Jump to content

HR 5 - Countering Global White Supremacist Terrorism Act


Huffines
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ms. Gonzalez with thanks to Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill;


A BILL

To counter White identity terrorism globally, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Countering Global White Supremacist Terrorism Act”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) “White identity terrorism” is the term used by the Department of State to encompass White nationalist and White supremacist terrorists. Individuals who adhere to White nationalist and White supremacist ideologies share a common belief that White people and “White identity” in western countries are under siege and pursue the destruction of pluralistic values intrinsic to the American way of life.

(2) The Global Terrorism Database and corresponding Global Terrorism Index have recorded a rise in the number and lethality of White identity terrorist incidents during the past decade, both domestically and internationally.

(3) Various individuals, networks, and organizations fall under the umbrella of the global White identity terrorist movement, whose adherents are becoming increasingly internationalized, with fighters and terrorist ideology moving across borders.

(4) Irresponsible social media sites are enabling the internationalization of the White identity terrorist movement in terms of organization and recruitment. State and nonstate actors have helped to build a global, online White identity terrorist echo chamber, including by translating terrorist manifestos and promoting other violent extremist content. This activity includes countries using “troll farms” to exacerbate fears of immigrants, Muslims, Jews, and other minorities in western countries among potentially sympathetic audiences.

(5) There is evidence that adherents of the White identity movement in the United States are increasingly traveling overseas for training, further contributing to the internationalization of White identity terrorism. Jihadist experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria highlight the dangers that such individuals can pose because of the connections and capabilities they bring with them when they return home.

(6) The global White identity terrorist movement has manifested a decentralized organizational approach that encourages individuals to operate independently from one another and execute terrorist attacks on their own. This approach poses challenges to law enforcement efforts to track, monitor, and disrupt planned violence. In the same way that Islamist terrorists have looked to figures in al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, White identity terrorists draw on one another for inspiration.

(7) The growing global interconnectivity of the White identity terrorist movement means that the United States must confront this threat as part of an integrated, whole-of-government approach.

SEC. 3. COUNTERING WHITE IDENTITY TERRORISM GLOBALLY.

 

(a) Strategy And Coordination.—Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall—

(1) develop and submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a Department of State-wide strategy entitled the “Department of State Strategy for Countering White Identity Terrorism Globally” (in this section referred to as the “strategy”).

(2) designate the Coordinator for Counterterrorism of the Department of State to coordinate Department of State efforts to counter White identity terrorism globally, including with United States diplomatic and consular posts, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of other relevant Federal departments or agencies.

(b) Elements.—The strategy shall, at a minimum, contain the following:

(1) An assessment of the global threat from White identity terrorism abroad, including geographic or country prioritization based on the assessed threat to the United States.

(2) A description of the coordination mechanisms between relevant bureaus and offices within the Department of State, including United States diplomatic and consular posts, for developing and implementing efforts to counter White identity terrorism.

(3) A description of how the Department of State plans to build on any existing strategy developed by the Bureau of Counterterrorism—

(A) to adapt or expand existing Department programs, projects, activities, or policy instruments based on existing authorities for the specific purpose of degrading and delegitimizing the White identity terrorist movement globally; and

(B) to identify the need for any new Department programs, projects, activities, or policy instruments for the specific purpose of degrading and delegitimizing the White identity terrorist movement globally, including a description of the steps and resources necessary to establish any such programs, projects, activities, or policy instruments, noting whether such steps would require new authorities.

(4) Detailed plans for using public diplomacy, including the efforts of the Secretary of State and other senior executive branch officials, including the President, to degrade and delegitimize White identity terrorist ideologues and ideology globally, including by—

(A) countering White identity terrorist messaging and supporting efforts to redirect potential supporters away from White identity terrorist content online;

(B) exposing foreign government support for White identity terrorist ideologies, objectives, ideologues, networks, organizations, and internet platforms;

(C) engaging with foreign governments and internet service providers and other relevant technology entities to prevent or limit White identity terrorists from exploiting internet platforms in furtherance of or in preparation for acts of terrorism or other targeted violence, as well as the recruitment, radicalization, and indoctrination of new adherents to White identity terrorism; and

(D) identifying the roles and responsibilities for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and for the Global Engagement Center in developing and implementing such plans.

(5) An outline of the steps the Department of State is taking or will take in coordination, as appropriate, with the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of any other relevant Federal departments or agencies to improve information and intelligence sharing with other countries on White identity terrorism based on existing authorities by—

(A) describing plans for adapting or expanding existing mechanisms for sharing information, intelligence, or counterterrorism best practices, including facilitating the sharing of information, intelligence, or counterterrorism best practices gathered by Federal, State, and local law enforcement; and

(B) proposing new mechanisms or forums that might enable expanded sharing of information, intelligence, or counterterrorism best practices.

