, after Beto O'Rourke confronted Texas Governor Abbott's 
press conference, the MAGA Governor gave some empty platitudes about 
healing and hope. He asked people to put their agendas aside and think 
about someone other than themselves.
  My God, how dare he. What an absolute fraud the Governor of Texas is. 
And this is the same Governor Abbott who tomorrow--tomorrow--will go 
speak at the NRA convention in Houston.
  Governor Abbott, will you ask your MAGA buddies and your NRA pals to 
put aside their agendas and think of someone other than themselves like 
you asked the families to do? Will you ask the gun manufacturing reps 
who swarm over the NRA convention to put aside their agendas and think 
about someone other than themselves? Of course not.
  The Governor--Governor Abbott--is more likely to outline some new 
plans to further loosen gun restrictions. No amount of bloodshed seems 
to be enough for MAGA Republicans.
  This Nation is enraged as well as being exhausted. It has been 
through this over and over and over again over the last two decades. 
People are sick of mourning again and again while listening to the same 
string of hollow words from the MAGA Republicans that never lead to 
action.
  So in a few moments, the Senate will have a chance to vote on one 
important cause of gun violence. The legislation before the Senate 
today is the Domestic Terrorism Protection Act, which I scheduled for a 
vote earlier this week before what happened in Uvalde occurred. It was 
done to respond to the massacre in the supermarket in Buffalo.
  The bill is so important because the mass shooting in Buffalo was an 
act of domestic terrorism. We need to call it what it is: domestic 
terrorism. It was terrorism that fed off the poison of conspiracy 
theories like ``White replacement theory''; terrorism that left 10 
people dead, a community forever torn asunder. This bill will give the 
government the tools to monitor, find, and arrest these evil actors 
before they have a chance to inflict violence on their communities. I 
thank my colleague Senator Durbin for championing this bill.
  I have been going to bed every night thinking about the families I 
met in Buffalo in the aftermath of the shooting. I think about this 
little 3-year-old boy. He lost his dad who went to that Tops grocery 
store to buy him a birthday cake--a birthday cake for his son. That 
little boy is going to live with that the rest of his life--the rest of 
his life. I think about all the families impacted by other racially 
motivated shootings over the year. Buffalo, certainly, unfortunately, 
wasn't the first--Charleston, El Paso, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and so many 
others; the shooting of Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, gay 
Americans, Jewish Americans, as well as Black Americans all because of 
this horrible ``White replacement theory.''
  So today is the day we can begin to debate on how to make these 
shootings less likely. And there is an additional benefit to moving 
forward today. It is a chance to have a larger debate in considering 
amendments for gun safety legislation in general, not just for those 
motivated by racism, as vital as it is to do that.
  I know that many Members on the other side hold views that are 
different than the views on this side of the aisle. So let us move on 
this bill. Let us proceed and then they can bring them to the floor.
  Senator Johnson brought a bill to the floor yesterday about school 
security practices. I didn't agree with the bill, and I don't think it 
is the answer to mass shootings. We don't need more guns in the 
schools. There were security guards at the supermarket in Buffalo, 
police and security at the school in Uvalde, but we can debate it. The 
same with Senator Cruz's plan to limit schools to only one door. Fire 
marshals and tactical experts totally and vehemently disagree. Let's 
debate it.
  And there are other Senators with other proposals--proposals that 
come from our side of the aisle--background checks, red flag laws, the 
Charleston loophole, assault weapons, and other ideas.
  Look, I know the chances of getting 10 votes on this bill are small, 
unfortunately, given the influence of MAGA Republicans. Many 
Republicans have made their opposition clear. Again, there are a lot of 
MAGA Republicans for whom no amount of gun violence--whether it is 
domestic terrorism, a school shooting, a neighborhood shooting, or 
something else--will ever--ever--convince them to take any action.

  If Republicans obstruct debate today, we are prepared to have an 
honest and realistic discussion, conversation, negotiation for a little 
more time to see what they can come to the table with.
  We are under no illusions that this will be easy. We have been burned 
in the past when Republicans promised to debate only for them to break 
their promise. But even with long odds, the issue is so important, so 
raw to the American people, so personal to countless families who are 
missing children, that we must pursue that opportunity. We also know 
that the American people--as many as 80 percent or 90 percent--support 
gun safety legislation.
  We have an obligation to pursue every path and explore every 
realistic option to break the cycle of suffering and inaction. Not 
trying everything is not acceptable to the families who have lost their 
loved ones to our Nation's gun epidemic. To those beautiful children we 
see pictures of in the newspaper and their families, we have to try 
everything. We must not leave a single stone unturned.
  Senator Murphy, who has been such a strong and valiant leader within 
our caucus on gun safety legislation and who has seen the suffering 
firsthand of the families at Sandy Hook whom he has become very close 
to, has asked for space to see what progress can be done with Senate 
Republicans.
  Neither he nor I is under an illusion that this will be easy; it will 
not. But his view, my view, and the overwhelming view of our caucus is 
that we need to give it a short amount of time to try. There are 
others, too, in this caucus reaching out to our Republican colleagues 
as we speak--Senator Blumenthal, Senator Coons, Senator Heinrich, 
Senator Manchin, and others. We have also been in talks with our allies 
across gun advocacy groups, and we all have a strong and burning desire 
to see something real, something tangible come across, come together 
here in the Senate.
  Again, none of us are under any illusions that it will be easy. None 
of us want to let this drag out. We know all too well the vice grip 
that the NRA and MAGA wing hold over the GOP, and we have been burned 
in the past. America has been burned in the past.
  After the shootings in El Paso and Dayton 3 years ago, the Republican 
leader promised red flag laws and background checks would be front and 
center in the Senate debate. He didn't put them on the floor, and 
Republicans did nothing. But that is not an excuse for Democrats not to 
try. Too many families have suffered, too many kids have been lost, too 
many communities have

