The publication is reproduced in full below:
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, 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.
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.
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 168, No. 30
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up