(6) An outline of how the Department of State plans to use designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (under Executive Order 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note)) or foreign terrorist organization (pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) to support the strategy, including—

(A) an assessment and explanation of the utility of applying or not applying such designations when individuals or entities satisfy the criteria for such designations; and

(B) a description of possible remedies if such criteria are insufficient to enable designation of any individuals or entities the Secretary of State considers a potential terrorist threat to the United States.

(7) A description of the Department of State’s plans, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, to work with foreign governments, financial institutions and other related entities to counter the financing of White identity terrorists within the parameters of current law, or if no such plans exist, a description of why such plans were not developed.

(8) A description of how the Department of State plans to implement the strategy in conjunction with ongoing efforts to counter the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist threats to the United States.

(9) A description of how the Department of State will integrate into the strategy lessons learned in the ongoing efforts to counter the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist threats to the United States.

(10) An identification of any additional resources or staff needed to implement the strategy.

(c) Interagency Coordination.—The Secretary of State shall develop the strategy in coordination with the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center and in consultation with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of any other relevant Federal departments or agencies.

(d) Stakeholder Inclusion.—The strategy shall be developed in consultation with representatives of United States and international civil society and academic entities with experience researching or implementing programs to counter White identity terrorism.

(e) Form.—The strategy shall be submitted in unclassified form that can be made available to the public, but may include a classified annex if the Secretary of State determines such is appropriate.

(f) Implementation.—Not later than 3 months after the submission of the strategy, the Secretary of State shall begin implementing the strategy.

(g) Consultation.—Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives regarding the development and implementation of the strategy.

SEC. 4. ANNUAL COUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM.

Section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(a)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(5) all credible information about White identity terrorism, including—

“(A) relevant attacks;

“(B) the identity of perpetrators and victims of such attacks;

“(C) the size and identity of organizations and networks; and

“(D) the identity of notable ideologues.”.

SEC. 5. REPORT ON SANCTIONS.

 

(a) In General.—Not later than 120 days after the submission of each of the Annual Country Reports on Terrorism pursuant to section 140 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f), and 240 days thereafter, the President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that determines whether the foreign persons, organizations, and networks identified in such reports satisfy the criteria to be designated as—

(1) foreign terrorist organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or

(2) Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organizations under Executive Order 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note).

(b) Form.—Each determination required under subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex, if appropriate.

SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT STUDY TO MAP THE GLOBAL WHITE IDENTITY TERRORISM MOVEMENT.

 

(a) In General.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall enter into a contract with a federally funded research and development center with appropriate expertise and analytical capability to carry out the study described in subsection (b).

(b) Study.—The study described in this subsection shall provide for a comprehensive social network analysis of the global White identity terrorism movement—

(1) to identify key actors, organizations, and supporting infrastructure; and

(2) to map the relationships and interactions between such actors, organizations, and supporting infrastructure.

(c) Report.—

(1) TO THE SECRETARY.—Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Secretary of State enters into a contract pursuant to subsection (a), the federally funded research and development center referred to in such subsection shall submit to the Secretary a report containing the results of the study required under this section.

(2) TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after receipt of the report under paragraph (1), the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives such report, together with any additional views or recommendations of the Secretary.

Democratic Representative Litzy Gonzalez

Texas Congressional District 35

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Bruce changed the title to HR 5 - Countering Global White Supremacist Terrorism Act

Madam Speaker,

On a point of privilege, could the text of bills please be formatted in a more standardized format?  [OOC: The copying of the white-background text on the site gives me a headache.]

I move to amend by altering all instances of "white identity" to instead read "racial or ethnic identity".  I beg the clerk's indulgence...this will alter the bill in approximately 31 locations.  I can list them all if needed, but I think the intent and effect shpuld be clear.

Andrew Byrd (and family), Virginia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
25 minutes ago, Steven Andrews said:

Madam Speaker,

On a point of privilege, could the text of bills please be formatted in a more standardized format?  [OOC: The copying of the white-background text on the site gives me a headache.]

I move to amend by altering all instances of "white identity" to instead read "racial or ethnic identity".  I beg the clerk's indulgence...this will alter the bill in approximately 31 locations.  I can list them all if needed, but I think the intent and effect shpuld be clear.

OOC: Yes please do post the full language of the bill as you'd like it to appear if the amendment is passed for my own sanity. Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Steven Andrews said:

I move to amend by altering all instances of "white identity" to instead read "racial or ethnic identity".  I beg the clerk's indulgence...this will alter the bill in approximately 31 locations.  I can list them all if needed, but I think the intent and effect shpuld be clear.