[[Page S2715]]

been destroyed. This is too important not to explore every option.
  I want to be clear. This is not an invite to negotiating 
indefinitely. Make no mistake about it, if these negotiations do not 
bear fruit in a short period of time, the Senate will vote on gun 
safety legislation. Let me repeat. If these negotiations do not bear 
any fruit, the Senate will vote on gun safety legislation when we 
return. But our hope, even amidst our deep skepticism, is, during this 
week, Democrats and Republicans, at long last, will come to agree on 
something meaningful that will reduce gun violence in a real way in 
America. Senator Murphy and some of our colleagues believe that it is 
worth a chance, and we will give it that chance.
  Unfortunately, though, Republicans haven't come forward in too long a 
time. There hasn't been this debate in too long a time. But even though 
it hasn't happened in too long a time, we feel an obligation to give it 
a chance.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                               Inflation

  Mr. McCONNELL. In America, inflation has topped 5 percent every month 
for the past year. The consumer price index continues to hover at 
levels our economy hasn't seen in four decades. As we head into 
Memorial Day weekend, the American people have become reluctant experts 
in its painful, real-life effects.
  The average working family is now spending the equivalent of $5,000 a 
year on gas money. A year ago, the number was $2,800. Nationwide, gas 
prices have risen 46.9 cents just in the last month, and in Kentucky, 
they have risen actually even faster. Here's a quote from one of my 
constituents: ``I'm getting taken full advantage of,'' said one driver 
in Lexington.
  Another said: ``It costs so much to fill up I have to do it half a 
tank at a time now.''
  But according to President Biden, it is all part of what he calls an 
``incredible transition.'' Well, that is a heck of a way to describe 
his administration's war on the most affordable, reliable, and abundant 
forms of energy in our country, forcing fuel prices so high that it 
requires Americans to transition to more expensive cars with supply 
chains controlled primarily by China and other hostile regimes with 
lower labor and environmental standards is not my idea of incredible.
  But pain at the pump is only one of the tangled consequences of 
Washington Democrats' radical policies and reckless spending. Depending 
on where you are trying to go, higher fuel costs are hurting Americans' 
ability to enjoy major summer traditions. Rental car costs have jumped 
to 10.4 percent in the past year. Hotel rooms are going for 22.6 
percent more, and plane tickets are up 33.3 percent.
  Of course, millions of Americans are having a hard enough time paying 
for basic expenses, let alone planning summer vacations. Grocery stores 
now stock painful surprises on every aisle. Ground coffee is 14.7 
percent more expensive than it was a year ago; eggs, up 22.6 percent. 
Anyone wanting to grill a bacon cheeseburger over Memorial Day weekend 
will find ground beef up 15 percent and bacon up 18 percent compared to 
only 1 year ago.
  And utility bills now arrive with gut punches. For ratepayers in New 
England, electricity rates are projected to cost 16.4 percent more this 
summer than last summer. Everywhere they turn, American families are 
having to pare back expectations, put dreams on hold, and make bitter 
sacrifices.
  It is no longer a shocking scandal; it is just normal life in 
Democrats' version of America: harder to fuel the tank, harder to feed 
the family, harder to get by.


                    Tribute to Jennifer M. Kuskowski

  Madam President, on an entirely different matter, 9 years and a 
couple of months ago, an impressive young woman interviewed for a 
position in my office over in the Russell Building. She had worked for 
her home State senator out of college. At that point, she sharpened her 
chops on the House side. I knew 5 minutes into the meeting with 
Jennifer Kuskowski that we had found someone very special.
  And now that young staffer from a decade back is departing the Senate 
as a commanding policy expert and one of my most indispensable 
advisors.
  Jen began as my legislative assistant for healthcare. In less than 2 
years, she earned a no-brainer promotion to be the legislative director 
for my whole personal office, a sort of player-coach overseeing all 
policy areas. For a couple of years, Jen briefly betrayed us and 
obtained committee experience with Chairman Hatch at the Senate Finance 
Committee. But we soon stole her back for my leadership office here in 
the Capitol.
  For more than 3 years, she has been my crucial point person on some 
of the most complex issues we face--from healthcare to education to 
tech and telecom. She is the consummate professional, reliable, calm, 
clear under pressure. She knows her portfolio like the back of her 
hand, and Jen genuinely loves the legislative process. As her 
colleagues playfully reminded her with some frequency, Jen is a policy 
nerd's policy nerd.
  Now, don't get me wrong, Jen's not naive. She has the realism and 
tenacity of a grizzled veteran, but even as a top staffer who works 
directly with Senators and coordinates across committees, Jen has still 
got the same earnestness as the young woman I met a decade back. And I 
think I know why. I think Jen Kuskowski loves mastering thorny policy 
issues because she understands that policy impacts people.
  In between her first and second stint on the Hill, Jen served in the 
Peace Corps, working on health issues in Ecuador. That is hands-on 
experience you never forget.
  And towards the other bookend of her Senate service, Jen spent the 
coronavirus pandemic first as an expectant mother and then with a 
newborn. She knew what was at stake as she tracked the science and 
helped assemble the Senate's historic, bipartisan response.

