Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing Focuses On Violent Extremism 20170616

Park city tour. And sunday at 2 00 p. M. On hist, working with our cable afilliates and visiting across the country. The Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on violent extremism and what the u. S. Can do to counterextremists ideology. Good morning. This hearing is called to order. I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony for taking the time, for your curage. The mission of this committee is pretty straight forward. To enhance the economic and National Security of america. And promote more efficient, effective and accountable government. The Committee Really is, in many respects, two committees in one from the house side. Homeland security and governmental affairs. This hearing is really focusing on the Homeland Security side of the committee structure. And within that structure we have four priorities. Border security, cyber security, protecting our Critical Infrastructure and countering extremism and violence in any form, including islamic terrorism. What we try and do, this committee is through this hearing process lay out a reality. I come from a manufacturing background. Solved a lot of problems. The only way you solve problems first, admit you have one, properly define it, describe it, gather the information. And admit to the reality. Theres no way anybody can deny we have a problem world wide in terms of extremism and violence. We witness it just a few hours ago on a practice field for a Charity Baseball event. And let me acknowledge the first of all our prayers are with those victims. Congressman scalise, the staff member, and the two members of the capitol Hill Security detail that were wounded and even having been wounded they continued to return fire and prevent a far greater tragedy. The appreciation we owe to the men and women in Public Safety that every day that they step out of the thresh hold of their door, they literally putting their lives on the line. That was demonstrated again this morning. So i appreciate anybody whos willing to step up to the plate, defend us, defend our freedom, protect Public Safety, but also stand up and tell the truth and describe reality in a world that is very, very dangerous, in a world that doesnt want to hear the truth and reality. Now previous hearings on this subject was talked to about the way radical islamist terrorists are using social mead edia, particularly isis and become incredibly effective at poisoning the minds of young people around the world to engage in these acts of terror and depravity. Weve held hearings on trying to understand the motives. What motivates this . What are they trying to accomplish . Weve learned that in america whats been incredibly important throughout our history, were a nation of immigrants. We welcome them. They made this nation great. But whats made this nation great is people have come embracing the idea and promise of america. To become american. Not rejecting their past culture. We never ask that. But we do ask them to come and accept constitutional law. To be able to taked a vantage of this wonder and marvel we call america and the american economy. Weve learned how important it is for us in government and our Public Safety officials to positively engage in communities, every community to make sure the people are welcome, they will assimilate. Its not perfect. I think weve probably done a better job as weve witnessed recently in brussels, paris or europe where the assimilation has not been effective. But its far from perfect here in america and well be talk about that. Again just keep an open mind. We need understand the truth. The reality if we have any hope of solving this problem. Were in a generation to struggle at least. Weve got to get to a point where people can feel free and safe to go practice in the morning on a baseball field. Or walk a street or raise their family. Thats what were trying to accomplish. Frrsh its not going to be easy. But the only way we do it is if we are willing to have the curage to face these truths and tell them. So thank you for saing that curage and with that ill turn it over to senator and ill submit my written statement into the record. I think all of us are waiting to exhail until we learn more details about our colleagues and our but make no mistake about it what we saw this morning was evil. And i hope that this hearing doesnt stray from the fact that we should be focusing on the evil. We should be focusing on violence. We should be focusing on enforcing our criminal laws against evil and violence. We should be focusing on those people who twist and destort any religion, be it christianity, buddhism, anybody who twists and destorts that relidgen to evil is an exception to the rule. It is not the rule. We should not focus on religion and the freedoms of country embraces. Our country was founded on many important premises but perhaps paramount among those was the freedom of religion. The earliest americans, aside from our native americans, came here because they were fleeing from purse cushion based on their religion. Our freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion define us as a nation. And no evil should ever be allowed to distort those premises. Ever. And im hoping, although im worried, honestly, that this hearing will underline that. Im concerned that the president s Budget Proposal has taken its eye off the ball in terms of our fight against this evil extremism. And the violence that it fomentes. Im worried it has slashed homeland Counterterrorism Measures like the viper teams that have provided an extra measure of security at our airports. It also calls for the complete elimination of a Law Enforcement reimbursement program. It helps secure our airports. It would reduce security grant program, the Transit Security program. The Grant Initiative which helps prepare high density urban areas on how to respond would be cut by 150. The president s proposal would zero out grant program. Which are so essential as we face violent, evil criminals. While it is critical that we enhance our security and Law Enforcement with the resources they need to keep it safe, we also have to improve our efforts to stop americans