Madam Speaker, I second this amendment and yield.

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madame Speaker,

Trying to amend out the very purpose of the bill, addressing white identitarian movements, to obfuscate it to racial movements in general is to the benefit of white identitarian movements. If we can't specifically call them out in name then what as a government are we even doing? Why is it a problem for some to not call them out by name? We should all be on board with specifically calling out white identitarian and if you can't you shouldn't be in here.

I yield.

Democratic Representative Litzy Gonzalez

Texas Congressional District 35

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madam Speaker, 

You will find no contention from me on the issue that white identitarian movements pose in this world of our’s. However, I think it is wrong to single out any specific racialist movement as a threat. In a multi-racial society, all organizations that preach the supremacy of one race over another are a threat to our harmony and peace as a country. They represent a threat to our allies as well across the world. It’s not just white people who can be seduced by racialist lies and bigotry, even if many on the Left seem convinced that is so. 
 

The thing is, I don’t see the problem with expanding this to include all types of racial terrorism. We aren’t excluding white identity groups; we are merely including those of all races. To single out one race in particular could be seen as an implicit admission that that one race is a unique threat, which would do tremendous damage to our psyche and reputation as a country and as a Congress. We should recognize the threat that white supremacist groups are across the world, but I don’t see why that should come to the exclusion of other types of violent racial groups. All of them pose a special threat, and I don’t see how any reasonable objection could be made to countering them all instead of just one subgroup. 
 

I hope the majority will join me today in countering all racial prejudice, no matter the source. That’s what America is about, and I believe both parties should be able to agree on this. Don’t let the extremes control you; listen to common sense and the will of the people. 
 

I yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madame speaker,

White supremacy both past and present is a unique threat in the country and a rising threat globally It is not equivalent to the other racial identitiarian movement. To think it is comes from a place of personal privilege. The type of privilege that takes issue with singling out exclusively white identitarianism. Privilege that doesn't want to solely focus on the reality of white supremacy in this country and make the blame "inclusive" by pretending the issue isn't white identitarianism in particular. It is not some sort of "Hispanic supremacists" shooting up Walmarts in El Paso because they believe in "Great Replacement theory". It is not "black supremacists" organizing marches through American towns chanting "Jews will not replace us". The threat of white identitarianism is not equal to whatever group you want to include in the blame by making this bill somehow more "inclusive" and by taking the focus off of white identitarianism you're losing the entire point to begin with. Stop making special pleas to take the focus off literal Nazis. It is quite amazing for some in congress this is even an issue.

If you feel singled out because the government is going after white identity groups the issue is much more with you as a person than with those trying to represent the historically marginalized in the face of centuries old institutionalized exclusion. White people do not have an equal responsibility in the matters of anti-racism or an equal relation to racism in this country and for such reasons it is patently not wrong to single out white identity group. The historical long held power of whites in American society and that declining power in the face of a more multicultural America is a specific area that needs to be addressed because it's only going to get worse as those who want to hold onto an American vision of the past get more and more desperate with declining white population percentages. If you can't make a stand against specifically against white identitarianism right now when is it ever going to happen? Are we just going to continue to pretend white identitarianism is no special threat in this country until we have another synagogue shot up? Do we need to wait for a Charlottesville 2.0? 

Yes there are other bad groups in the world, but can we even take a second to call out the sieg heiling elephant in the room? Or is that too much because it might hurt a racist person's feelings?

I yield.

Democratic Representative Litzy Gonzalez

Texas Congressional District 35

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madam Speaker,
My amendment adjusts the following:

Quote

(1)  In the purpose of the bill
"To counter White identity terrorism globally, and for other purposes."
to be replaced with
"To counter religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism globally, and for other purposes"

(2) In SEC. 2., strike SEC. 2 (1)
(3) In SEC. 2. (2):
"lethality of White identity terrorist incidents"
to be replaced with
"lethality of religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorist incidents"

(4) In SEC. 2 (3):
"Various individuals, networks, and organizations fall under the umbrella of the global White identity terrorist movement"
to be replaced with
"Various individuals, networks, and organizations fall under the umbrellas of the global religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorist movements"

(5) In SEC. 2 (4):
"Irresponsible social media sites are enabling the internationalization of the White identity terrorist movement"
to be replaced with
"Irresponsible social media sites are enabling the internationalization of religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorist movements"