  Jen has honed expertise in issues that touch families' lives very 
directly. And with that expertise, she has done unbelievably well. She 
was an early driving force to focus Congress on the opioid epidemic. 
She was alert to the plague of substance abuse years before anybody in 
Washington was even discussing it.
  Jen was the central player in my effort to raise the minimum tobacco 
age to 21. She played a huge role in structuring the historic relief 
for hospitals and providers that kept health systems above water in the 
early weeks of the COVID crisis.
  She was a key quarterback as we crafted support for vaccines and 
therapeutics that got America back on offense. Across many years, 
across many issues, Jen Kuskowski's expertise and professionalism have 
literally saved lives throughout Kentucky and across America. It is not 
an exaggeration; it is literally true. Families across the Commonwealth 
and across the Nation that will never meet Jen have benefited from the 
fact that she has been one of the most reliable closers on Capitol 
Hill. When an issue lands in her court, it gets resolved, period.
  Now, saying Jen cares about policy because she cares about people 
might sound like sort of a sappy cliche, but everybody in the Senate 
can attest there is nothing remotely sappy or ``Hallmark card'' about 
her. Jen's sarcastic sense of humor is world-class. She does not suffer 
fools. She pursues goals with bulldog determination, and a competitive 
fire burning below the surface. But all this coexists with a deep 
kindness and care for others. It is really a very special package.
  Jen has been the likeliest member of our team to seek out a colleague 
who is having a hard day and offer a pep talk and the likeliest person 
to aim a witty barb at a friend who is feeling overconfident and needs 
to be taken down a peg. Any team would be lucky to have either someone 
as diligent and professional as Jen or somebody as compassionate or 
someone as wickedly funny. It has been our special blessing to have all 
three in one person.
  So as you can see, Jen has rendered the Senate a special and unique 
service. So I am happy to report the institution has repaid Jen in a 
special and unique way as well. When we first met Jen, she was Jennifer 
Conklin, but she leaves the Senate partnered to her husband Officer 
Andrew Kuskowski of the United States Capitol Police. They are proud 
parents of little Zachary.
  And after a decade of late-night negotiations and weekend conference 
calls,

[[Page S2716]]

our friend is excited to strike out and tackle new challenges.
  So, Jen, I am so grateful for your outstanding service. We know you 
will continue to be a force of nature wherever you go, and you will 
keep serving the common good, just in new and different ways.
  You have done your family proud. You have done me proud. And I hope 
you are proud. Your fine service has literally saved lives and changed 
our country for the better.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Kentucky.


                                H.R. 350

  Mr. PAUL. Today, we will have a bill before us ostensibly titled and 
ostensibly about the subject of domestic terrorism.
  But this bill would be more accurately called the Democrat plan to 
brand and insult our police and soldiers as White supremacists and neo-
Nazis. How insulting.
  I have met our Nation's policemen. I have visited with policemen 
across Kentucky, through our big cities and small, and I have not met 
one policeman motivated or consumed with any kind of sort of racial 
rage. What I have met are proud policemen and women who care about the 
people that they protect in our society, but also who care about their 
fellow officers.
  I have not met one policeman who would not defend their partner: 
Black, White, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. I don't see the kind of sort 
of insulting rage that the Democrats have for our police.
  I have met our country's young soldiers and marines. I don't meet 
racists. I don't meet White supremacists. I don't meet neo-Nazis. I 
meet young men and women who are courageous enough to defend our 
country. And what an insult it is to put a bill before this House that 
says: Oh, somehow our marines are consumed with White supremacy and 
neo-Nazism. How insulting.
  In fact, I don't think you could look at a group of young men and 
women who are more adapted to the times, who are more accepting of 
their fellow man. And I have never--I have never--heard of a marine 
saying: Oh, I am not going to carry my fallen colleague out because he 
is African American. I have never heard of an African-American marine 
saying: I am not going to carry out my fellow marine because they are 
White.
  If there is any kind of grouping in our country more accustomed to 
treating people because they are your fellow soldier and your friend, 
it is the military. To insinuate that the military is consumed with 
White supremacy is an insult. To insinuate that our soldiers are 
somehow these terrible people, these neo-Nazis and White supremacists, 
that we are going to get a new government Agency to police the 
marines--the marines are a proud part of our military. Our soldiers are 
a proud part of our country. These are the people who do not see color, 
who do not see race, who do not see religion. These are the people who 
don't leave their fallen.
  Do you think the marines go around saying ``Oh, we are going to leave 
our fallen if they have a certain race or religion''? You don't see 
that. The marines, the soldiers in our country, the people who defend 
our country, the people who defend and love our country, are the least 
consumed with any kind of notion of race. How insulting.
  This bill states as if it were a fact in the beginning of section 5 
that this bill will create ``an interagency task force to analyze and 
combat White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed 
services and federal law enforcement.'' This is not just an insult to 
your local police or to the Marines or to the Army and to the Navy; 
this is an insult to the FBI; it is an insult to the Capitol Police. 
This bill says that they have been infiltrated. This says that our 
police are consumed with some kind of race rage.
  It is untrue, and it is slander, and it is scandalous, but it is 
predictable. This is the party that wants to defund the police. But 
this party not only wants to defund the police, they think the police 
are full of hatred and racism. It is not true.
  Every policeman in our country, every soldier in our country should 
look at this bill and say: Who are these people? White supremacy and 
neo-Nazism infiltration of the Marines? That is not true. It is an 
insult to every marine in our country. It is an insult to every soldier 
in our country. It is an insult to every policeman in our country. It 
is an insult to the Capitol Police.
  I don't see this in our country. I actually see our armed services as 
probably one of the areas where people intermix regardless of race and 
religion better than any segment. These are our young men and women who 
live in close quarters in barracks. These are our young men and women 
who go overseas. These are our young men and women who have given arms 
and legs, and I don't hear examples--I don't know of an example of some 
guy who says: Oh, yeah, we were blown up by an IED, but we decided to 
leave that guy because he is of a different race. How insulting.
  So you are going to have a task force to investigate our soldiers. 
This is a Federal task force that is going to go in and investigate our 
soldiers for White supremacy--I guess read their emails, read what 
websites they go to--because the implication is they are guilty until 
they can prove themselves innocent. That is what this will set up. It 
will set up more government Agencies that presume your guilt. But it is 
an insult to our armed services, to our police, and to anybody who 
works in law enforcement.
  One might well ask if Democrats now believe that the U.S. military 
and Federal, State, and local police departments are all corrupted. Are 
there White supremacists and neo-Nazis running around our country?
  Look, when I visit even the larger cities in Kentucky, when I visit 
the Louisville Police Department, guess what. I see African Americans 
and Whites working together and Brown, Hispanic--whatever you want to 
call people--all working together. I see high-ranking people in our 
department who are African American. I don't see that everybody is 
running around hating each other. I see Black officers and White 
officers who work together as partners, who care about each other and 
would defend to the last breath their partner if they were shot in the 
line of duty. I have seen the officers who have been shot, Black and 
White. I don't see any of them saying: Oh, yeah, well, we are not going 
to do anything because that person is of a certain race.
  This bill is an insult to every police officer in this country. This 
bill is an insult to everyone in our armed services. This bill says 
that the armed services have been infiltrated by White supremacy.
  So if you are a soldier in our country, if you are a policeman in our 
country, you need to let your Congressman or Senator know that you are 
not a White supremacist and that it is an insult for the Democrats to 
call you a White supremacist. It is an insult for the Democrats to say 
our police force is full of White supremacy, that our armed services is 
full of this.
  Everybody in this country who works in law enforcement should be 
outraged by this bill and should respond and say: No, that is not me, 
and that is not any of my colleagues. That is not what the Kentucky 
police force is about. That is not what the National Guard is about. 
That is not what the Marines are about. What an insult. What an insult.
  So what do they do? They set up a new Department in Homeland 
Security. Isn't Homeland Security Federal too? Have they not been 
infiltrated as well?
  See, the implication of this bill is that all people are bad, that 
there is this great and worrisome thing that is infecting America--when 
the opposite is true.
  I was born in the 1960s. Every decade has gotten better. People get 
along better. We have more intermarriage between races. We have more 
integration within churches. I see less and less of this that everybody 
is saying is now infecting us.
  But they don't realize that they are insulting everyone. They are 
insulting the police. They are insulting our marines. They are 
insulting our armed services.
  The bill creates two other Departments. These essentially are 
Departments that are going to be the thought police of the military.
  We just took down the ``Ministry of Truth,'' which was in the 
Department