from being radicalized. Our danger, at least to date, has not been from those who try to slip into this country unnoticed or try illegally cross our borders or seeking refuge in a crisis, a humanitarian cries. Thats not where the danger has come from. Its come from people who are americans or legally in this country who have been radicalized. We face a threat from a variety of sources on radicalization, including white supremacist, eko terrorist, al qaeda sympathizers, theres a long list. And the context of sunni inspired violent extremism is where this hearing appear fweez focussed on the witnesses, its absolutely vital that any effort our government takes is done in partnership and in full engagement of the peace loving Muslim Community. In order to combat isis and other extremists propaganda, we must have a healthy dialogue to insure that resources are arailable to family and friends that may have concerns about loved ones who have become attracted to extreme rhetoric. Unfortunately some of the rhetoric we hear including from some of the witnesses is at odds with this approach. It is also in complete conflict with the american principals and values and most importantly it would make the United States of america less safe. We need to spend less time stirring up rhetoric and working with a majority of muds lms here and around the country who are peaceful and law abiding. We are lucky to have Michael Latner ffs testifying today as the former director of the National Counterterrorism system, is the lighter or liter . Liter. Has extensive strategy to go after the people trying to do us harm. Im eager to hear mr. Liters analysis and what we can learn in the uk and elsewhere. I would appreciate his thoughts on the president s budget and im interested in recommendations to bolster the principals. We can do better to combat radical extremism as long as we Work Together under the umbrella of those important protections. Thank you, mr. Chairman. It is the tradition of this committee to swear in witnesses. So if youll all stand and raise your right hand. You wear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Please be seated. Our first witness is ms. Ali or ms. Ali was born in somalia and migrated to the netherlands to escape a forced marriage. In 2004 wrote the script of a short film submission. Critical of islams treatment of women. The it director of the film was assassinated. And author of several books, political islam, its movement and how to conquer it. Shes currently a Research Developer and founder of the ali hearsy foundation. Ms. Ali. Chairman johnson, members Ranking Member mckachkal, ladies and gentlemen, i want to join you both in condemnic the violence of this morning and i wishing the congressman a swift recovery. Thank you for this opportunity to talk to you about the threat thats endangering our constitution, our freedoms and our way of life. Clearly not all muslims pose a threat but some do. How can we tell the difference . We can by understanding the nature of islam. Islam is part religion and part a political military doctrine. The part that is a political doctrine consists of a world view. A system of laws and a moral code that is totally incompatible with our constitution, our laws and our way of life. In 2017 there are two major governments that apply islamic law or sharia, saudi arabia and iran. As we sit here we are also fighting a rogue entity that goes by the name of the Islamic State of iraq and syria, or isis. Isis implements sharia in its most extreme or most pure form. Islamic law, as practiced in these places negates secular law and demands submission without question. Women are subordinates to men and are denied such basic rights as owning their own bodies and sexuali sexuality. They face discrimination in marriage, inheritance and custody. Victims of rape must produce four witnesses and if they dont, many are flogged or stoned to death. Religious minorities are subject to a second class citizen existence. Theres the Death Penalty for home sexuals and apostates. There are no checks and balances and no free and impartial courts. Theres no rule of law, descent is brutally suppressed. Not all muslims, not even those who live in these theocracies support sharia. I call those who do mudeena muslims because they invoke muhammad, the founder of islam in madina. I believe the vast majority of muslims i call them mecca muslims because they site muhammad and his legacy from mecca. Theres a third subset who eject the it military aspects of islam. I call them the reformers. Theyre different because they stand up to the madina muslims by openly rejecting sharia. Most muslims live in secular states or states with some form of sharia. There are also millions of muslims who live as considerable minorities in nonmuslim societies like ours. The madina muslims are not satisfied with this status quo. Their goal is to transform all muslim majority countries into islamic theocracies and to use muslim immigrant minorities as a beach head to transform nonmuslim societies, even free ones, such as the u. S. They have a longtime horizon and already have a foot hold. Madina muslims use a combination of force or jihad along with the desemination of the ideology through a mechanism known as doa. In theory its the call to islam and consists of postizing. Its a process of radical indoctrination. They use the cover of missionary efforts, relief work, education and cultural activities. They target the individual, the family, the education system, the workplace, the broader Economic Society as a whole. Its totalitarian, like communism and fascism, but different because its shrouded in religion. This quest by the madina muslims to establish sharia across the globe has led to repression, civil wars, to the exodus of people from their homes and free societies to decisiveness and debate now of social cohesion. We must stop not only the violent entities like isis, al qaeda, brooko haram and others t dismantle the networks of douau. Above all we need to challenge the principals of sharia law. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Our next witness is ms. Nastra. Shes the co founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. An american womans struggel for the spirit of islam and a student faculty investigation into her friend, danny pearl executed by members of al qaeda. Thank you so much. Thank you, chairman johnson, vice chairman and senators for this invitation to be here today. Our hearts are indeed gripped with the horror of this mornings shooting. I feel empathy and compassion for you because this day takes me back to a day 15 years ago when i felt the same gripping of my heart. I learned that day that my colleague and friend, danny pearl from the wall street journal had been kidnapped. We learned in the weeks that followed that he had been kidnapped by militants and it was 15 years ago that we learned that he was buried in the plot. His body cut to pieces. The men who believed in gentrification of my faith testified this brutal murder. They developed a passion that you were committed to after you learned the intentions, motivations of the shooter this morning. Ion lost a friend, i lost a friend. On that day i think to stand up against the ideology of extremists islam that motivated the men that took him from this earth. There was one that connected the 27 men involved in dannys kidnapping and murder and that was that they had all observed the dala or evangelism of an ideological interpretation of islam that is of the nature that ion is speaking about. I want tuse be really clear. This is not the islam that my parents taught me. The islam that my parents taught me led me this morning to stand shoulder to shoulder with my father and open my hands and pray for peace of mind for everyone in this world. What senator talks about is really important. We must make this distinction. And i think its the same time that means we are clear, as senator johnson is talking about. Related to the enemy that we face. The ideology of islamism or political islam contradicts the Constitutional Values of this country. The elements of islamismal are very clear. It demands we have political government according the laws of sharia or islamic law. Those standards are in complete contradiction with the laws of our country. I want to tell you from the trenches that this is a reality that we face in our country. In northern california, facebook promotes the page an organization whose meeting i attended in Northern Virginia last summer. Behind the speakers was a flag for the Islamic State. In michigan a man is preaching to advocate for child marriages in the name of islam. In Northern Virginia an imam just preached that it is okay to cut the cluterous of girls because it leads to then the ability to keep hypersexuality from expressing itself in the world. What is it that we must do . We must be clear as chairman johnson is saying, we must have moral curage and intellectual curage. We must absolutely separate the many muslims who do not practice islamism from those who do. And in that way the objective that we have to protect muslims and to be able to differentiate extremism from the large swath of the faith that my family and others practice will be realized. We will in fact protect muslims if we take this strategy of marginalizinging the extremists. We, as a nation must be committed to shut down the ideology of islamism, just as we defeated fascism, communism. The ideology of islamism denies us the right as men and women to sit in a room together as we are sitting today. It denies young girls the right to go to a concert and call them dangerous women. It denies a woman like myself to sit in a bakery in dockau, bangladesh without being separated and then killed. We have to understand that the future of our world depends on our Clear Thinking and our wisdom. I came here with fear in my heart because we also face a network that i call the honor brigade that wants to silence this conversation. Were under attack constantly. Between us i dont know how many Death Threats we have faced but we sit before you with our backs to both our friends and our enemies because it is our duty, it is our duty to stand up for the humanity in which we believe. When i have fear last night and my mother was beside me, she took my hand and she said do this for humanity. Step forward for humanity and i urge all of you to remain committed, remain committed to all the values in which we believe and the freedom and the beauty of this world that we want to see the next generation inherit. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next witness is dr. John lin chel ski. Pretty close. Hes the founder and president of the institute of world politics. A graduate school on National Security and international affairs. He served at the state department from 1981 to 1983 and then with the National Security counsel from 1983 to 1987 where he was the director of european and soviet affairs and president regans principal soviet affairs advisor. Good morning, mr. Chairman. Ranking minority member and members of the committee, i am honored to have the chance to discuss how to protect ourselves against radical jihadism. We have spent trillions in this country fighting islamist terrorism as if its this consisted of the use of the truth to counter soviet propaganda as the basis and the and the problem is that we have virtually no ideological warriors in this war. We have a precedent in the cold war. Eliminating the sources of cold war tension required changing the core of the soviet system. We conducted a war episodically for four decades. This consisted of the usest truth to koirnt soviet propaganda, undermining the ideology and the inhumanity of communist rule, offering the people of the soviet empire a positive alternative, freedom, democracy, and hope for a better life and supporting Resistance Forces with the within the empire. Victory was the concession that the idealology and system it produced were evil. We must also face it by targeting the ideal it seeks it seectionz seeks to zpe indict by conducting jihad of the sword and resettle ment jihad, staeping separatist and enclave thats run according to shah reea and culminating demographic conquest. Modern totalitarian islamist which uses len onnist trat ji forms the basis of new jihadists, both terrorists and resettle. Jihadists. It depends on generating hatred against the infidel through a moral attack against colonialism, zionism and