(6) In SEC. 2 (5):
"There is evidence that adherents of the White identity movement in the United States are increasingly traveling overseas for training, further contributing to the internationalization of White identity terrorism"
to be replaced with
"There is evidence that adherents of religious, racial, or ethnic identity movements are increasingly traveling overseas for training, further contributing to the internationalization of religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism"

(7) In SEC. 2 (6):
"The global White identity terrorist movement has manifested a decentralized organizational approach that encourages individuals to operate independently from one another and execute terrorist attacks on their own. This approach poses challenges to law enforcement efforts to track, monitor, and disrupt planned violence. In the same way that Islamist terrorists have looked to figures in al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, White identity terrorists draw on one another for inspiration."
to be replaced with
"Global religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorist movement has manifested a decentralized organizational approach that encourages individuals to operate independently from one another and execute terrorist attacks on their own. This approach poses challenges to law enforcement efforts to track, monitor, and disrupt planned violence. In the same way that Islamist terrorists have looked to figures in al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, religious, racial, or ethnic terrorists draw on one another for inspiration."

(8) In SEC. 2 (7):
The growing global interconnectivity of the White identity terrorist movement
to be replaced with
"The growing global interconnectivity of religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorist movements"

(9) SEC. 3. COUNTERING WHITE IDENTITY TERRORISM GLOBALLY.
to be replaced with
SEC. 3. COUNTERING RELIGIOUS, RACIAL, OR ETHNIC IDENTITY TERRORISM GLOBALLY.

(10) In SEC. 3. (a)(1)
“Department of State Strategy for Countering White Identity Terrorism Globally”
to be replaced with
"Department of State Strategy for Countering Religious, Racial, and Ethnic Identity Terrorism Globally”

(11) In SEC. 3. (a)(2)
"efforts to counter White identity terrorism globally"
to be replaced with
"efforts to counter religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism globally"

(12) In SEC 3. (b)(2)
"for developing and implementing efforts to counter White identity terrorism"
to be replaced with
"for developing and implementing efforts to counter religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism"

(13) In SEC 3. (b)(3)(A)
"degrading and delegitimizing the White identity terrorist movement globally"
to be replaced with
"degrading and delegitimizing any religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorist movement globally"

(14) In SEC 3. (b)(3)(B)
"degrading and delegitimizing the White identity terrorist movement globally"
to be replaced with
"degrading and delegitimizing the any religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorist movement globally"

(15) In SEC 3. (b)(3)(C)
"and other relevant technology entities to prevent or limit White identity terrorists"
to be replaced with
"and other relevant technology entities to prevent or limit religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorists"

(16) In SEC 3. (b)(3)(C)
"and indoctrination of new adherents to White identity terrorism"
to be replaced with
"and indoctrination of new adherents to religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism"

(17) In SEC 3. (b)(5)
"other countries on White identity terrorism"
to be replaced with
"other countries on religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism"

(18) In SEC 3. (b)(7)
"counter the financing of White identity terrorists"
to be replaced with
"counter the financing of religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorists"

(19) In SEC 3. (d)
"researching or implementing programs to counter White identity terrorism."
to be replaced with
"researching or implementing programs to counter religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism."

(20) In SEC 4. (3)
"all credible information about White identity terrorism, including"
to be replaced with
"all credible information about religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism, including

(21) SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT STUDY TO MAP THE GLOBAL WHITE IDENTITY TERRORISM MOVEMENT.
to be replaced by
SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT STUDY TO MAP THE GLOBAL RELIGIOUS, RACIAL, OR ETHNIC IDENTITY TERRORISM MOVEMENTs.

(22) In SEC 6. (b)
"global White identity terrorism movement"
to be replaced with
"global religious, racial, or ethnic identity terrorism movements"

 

I realize that this amends 22 separate points in the bill...that's a hair lower than I expected, but a few points deal with more than one set of word changed...but such is the nature of codified bills, is it not?  I note that I have added religion on further consideration.

As to the issue at hand...first and foremost, to the extent that the movement in question is becoming globalized, the idea that such folks in Europe are working to violently defend the American way of life is kind of absurd.  I would note in this context that antisemitism, particularly in Europe, manifests just as commonly among Muslim groups as it does among the white folks.  Several Islamic State attacks were upon synagogues or kosher supermarkets.

Second, I would point out the historical friendship and cooperation between, for example, David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.  These various identity groups tend to end up traveling together for various reasons, be it a shared desire for their "own land" or simply being united by a common enemy.  Bluntly, a lot of them start 'playing nice with one another' when they decide that they share a common enemy who just happens to be Jewish.