[[Page S2717]]

of Homeland Security. It took a couple of weeks for them to finally be 
ashamed that they were going to try to censor speech, and the Biden 
administration has canceled it or at least put it on pause. But this 
bill will create two other Agencies, two other thought police offices 
at the Department of Justice and the FBI--seems like a self-defeating 
choice since elsewhere in the bill, we are told that Federal law 
enforcement is completely infiltrated by White supremacists and neo-
Nazis.

  But, again, none of the bill makes sense. It doesn't make sense 
because it was a bill that was never intended to become law and won't. 
It is a dumb Washington talking points memo masquerading as 
legislation, but it is also a grave insult to anyone involved in law 
enforcement, anyone involved in the military. But congressional 
Democrats have gotten so radical, so extreme, so out of touch with the 
American people, that when they read it, they think this is something 
worthwhile to do. It is a messaging bill for today.
  This bill will fail today, though, because the Democrats' message--
hate the police; defund the police; the police are terrible people; the 
military are terrible people--to slander the military and the police as 
racist and White supremacist has been roundly rejected by the American 
people and will continue to be.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, later on today, we are going to be 
voting on a Congressional Review Act dealing with the title 42--
actually, more specifically, the asylum rule dealing with what is 
happening at our southwest border right now.
  Let me first say something I don't normally say on this floor. I am 
pleased the Biden administration is trying to address this. It is a 
step that--someone in the administration has noticed there is a problem 
with the asylum rule, and they are trying to address it. This solution 
will not fix the problem, but at least we are working on the problem.
  I can say this to the Biden administration and to this body: If we do 
not legislatively fix the asylum rule, what is happening on our 
southern border will never get better. We have to address what is the 
problem there. It is not that there are root causes in Central America. 
We are the United States of America; everyone in the world wants to be 
here. If all you have to do is cross the border and say the magic words 
``I have credible fear'' and the Biden administration hands you a piece 
of paper and you are in the country for the next 8 years--8 years--
until your hearing, the whole world is going to keep coming here.
  Now, right now, literally right now, we have 8,000 people a day who 
are illegally crossing our border--8,000.
  Last summer, in the midst of all the chaos, when all the cameras were 
focused on our southern border, there were 6,000 people a day who were 
illegally crossing our border. It is literally worse now than it was a 
year ago, but the cameras have all moved on and said ``nothing to see 
here'' when it continues to be able to get worse literally every month. 
Last month, a quarter-million people illegally crossed the border--a 
quarter-million. Half of those were turned away with title 42 
authority, which the Biden administration is trying to end to allow 
everyone to be able to come across the border.
  But this asylum rule gives me some sense of hope that they are at 
least identifying what the problem is and trying to start working on 
it. Here is the problem, though: The way that this rule is actually set 
up, almost every negative determination made under this expedited 
asylum process gets appealed under the normal process anyway. So while 
they are creating an expedited process, all they have to do is say ``I 
disagree with the expedited process,'' and they get through the long, 
protracted, 8-year process anyway. It doesn't solve the problem.
  So while the executive branch is trying to do something, their 
``something'' that they are doing doesn't actually fix the issue. We 
have to change this issue in law.
  Secretary Mayorkas was on the Hill 2 weeks ago. He came and presented 
the new plan in place for what they are going to do on the border. Part 
of that plan was this new asylum rule. But when you read the summary, 
at the very end of it--they go through all their details, these high-
level points of six different areas where they are going to work to be 
able to decrease. At the end of it, the summary statement ends with 
``Despite our best efforts, we anticipate an increase in migration.'' 
What they are saying is, the policies that they currently have in place 
are going to continue to increase migration even with things like this 
new asylum rule that they are trying to be able to put in place because 
they know this doesn't actually fix the problem.
  MPP, the ``Remain in Mexico'' program that a Federal court has 
required them to maintain--they are doing MPP only in such a way to say 
to the Federal courts: We are doing something.
  We have 8,000 people a day who are illegally crossing the border. We 
have about 2,000 people a month whom they are putting through the MPP 
program. We have 8,000 people a day who are illegally crossing the 
border. Currently, ICE is deporting 203 people a day. With 8,000 people 
a day crossing and 203 people actually being deported, you see the math 
here. They are not trying to stop the flow. They are not trying to 
disincentivize this.
  We need to actually get serious about this. So, yes, I am going to 
support a Congressional Review Act on this individual piece because it 
doesn't actually fix the problem. Let's actually sit down and fix the 
problem actually in the statute. That is what needs to be done.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise to support this Congressional Review 
Act resolution of disapproval of the rule recently published by the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review entitled ``Procedures for Credible Fear Screening 
and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection 
Claims by Asylum Officers.''
  Madam President, we are currently experiencing an unprecedented 
crisis on our southern border. As of April of this year, 4 months into 
2022, over 1 million illegal crossings have been encountered at our 
southern border. And with the administration fighting the migrant 
protection protocols and willing to remove the title 42 restrictions on 
entry, this crisis is about to get much, much worse.
  We have heard estimates of unauthorized border encounters this summer 
ranging close to 20,000 daily. We don't know how to handle these 
numbers, and nothing has been done by the administration to deter these 
immigrants. Despite knowing of the coming influx and despite 
understanding the statutory mandates which would require immigrants to 
be detained, this administration is closing detention centers. It 
appears we now have fewer than 20,000 detention beds available.
  This seems to suggest that DHS has no intention of detaining these 
immigrants, even though it is plainly required by statute. In the midst 
of this unprecedented crisis at our southern border, the Department of 
Homeland Security, under Secretary Mayorkas, has, by regulation, 
bypassed duly enacted laws to make the asylum process a mere 
rubberstamp for basically anyone who can make it to our border. Because 
of the internet and the sophistication of coyotes and cartels, every 
alien encountered knows to express fear of returning to their home 
country, thus triggering the asylum process.
  This rule would change that adversarial process--whereby one actually 
has to produce some shred of evidence that they qualify for asylum to a 
nonadversarial process--whereby the alien merely has to assert their 
claim. Additionally, this rule would take the asylum decisions out of 
the hands of immigration judges and put them into the hands of 
frontline screeners who often have no legal skills at all.
  This rule violates current immigration laws--laws passed by this 
body, laws enacted by Congress. It violates the separation of powers by 
usurping congressional authority to enact the laws of the Nation. 
Currently, under the law, until an immigration judge has ruled on an 
asylum claim, the claimant is required to be detained. Under the 
proposed rule, there would be no need for detention because no time 
would be required to rubberstamp that asylum application. It just 
happens.

[[Page S2718]]

  It is very interesting that this rule is about to go into effect 
right before this already unprecedented crisis exponentially increases. 
I don't think this is by accident. It is by design. This rule 
demonstrates that they simply want to manage the unprecedented influx 
of illegal immigrants into every American city, making every town a 
border town.
  America has always been a welcoming land, a land with outstretched 
arms. And it always should be. I am very proud of Utahns for how well 
they exemplify that welcoming spirit to immigrants, including the 
refugees and the asylum seekers who come into our State. I am also 
concerned that if we degrade the process by administrative rule, we 
erode our ability to give refuge and asylum in the cases where it is 
truly needed, in the cases where, as a representative body, we have 
decided it should be given.
  Now, in studying this rule, I was struck by the fact that it assumes 
asylum is a right--a legal right--for anyone and everyone managing 
somehow to get to our border. It is not a right. Asylum is a gift, a 
gift that the United States can choose to bestow on those who really 
need it: the persecuted, when authorized by law and consistent with the 
terms of the law. This rule doesn't ever mention the interests of the 
American citizen in this process, not once--the interest that would 
usually be representative in the adjudicative adversarial process that 
occurs before a judge. The American people are left out of this 
process. In fact, that process is eliminated by this rule. Indeed, this 
rule is completely unconcerned with the interests of the American 
people. It prioritizes the claimed interests of illegal immigrants over 
the interests of our own people and American national security. It must 
be struck down, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The majority whip.


                                H.R. 350

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning we are going to consider H.R. 
350, which is legislation which I introduced some time ago. I want to 
describe it because it has been inaccurately described before and let 
Members know what they are voting on.
  First, what does it relate to? Domestic terrorism. Is that a Federal 
crime? You bet it is, and this particular bill makes reference to that 
crime. Hate crimes? It refers to that too. Is that a real crime? It is 
a Federal crime, and we refer to it specifically.
  So what new crimes are created in this bill? None. Not one. What we 
are doing is asking the Federal Agencies that have the responsibility 
of national security to give us timely reports on the incidence of 
domestic terrorism, and we say to them there are categories which the 
FBI has already established of domestic terrorism. And those 
categories--I would like to spell out a couple of them to you so it is 
pretty clear what we are going after here: racially and ethnically 
motivated violent extremism; anti-government, anti-authority violent 
extremism; animal rights and environmental violent extremism; abortion-
related violent extremism and others.
  So those are already categories of domestic terrorism that the FBI 
reports on. What we are saying is, give us those reports in a timely 
fashion so we can see the incidence of these forms of extremism and the 
commission of crimes.
  But there is one correction that we are making that is very 
important. During the Trump administration, they eliminated reference 
in this list of categories of domestic terrorism of White supremacist 
activity. The reason why it is important for us to include that is that 
we have the sworn testimony of the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation that this is a category of crime and terrorism in 
America that is ``metastasizing''--his word, metastasizing. So we 
believe it is important that we be given information about the 
incidence of violent extremism, domestic terrorism, that relates to 
this type of activity, this White supremacy.