Third, I would point out that - as an example and without loss of generality - there has been a rising tide in this vein in India, for example, with "Hindu nationalists" and non-Hindus.  I highlight this example to point to a situation where religion and race or ethnicity get tangled up in a knot and trying to disentangle them is, at best, a complex exercise.  Oftentimes these different forms of extremism dress up as one another as if it were Halloween...tell me whether the conflict in Northern Ireland is a nationalist conflict, a religious conflict, or an ethnic conflict and I can probably produce five opinions to the contrary.  And of course, there are the Chechens - is that religion or race or something else?  What about the Ukraine...setting aside international instigation, is that ethnic or religious?  And should we ignore any misbehavior there because all of the participants happen to be what we would probably consider white?

Frankly, I could trot out bits and bobs from some Kurdish groups - Madam Speaker, the hell if I know how we'd classify them - or the ideology of Han Chinese superiority which is working to buttress China's long-standing misbehavior in Tibet and now Xinjiang.  Fortunately, Juche - which is largely a Korean-ized version of WW2-era Japanese Yamato ideology - is mostly self-contained to North Korea or we could add it to our wonderful list here.  And of course, I would be remiss if I did not point out the goings-on in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Nigeria in recent decades, where race and religion have snarled one another in various ways, and where the institutions that my colleague would condemn for inaction have been similarly useless or antagonistic.

And of course, while we're on that front, what counts as "white" anyway?  Blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryans only? Do we go by self-identification? Two centuries ago, the Irish would not have qualified in many eyes.  A century ago, the Italians would not.  Today, the question of self-identification is driving all sorts of folks in my colleague's party nuts as a lot of previously self-identified Hispanics are opting to drop that and drop their ethnic hyphen and simply identify as white and American, while they're at it.

So I am quite concerned that this bill, as initially written, sets up a scope that is subject to far too much debate and interpretation.  Can a group evade the 'notice' of what this bill tries to seek out if it simply alters its rhetoric or ideology a bit?  We've seen plenty of that over the decades...I will point back to David Duke again and how he made an effort to drop anti-Catholicism from the ideology of the KKK in an attempt to broaden its appeal in Louisiana.

I can go on and on, but the core point is this: The underlying bill misses the whole poisonous forest because the authors really do not like one of the trees in it.  That tree is problematic, but I might suggest that in trying to focus on it they are declining to napalm the whole forest, and I believe that is a grave error.

Andrew Byrd (and family), Virginia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Steven Andrews said:

Madam Speaker,
My amendment adjusts the following:

I realize that this amends 22 separate points in the bill...that's a hair lower than I expected, but a few points deal with more than one set of word changed...but such is the nature of codified bills, is it not?  I note that I have added religion on further consideration.

As to the issue at hand...first and foremost, to the extent that the movement in question is becoming globalized, the idea that such folks in Europe are working to violently defend the American way of life is kind of absurd.  I would note in this context that antisemitism, particularly in Europe, manifests just as commonly among Muslim groups as it does among the white folks.  Several Islamic State attacks were upon synagogues or kosher supermarkets.

Second, I would point out the historical friendship and cooperation between, for example, David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.  These various identity groups tend to end up traveling together for various reasons, be it a shared desire for their "own land" or simply being united by a common enemy.  Bluntly, a lot of them start 'playing nice with one another' when they decide that they share a common enemy who just happens to be Jewish.

Third, I would point out that - as an example and without loss of generality - there has been a rising tide in this vein in India, for example, with "Hindu nationalists" and non-Hindus.  I highlight this example to point to a situation where religion and race or ethnicity get tangled up in a knot and trying to disentangle them is, at best, a complex exercise.  Oftentimes these different forms of extremism dress up as one another as if it were Halloween...tell me whether the conflict in Northern Ireland is a nationalist conflict, a religious conflict, or an ethnic conflict and I can probably produce five opinions to the contrary.  And of course, there are the Chechens - is that religion or race or something else?  What about the Ukraine...setting aside international instigation, is that ethnic or religious?  And should we ignore any misbehavior there because all of the participants happen to be what we would probably consider white?

Frankly, I could trot out bits and bobs from some Kurdish groups - Madam Speaker, the hell if I know how we'd classify them - or the ideology of Han Chinese superiority which is working to buttress China's long-standing misbehavior in Tibet and now Xinjiang.  Fortunately, Juche - which is largely a Korean-ized version of WW2-era Japanese Yamato ideology - is mostly self-contained to North Korea or we could add it to our wonderful list here.  And of course, I would be remiss if I did not point out the goings-on in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Nigeria in recent decades, where race and religion have snarled one another in various ways, and where the institutions that my colleague would condemn for inaction have been similarly useless or antagonistic.