  I will tell you, it is not an imagined crime. We see the reality of 
it way too often. We just saw it 2 weeks ago in Buffalo, NY. That 
shooter put his so-called manifesto on the internet and declared, among 
other things, his support for the ``great replacement theory.''
  The ``great replacement theory'' is a thinly veiled White supremacist 
theory that tries to suggest that immigrants to America are somehow 
only arriving at the expense of those already here, particularly White 
Americans. That sort of theory has been out there since the days of the 
Ku Klux Klan, maybe even before it. But it is White supremacy. It 
inspired this man to do terrible things in Buffalo and kill innocent 
people at that grocery store.
  So we are asking the FBI to give us this information. We will draw 
conclusions as we will, but that is basically it. No new crime is 
created nor is any new authority being created in the process. I think 
that is a critical element.
  But there is one other thing that is part of this exercise this 
morning in voting for H.R. 350. The majority leader, Senator Schumer, 
after the events in Uvalde, TX, declared that we are going to try to 
reach out, on a bipartisan basis, to come up with legislation to deal 
with gun safety and safety in schools. His first effort to do this is 
this bill.
  What we are voting on is a motion to proceed to the bill. He has 
invited colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to come forward and to offer 
their amendments in the field of gun safety and school safety. That is 
why this motion to proceed is more than just the bill I described. It 
is an opportunity for amendments on the floor.
  This morning, I had an interview with CNN, and they talked about the 
fact that we are leaving for a week for Memorial Day to honor our 
veterans and be home and then return. Why aren't we staying and 
working? Well, here is the chance for us to make it clear that we are 
going to work on what happened in these terrible tragedies in Uvalde, 
TX, and Buffalo, NY, and so many others.
  So I am appealing to my colleagues on the Republican side of the 
aisle, if you have any ideas, and I hope you do, for gun safety, school 
safety, and to make this a safer nation, this is the vehicle to do it. 
A ``yes'' vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 350 is your opportunity 
to open a process where we can consider amendments.
  Senator Schumer was very explicit. He invited Democrats as well as 
Republicans to come forward with their best ideas on a bipartisan 
basis. And isn't that what the people of the country are actually 
asking for, more than anything; that we roll up our sleeves and face 
this challenge which has taken so many innocent lives?
  In the newspaper yesterday, in the New York Times, they did a feature 
on those wonderful little kids and the teachers who lost their lives in 
Uvalde, TX. It is heartbreaking to see those kids, those beautiful 
little children, and to realize that they are no longer with us and 
that their families are grieving in a way they never imagined they 
would.
  Isn't it up to us to do something about it rather than just give 
press releases? Isn't it up to us as legislators to legislate and try 
to find solutions? This opportunity, the motion to proceed, opens the 
door to that possibility.
  We can return the week after Memorial Day recess and start in earnest 
considering amendments offered by Democrats and Republicans which deal 
with this issue. We owe the American people that. We are elected to 
this job to legislate, not just to give speeches but to change the laws 
in this country to make it safer. This is our chance to do it. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote for H.R. 350. This is an 
important bill in and of itself, but equally important is the fact that 
it opens a process Americans are longing to hear that we take 
seriously. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed on 
H.R. 350.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Johnson for 10 
minutes, prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Robb Elementary School Shooting

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today was supposed to be the last day of 
school in Uvalde, TX. Each of us can remember how excited we were as 
children, as students, but especially we can remember being a parent 
the last day of school our child attended. Your child

[[Page S2719]]

would perhaps run into your arms and recount a fun-filled day with 
their classmates. They would sling their backpack on the backseat of 
the car and talk about how excited they were about the summer, to spend 
days playing with their friends and their siblings, swimming at the 
local pool with friends, and maybe even going on a vacation with their 
grandparents.
  Today, those children, those parents, and those teachers in Uvalde, 
TX, have been robbed of the excitement and normalcy that this day would 
normally bring. Instead of celebrating the last day of school, 21 
families are making funeral arrangements.
  Earlier this week, a monster viciously murdered innocent children and 
their teachers at Robb Elementary School. So far we know that 21 people 
have been killed by the shooter, including 19 students and 2 teachers. 
This tragedy has absolutely shattered the tight-knit community of 
Uvalde, TX.
  Uvalde is a town of about 15,000 people, about 65 miles from the 
United States-Mexican border. There is one high school football team, 
one H-E-B Grocery store, and one post office. The families of Uvalde 
have known each other and loved each other's children for as long as 
they can remember.

  The grief caused by this attack is shared by the entire community, 
and I join all Texans in lifting up the victims, their families, and 
those who are struggling to make sense of this tragedy.
  Yesterday, I was in Uvalde with my fellow Texans in mourning. I 
joined hundreds of people in donating blood and received an update from 
law enforcement and both State and community leaders. As though we 
needed a reminder of the tight-knit community, a deputy sheriff himself 
lost his own daughter in this attack, and two members of the mayor's 
staff lost children as well.
  One of the conversations I had that really struck home was with an 
older gentleman who responded to the call for blood donations at the 
Herby Ham Activity Center. As we waited our turn to donate blood, he 
shared with me that he had lost two grandchildren in the shooting. It 
is not possible for us to comprehend the pain he must be feeling, but 
there he was, donating blood. Two young lives were stolen from his 
family, and, still, this man stood in line so he could support his 
community in some tangible way.
  During the briefing from law enforcement, two of the Uvalde police 
officers who responded to the shooting shared their harrowing 
experiences with us, and in the face of such unthinkable evil, their 
courage was unwavering. One of these Uvalde police officers responded 
to the scene, and I had a chance to thank him personally.
  I want to thank all of the law enforcement officials, the emergency 
medical technicians, and healthcare workers who responded to this 
tragedy and who continue to support the survivors and their loved ones.
  At times like this, I am reminded of a quote I heard some time ago 
from a county commissioner in the face of a similar tragedy. He said:

       Being a Texan doesn't describe where you are from as much 
     as it describes who your family is.