And of course, while we're on that front, what counts as "white" anyway?  Blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryans only? Do we go by self-identification? Two centuries ago, the Irish would not have qualified in many eyes.  A century ago, the Italians would not.  Today, the question of self-identification is driving all sorts of folks in my colleague's party nuts as a lot of previously self-identified Hispanics are opting to drop that and drop their ethnic hyphen and simply identify as white and American, while they're at it.

So I am quite concerned that this bill, as initially written, sets up a scope that is subject to far too much debate and interpretation.  Can a group evade the 'notice' of what this bill tries to seek out if it simply alters its rhetoric or ideology a bit?  We've seen plenty of that over the decades...I will point back to David Duke again and how he made an effort to drop anti-Catholicism from the ideology of the KKK in an attempt to broaden its appeal in Louisiana.

I can go on and on, but the core point is this: The underlying bill misses the whole poisonous forest because the authors really do not like one of the trees in it.  That tree is problematic, but I might suggest that in trying to focus on it they are declining to napalm the whole forest, and I believe that is a grave error.

Madam Speaker, 

I again second the amendment and yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 12/15/2021 at 6:08 AM, Steven Andrews said:

Madam Speaker,
My amendment adjusts the following:

I realize that this amends 22 separate points in the bill...that's a hair lower than I expected, but a few points deal with more than one set of word changed...but such is the nature of codified bills, is it not?  I note that I have added religion on further consideration.

As to the issue at hand...first and foremost, to the extent that the movement in question is becoming globalized, the idea that such folks in Europe are working to violently defend the American way of life is kind of absurd.  I would note in this context that antisemitism, particularly in Europe, manifests just as commonly among Muslim groups as it does among the white folks.  Several Islamic State attacks were upon synagogues or kosher supermarkets.

Second, I would point out the historical friendship and cooperation between, for example, David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.  These various identity groups tend to end up traveling together for various reasons, be it a shared desire for their "own land" or simply being united by a common enemy.  Bluntly, a lot of them start 'playing nice with one another' when they decide that they share a common enemy who just happens to be Jewish.

Third, I would point out that - as an example and without loss of generality - there has been a rising tide in this vein in India, for example, with "Hindu nationalists" and non-Hindus.  I highlight this example to point to a situation where religion and race or ethnicity get tangled up in a knot and trying to disentangle them is, at best, a complex exercise.  Oftentimes these different forms of extremism dress up as one another as if it were Halloween...tell me whether the conflict in Northern Ireland is a nationalist conflict, a religious conflict, or an ethnic conflict and I can probably produce five opinions to the contrary.  And of course, there are the Chechens - is that religion or race or something else?  What about the Ukraine...setting aside international instigation, is that ethnic or religious?  And should we ignore any misbehavior there because all of the participants happen to be what we would probably consider white?

Frankly, I could trot out bits and bobs from some Kurdish groups - Madam Speaker, the hell if I know how we'd classify them - or the ideology of Han Chinese superiority which is working to buttress China's long-standing misbehavior in Tibet and now Xinjiang.  Fortunately, Juche - which is largely a Korean-ized version of WW2-era Japanese Yamato ideology - is mostly self-contained to North Korea or we could add it to our wonderful list here.  And of course, I would be remiss if I did not point out the goings-on in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Nigeria in recent decades, where race and religion have snarled one another in various ways, and where the institutions that my colleague would condemn for inaction have been similarly useless or antagonistic.

And of course, while we're on that front, what counts as "white" anyway?  Blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryans only? Do we go by self-identification? Two centuries ago, the Irish would not have qualified in many eyes.  A century ago, the Italians would not.  Today, the question of self-identification is driving all sorts of folks in my colleague's party nuts as a lot of previously self-identified Hispanics are opting to drop that and drop their ethnic hyphen and simply identify as white and American, while they're at it.

So I am quite concerned that this bill, as initially written, sets up a scope that is subject to far too much debate and interpretation.  Can a group evade the 'notice' of what this bill tries to seek out if it simply alters its rhetoric or ideology a bit?  We've seen plenty of that over the decades...I will point back to David Duke again and how he made an effort to drop anti-Catholicism from the ideology of the KKK in an attempt to broaden its appeal in Louisiana.

I can go on and on, but the core point is this: The underlying bill misses the whole poisonous forest because the authors really do not like one of the trees in it.  That tree is problematic, but I might suggest that in trying to focus on it they are declining to napalm the whole forest, and I believe that is a grave error.

Amendment recognized.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 12/16/2021 at 4:39 PM, Bruce said:

Amendment recognized.

 

The amendment fails.