  Today, our entire family is mourning. Our hearts are broken by those 
who lost loved ones and the survivors who will never forget this 
terrifying and senseless attack.
  While the terror of this attack will weigh on all of us, we saw the 
spirit of my State on full display as resources poured out to help the 
loved ones of the community who were hurting so badly. From mental 
health counseling to food donations, there was an outflow of support 
from the South Texas community.
  At times like this, words seem so inadequate. There is no good way to 
completely express the heartbreak and anger that swell in your chest at 
a moment like this. All we can say, perhaps, is that our condolences 
are with the families who are grieving such a cruel and unexpected 
loss. I can't fathom the pain of seeing an empty bed where your child 
slept the night before.
  Knowing we can't turn back the clock to prevent this tragedy from 
occurring, the obvious question then is, How do we prevent something 
like this from happening again?
  At this point, law enforcement is still investigating and piecing 
together the full story. In the coming days, I expect we will have 
better information about the shooter and his background and the 
circumstances that led to this senseless, brutal act. Once it does, I 
am eager to see whether there were any gaps that might have done 
something to make this attack less likely, that might have actually 
even prevented this attack from taking place.
  In the past, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to prevent senseless tragedies from occurring, through things like Fix 
NICS and the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act. Fix NICS, you will 
recall, occurred after the Sutherland Springs shooting, where the 
shooter's criminal convictions were not uploaded by the Air Force into 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, so he was able 
to go to a local sporting goods store and buy weapons--by lying and 
buying. I am convinced that in working with Senator Murphy and all of 
our colleagues, we were able to get 70 or more cosponsors on that bill 
because it actually addressed a real gap in the system, and it would 
actually give us some hope that we would actually save lives in the 
future.
  I am not interested in making a political statement. I am not 
interested in the same old tired talking points. I am actually 
interested in what we can do to make the terrible events that occurred 
in Uvalde less likely in the future. We don't know everything we need 
to know, but once we do, I expect there will be an informed debate 
about the reforms we can make, and I look forward to participating in 
those discussions.
  For now, the focus should remain on supporting the people of this 
little community, who suffered an immeasurable loss this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, let me first also express my condolences 
and associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Texas. The 
tragedy is horrific. It is hard to think of anything more awful than 
what happened in Texas and in other schools over the last few years.


                              Asylum Rule

  Mr. President, I come to the floor today for another reason--in 
support of using the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of and 
prevent the implementation of a rule titled Procedures for Credible 
Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and 
CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers. I will refer to this rule as 
the ``asylum rule'' to make it a little bit simpler. As the title 
suggests, there is an awful lot to this, but the reason we ought to 
disapprove of it is actually quite simple.
  This rule will go into effect at the end of this month, on May 31. On 
May 31, what this new rule will do is it will allow the USCIS, asylum 
officers, to begin granting asylum without review by an immigration 
court.
  It is important to note that section 240 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, which governs removal proceedings, states:

     [a]n immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding 
     the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.

  Now, an immigration court is an adjudicative court. It is a separate 
unit of government from a USCIS officer, who is within the Department 
of Homeland Security in the executive branch. It is a check and balance 
on executive action. It is a very necessary check and balance on an 
executive who is not faithfully executing the laws, as we have today 
with President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas.
  On May 1 of this year, news reporter Bret Baier asked Secretary 
Mayorkas in an interview:

       Is it the objective of the Biden administration to sharply 
     reduce the total number of illegal immigrants coming across 
     the southern border?

  The obvious answer to Bret Baier's question is, That is the goal--to 
reduce the flow of people coming into this country illegally.
  That ought to be every administration's goal. That is what a 
President and an administration would do if they were faithfully 
executing the laws; but listen to Secretary Mayorkas's reply, his 
answer.
  Secretary Mayorkas stated: ``It is the objective of the Biden 
administration to make sure that we have safe, orderly, and legal 
pathways for individuals to be able to access our legal system.''

[[Page S2720]]

  I first must note that our legal system is horribly broken. It is 
that legal system that has produced this result. Now, I don't expect 
the viewers to look at and to be able to see everything on this chart, 
but you can go to my website and download this, and you will see the 
cause and effect of various directives, of various rules, of various 
regulations, and of various court orders and proceedings to cause this 
explosion--this out-of-control flow--of illegal immigration.
  By the way, it all started back in 2009 when then-ICE Director Morton 
issued a directive directly contravening the plain language of the law 
that required detaining individuals whose asylum claim was being 
adjudicated. So we stopped detaining them.
  Then, of course, in June 2012, President Obama, through his DHS 
Secretary, created the DACA memorandum, which was an open invitation to 
unaccompanied children coming to this country because they knew that, 
once they got here, they would be able to stay.
  If you take a look at the history here, the gold represents single 
adults coming into this country illegally and being apprehended. This 
is on a monthly basis. Blue is family units exploiting our very broken 
asylum system, where the credible fear standard gives you a free pass 
into the country. Red represents unaccompanied children.
  It is important to note that back in 2014, when President Obama 
declared it a humanitarian crisis, about 2,000 people were being 
apprehended at the border on a daily basis--2,000. Now, again, because 
of different policy choices, the word gets out--and because of 
different court decisions--and people in Central America and throughout 
the world realize that we are not following our asylum laws. We have a 
virtually open border. We are engaging in ``catch and release.''
  So President Trump had to deal with a surge in 2019 of more than 
4,000 people per day in a given month, and you can see that surge here. 
But President Trump took action. He engaged. He implemented the Return 
to Mexico policy. He made agreements with the Central American 
countries and Mexico, and we pretty well stopped the flow of 
unaccompanied children and family units. We actually reduced the flow 
of single adults who were exploiting our broken immigration system.
  Then, during the Presidential debates, Democratic candidates, 
including President Biden, declared to the world that they weren't 
going to deport people; they were going to offer people who were coming 
into this country illegally free healthcare.
  You can see, even during 2020, as we were building the walls--and we 
had the Return to Mexico policy in place--that single adults realized 
there might be a change in policy, and they started flooding our 
border. If you will notice, we went from, on average over about 10 
years, about 30,000 single adults per month coming into this country to 
the last 2 months, when it has been over 150,000 or closer to 160,000, 
170,000 single adults. Throw on top of that, at almost the minute that 
President Biden came into office and dismantled those successful 
programs, we then had a new flood, a new surge, of family units in blue 
and unaccompanied children flooding our border and exploiting our 
asylum laws.
  This new rule that is about to take effect at the end of this month, 
the asylum rule, again, circumvents, is contrary to stated law that 
says immigration judges, immigration courts, need to make that asylum 
determination, not members of the administration, not USCIS officers.
  What this rule does is it gives that power to grant asylum--an 
awesome power that Congress never meant to give to the administration--
to USCIS officers and only allows a judge to take a look at it if the 
asylum claim is denied by the USCIS officer. This isn't going to do 
anything to reduce the backlog. What this will do is this increase the 
flow. This is another signal throughout the world that we have an open 
border policy.
  The only restraint right now is title 42, and this administration is 
working actively to overturn a court order that says you must keep 
title 42 restrictions in place. And if the USCIS officer isn't as 
generous as we fear they all will be and actually denies asylum, you 
are right back there in immigration courts. So the only purpose of this 
rule is to increase the flow, to accomplish Secretary Mayorkas's stated 
goal of making sure we have a safe, orderly, and legal pathway for 
individuals to access our legal system. In other words, this 
administration's policy on the border isn't to secure it, isn't to 
reduce the flow; it is to make the processing and dispersing of illegal 
immigrants more efficient so more will come.

  Last year, one and a quarter million people either encountered and 
dispersed or came in as known ``got-aways,'' came to this country 
illegally and were dispersed. That is a number that is larger than the 
population of eight States. That is how out of control this crisis is. 
Yet Secretary Mayorkas won't even call it a problem, much less a 
crisis.
  So it is obvious how harmful this rule is to our Nation and to our 
national security. An open border is a national security threat.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in using the Congressional Review Act 
to disapprove of this rule and prevent its implementation.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                                H.R. 350

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak today on the Domestic Terrorism 
Prevention Act.
  As I have said many times, I am committed to fighting political 
violence from across the political spectrum. This bill doesn't help us 
do that.
  In fact, career DOJ attorneys reviewing the legislation have 
indicated that the bill is ``harmful'' and ``counterproductive.'' I use 
their words.
  This short bill merely reorganizes the government offices that 
already fight domestic terrorism in DHS, DOJ, and the FBI. This 
reorganization wasn't sought by the Agencies themselves.
  In fact, in technical assistance provided to us, the operators 
pointed out a number of problems with it. For example, the bill assigns 
responsibilities monitoring and analyzing domestic terrorism activity 
to DHS that actually belong in FBI.
  The other major feature of the legislation is a direction to the 
Agencies that they must focus on the greatest historical threats, 
looking backward.
  The operators have told us this means they can't be agile or address 
rapidly evolving threats if they were to follow this law.
  I am always willing to listen to the needs of Agencies that keep 
Americans safe.
  In fact, there are authorities that DOJ and the FBI need, for 
international terrorism.
  I introduced an amendment to the NDAA last year, to expand these 
authorities. I hope we will pass it into law this year.
  The domestic and international functions work together, and siloing 
them would not help DOJ fight terrorism.
  The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act won't help us prevent or combat 
terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on moving to this 
bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am proud to support and cosponsor S. 
4255, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022, which the Senate 
is considering as H.R. 350. This bill is critically important in 
supporting law enforcement's response to domestic terrorism.
  Domestic terrorism has become increasingly common. According to a 
recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 
more than two-thirds of domestic terrorist plots and attacks in 2020 
were fueled by White supremacists and ideologically aligned violent 
extremists.
  Unfortunately, just last week in Buffalo, NY, we saw the savage 
destruction that hate can cause. A gunman killed 10 people and injured 
3 others in a local grocery store. Eleven of the 13 people who were 
shot were Black. Make no mistake, this act of violence was a domestic 
terrorism incident.
  We must do more to stop these heinous acts of violence. To do this, 
we must provide our law enforcement with the resources they need. This 
bill will would help establish offices within the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation that would monitor, investigate, and prosecute domestic 
terrorism crimes. This bill would also help ensure that all law 
enforcement agencies have access to anti-terrorism resources.

[[Page S2721]]

  I believe this bill is an important step to help address the rising 
threat of domestic terrorism throughout the country.
  I am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan bill, and I am happy to see 
my Democratic colleagues support it on the floor today.
  Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, today, I will vote to open debate on H.R. 
350, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act.
  Should the Senate so proceed, however, I will insist on a thorough 
and judicious debate and on a process that empowers Senators to offer 
and vote on amendments.
  Before I determine whether to support passage of this legislation, I 
will weigh that debate, I will consider expert analysis and input from 
executive agencies, and I will assess the merits and effects of 
amendments that may be considered and adopted.
  This legislative process must ensure that Federal law enforcement is 
transparent, accountable, and apolitical.
  The threat of domestic terrorism is real. The United States must 
continue to confront it. We have sworn an oath to defend the 
Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. We must do so in a 
manner informed by objective threat assessments, consistent with our 
Constitution, and attentive to civil liberties.
  Any time we establish or codify Federal law enforcement offices 
tasked with investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by Americans 
or collecting and analyzing intelligence related to American citizens, 
we must ensure safeguards are sufficiently robust to protect civil 
rights and civil liberties. Consideration of such legislation may 
present us with an opportunity to assess what Congress got right and 
what Congress got wrong in the aftermath of 9/11, when the Department 
of Homeland Security was established and Federal counterterrorism 
efforts and authorities grew considerably, and to calibrate policy 
accordingly.
  In short, I vote today to open debate, but I do not yet commit to 
voting for passage of this legislation while the process of review, 
debate, and potential amendment continues.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 371, H.R. 350, a bill to authorize 
     dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic 
     terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take 
     steps to prevent domestic terrorism.
         Charles E. Schumer, Tim Kaine, Tammy Duckworth, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Ben Ray Lujan, Richard J. Durbin, Elizabeth 
           Warren, Christopher Murphy, Cory A. Booker, Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jack Reed, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Gary C. Peters, Tina Smith, Brian Schatz, 
           Debbie Stabenow.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 350, a bill to authorize dedicated domestic 
terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal 
Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) and 
the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Alaska 
(Ms. Murkowski).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Blackburn
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Van Hollen
  (Mr. COONS assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). On this vote, the yeas are 47, 
the nays are 47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                          Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now let me explain. I entered my ``no'' 
vote so we can bring this up again and gain more support. So I enter a 
motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.

                          ____________________