Voting Bloc Total Aye Nay Present
Nationalist Republicans 51 51 0 0
Evangelical Republicans 51 51 0 0
Business Republicans 51 51 0 0
Moderate Conservative Republicans 50 50 0 0
Moderate Liberal Republicans 14 7 6 0
SJW Democrats 52 0 52 0
Progressive Democrats 52 0 52 0
Environmentalist Democrats 52 0 52 0
Moderate Liberal Democrats 52 0 52 0
Moderate Conservative Democrats 14 2 11 0
  212 225 0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 12/11/2021 at 2:30 PM, Huffines said:

Ms. Gonzalez with thanks to Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill;


A BILL

To counter White identity terrorism globally, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Countering Global White Supremacist Terrorism Act”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) “White identity terrorism” is the term used by the Department of State to encompass White nationalist and White supremacist terrorists. Individuals who adhere to White nationalist and White supremacist ideologies share a common belief that White people and “White identity” in western countries are under siege and pursue the destruction of pluralistic values intrinsic to the American way of life.

(2) The Global Terrorism Database and corresponding Global Terrorism Index have recorded a rise in the number and lethality of White identity terrorist incidents during the past decade, both domestically and internationally.

(3) Various individuals, networks, and organizations fall under the umbrella of the global White identity terrorist movement, whose adherents are becoming increasingly internationalized, with fighters and terrorist ideology moving across borders.

(4) Irresponsible social media sites are enabling the internationalization of the White identity terrorist movement in terms of organization and recruitment. State and nonstate actors have helped to build a global, online White identity terrorist echo chamber, including by translating terrorist manifestos and promoting other violent extremist content. This activity includes countries using “troll farms” to exacerbate fears of immigrants, Muslims, Jews, and other minorities in western countries among potentially sympathetic audiences.

(5) There is evidence that adherents of the White identity movement in the United States are increasingly traveling overseas for training, further contributing to the internationalization of White identity terrorism. Jihadist experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria highlight the dangers that such individuals can pose because of the connections and capabilities they bring with them when they return home.

(6) The global White identity terrorist movement has manifested a decentralized organizational approach that encourages individuals to operate independently from one another and execute terrorist attacks on their own. This approach poses challenges to law enforcement efforts to track, monitor, and disrupt planned violence. In the same way that Islamist terrorists have looked to figures in al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, White identity terrorists draw on one another for inspiration.

(7) The growing global interconnectivity of the White identity terrorist movement means that the United States must confront this threat as part of an integrated, whole-of-government approach.

SEC. 3. COUNTERING WHITE IDENTITY TERRORISM GLOBALLY.

 

(a) Strategy And Coordination.—Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall—

(1) develop and submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a Department of State-wide strategy entitled the “Department of State Strategy for Countering White Identity Terrorism Globally” (in this section referred to as the “strategy”).

(2) designate the Coordinator for Counterterrorism of the Department of State to coordinate Department of State efforts to counter White identity terrorism globally, including with United States diplomatic and consular posts, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of other relevant Federal departments or agencies.

(b) Elements.—The strategy shall, at a minimum, contain the following:

(1) An assessment of the global threat from White identity terrorism abroad, including geographic or country prioritization based on the assessed threat to the United States.

(2) A description of the coordination mechanisms between relevant bureaus and offices within the Department of State, including United States diplomatic and consular posts, for developing and implementing efforts to counter White identity terrorism.

(3) A description of how the Department of State plans to build on any existing strategy developed by the Bureau of Counterterrorism—

(A) to adapt or expand existing Department programs, projects, activities, or policy instruments based on existing authorities for the specific purpose of degrading and delegitimizing the White identity terrorist movement globally; and

(B) to identify the need for any new Department programs, projects, activities, or policy instruments for the specific purpose of degrading and delegitimizing the White identity terrorist movement globally, including a description of the steps and resources necessary to establish any such programs, projects, activities, or policy instruments, noting whether such steps would require new authorities.

(4) Detailed plans for using public diplomacy, including the efforts of the Secretary of State and other senior executive branch officials, including the President, to degrade and delegitimize White identity terrorist ideologues and ideology globally, including by—

(A) countering White identity terrorist messaging and supporting efforts to redirect potential supporters away from White identity terrorist content online;

(B) exposing foreign government support for White identity terrorist ideologies, objectives, ideologues, networks, organizations, and internet platforms;

(C) engaging with foreign governments and internet service providers and other relevant technology entities to prevent or limit White identity terrorists from exploiting internet platforms in furtherance of or in preparation for acts of terrorism or other targeted violence, as well as the recruitment, radicalization, and indoctrination of new adherents to White identity terrorism; and

(D) identifying the roles and responsibilities for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and for the Global Engagement Center in developing and implementing such plans.

(5) An outline of the steps the Department of State is taking or will take in coordination, as appropriate, with the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of any other relevant Federal departments or agencies to improve information and intelligence sharing with other countries on White identity terrorism based on existing authorities by—

(A) describing plans for adapting or expanding existing mechanisms for sharing information, intelligence, or counterterrorism best practices, including facilitating the sharing of information, intelligence, or counterterrorism best practices gathered by Federal, State, and local law enforcement; and

(B) proposing new mechanisms or forums that might enable expanded sharing of information, intelligence, or counterterrorism best practices.

(6) An outline of how the Department of State plans to use designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (under Executive Order 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note)) or foreign terrorist organization (pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) to support the strategy, including—

(A) an assessment and explanation of the utility of applying or not applying such designations when individuals or entities satisfy the criteria for such designations; and

(B) a description of possible remedies if such criteria are insufficient to enable designation of any individuals or entities the Secretary of State considers a potential terrorist threat to the United States.

(7) A description of the Department of State’s plans, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, to work with foreign governments, financial institutions and other related entities to counter the financing of White identity terrorists within the parameters of current law, or if no such plans exist, a description of why such plans were not developed.

(8) A description of how the Department of State plans to implement the strategy in conjunction with ongoing efforts to counter the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist threats to the United States.

(9) A description of how the Department of State will integrate into the strategy lessons learned in the ongoing efforts to counter the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist threats to the United States.

(10) An identification of any additional resources or staff needed to implement the strategy.

(c) Interagency Coordination.—The Secretary of State shall develop the strategy in coordination with the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center and in consultation with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of any other relevant Federal departments or agencies.

(d) Stakeholder Inclusion.—The strategy shall be developed in consultation with representatives of United States and international civil society and academic entities with experience researching or implementing programs to counter White identity terrorism.

(e) Form.—The strategy shall be submitted in unclassified form that can be made available to the public, but may include a classified annex if the Secretary of State determines such is appropriate.

(f) Implementation.—Not later than 3 months after the submission of the strategy, the Secretary of State shall begin implementing the strategy.

(g) Consultation.—Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives regarding the development and implementation of the strategy.

SEC. 4. ANNUAL COUNTRY REPORTS ON TERRORISM.

Section 140(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(a)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(5) all credible information about White identity terrorism, including—

“(A) relevant attacks;

“(B) the identity of perpetrators and victims of such attacks;

“(C) the size and identity of organizations and networks; and

“(D) the identity of notable ideologues.”.

SEC. 5. REPORT ON SANCTIONS.

 

(a) In General.—Not later than 120 days after the submission of each of the Annual Country Reports on Terrorism pursuant to section 140 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f), and 240 days thereafter, the President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report that determines whether the foreign persons, organizations, and networks identified in such reports satisfy the criteria to be designated as—

(1) foreign terrorist organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or

(2) Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organizations under Executive Order 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note).

(b) Form.—Each determination required under subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex, if appropriate.

SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT STUDY TO MAP THE GLOBAL WHITE IDENTITY TERRORISM MOVEMENT.

 

(a) In General.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall enter into a contract with a federally funded research and development center with appropriate expertise and analytical capability to carry out the study described in subsection (b).

(b) Study.—The study described in this subsection shall provide for a comprehensive social network analysis of the global White identity terrorism movement—

(1) to identify key actors, organizations, and supporting infrastructure; and

(2) to map the relationships and interactions between such actors, organizations, and supporting infrastructure.

(c) Report.—

(1) TO THE SECRETARY.—Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Secretary of State enters into a contract pursuant to subsection (a), the federally funded research and development center referred to in such subsection shall submit to the Secretary a report containing the results of the study required under this section.

(2) TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after receipt of the report under paragraph (1), the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives such report, together with any additional views or recommendations of the Secretary.

Nancy Pelosi

Time for debate has expired. The House is called to order to vote on the legislation for 72 hours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The bill passes the House and is recommended to the Senate.

Voting Bloc Total Aye Nay Present
Nationalist Republicans 51 24 26 0
Evangelical Republicans 51 36 14 0
Business Republicans 51 36 14 0
Moderate Conservative Republicans 50 43 6 0
Moderate Liberal Republicans 10 8 1 0
SJW Democrats 52 52 0 0
Progressive Democrats 52 52 0 0
Environmentalist Democrats 52 52 0 0
Moderate Liberal Democrats 52 52 0 0
Moderate Conservative Democrats 14 12 1 0
  367 62 0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...