against the wests moral degradation. Defeating this ideology requires an ideological counter attack based on soup yoer moral precepts. Above all, this requires telling the truth and ending selfcensorship about radical islamism. And an Information Campaign exposing the ideology, exposing jihadist strategy, shah reea and the crimes of irradical islamic regimes. It then requires an attack on the ideology and its manipulation by jihadists and i can discuss later on a number of different elements of what that would look like. Finally, it requires offering a positive alternative including an appeal to conscience and the promotion of human rights. Regrettably our government is intellectually organizationally unprepared to do all this. We no longer have centers within our government that promote excellence in public diplomacy, Strategic Influence and ideological warfare. So we should resurrect a new version of the u. S. Information agency. I would call it the u. S. Public i d diploma diplomacy agency. It should contain all the offices addressing influence over public opinion. They include the human rights bureau, a strengthened version of the Global Engagement sent area and office of foreign opinion research, a bureau of Education Culture and ideas with a special office of ideological and religious affairs, the voice of america which should be transer iffed to this agency from the bbg and an office for the Counter Intelligence protection of u. S. Public diplomacy programs. The cia must resurrect serious covert political influence capabilities including the funding of and including running all forms of media and the ability to support voices of politically moderate islam in their efforts to discredit jihadism. Our Defense Department needs to strengthen the military Information Support operations and the department of home land security, the state department and fbi, and Law Enforcement local Law Enforcement needs significantly improved capabilities to distinguish between ordinary muslims who want tier religion to be a religion and not a radical secular ideological program, to distinguish the people from jihadists and whether whether when it comes to whom to admit to the United States or wm w. Whom to cooperate in the struggle against jihadism. Thank you. Next we have director lighter. He serve ford george w. Bush and president obama. Mr. Lighter. Chairman johnson, Ranking Member, membersst committee, thank you very much for having me. I would simply add my thoughts and prayers to those who were injured in the families that were affected this morning. Before directly addressing todays topic, i do want to offer two quick opening points. And first, thats im not going to address all forms of terrorism today. Thats not what the committee asked for. I dont want that to be read as sunni inspired terrorism is the only terrorist threat we face. We face shia terrorism, rightwing nationalism terrorism, all of that throughout the globe. And some of the solutions are the same but theyre also there are distinctions. Were focusing on the ideological aspects of this struggle, im supportive of a balance approach to terrorism. From my perspective, that includes overseas actions to take people off the battlefield and intelligence partnerships and aggressive Law Enforcement and an ideological component. But if we just do one of those, we pretty much guarantee ourselves failure in the larger battle. Countering extremism which im going to refer to as cve are the activities that aim to reduce radicalization and recruit comment to violence. There are many pieces. In my view in of these must be based on a very rigorous and as you said, mr. Chairman, a factual and trufl analysis of radicalization. And thankfully unlike in 2001, this is something which in my view is widely available within the u. S. Intelligence community from credible partners overseas and academic institutions. Now when implemented properly, there is no doubt in my mind that vcve programming reduces violence. It works in antidrug activity and antigang activity and kit work in this context as well. And studies from duke, university of massachusetts, netherlands, ken yashgs uk all back this up. Now in my view and i take significant blame for this having been under president bush and obama, since 9 11, the u. S. s cve programs have been of marginal infectiveness. Im happy, i hope we have more agreement. I agree with much of what the doctor said about the poor resourcing and lack of focus on manufacture the programs both domestically and internationally for the United States. Again, i think we have some very good programs. I would highlight george salime at dhs. There are good people doing good work but we have not resourced the programs and done so in a strategic way. Let me give you a small example of this inadequacy and ill compare it to a drug problem. The 2016 federal Drug Demand Reduction Program received 15 billion, 1. Abillion of that was for prevention activities. The cv elements of dhss office of Community Partnerships has all of 10 million in 2016 grant funding. If we think this is a serious problem, we need a serious solution. Right now we do not have that. We have to be careful not to alienate the very same communities in which we rely. There of course part of the problem and it must ab dressed and consistent with the First Amendment address. At the same time, we must not, i cant stress this enough, con flat a violent ideology with mainstream muslim believes. To do so is factually wrong and counter productive and feed directly into extremist narrative of us versus them. And it directly undercuts the most forceful message we vf democrat sichlt i think it is deeply mistaken and harmful to equate core islamic concepts that are not inherently violent with extremist interpretations of the principles. For example, the muslim tradition of dawa which is not dissimilar to similar conditions in christianity and elsewhere is not equivalent with the islamist violent and forceful interpretation of this term. Similarly, muslims honoring of shah reea is not inherently intention with living in constitutional democracies any more than it would be for christians or jews who also seek to honor their religious traditions while still complying with civil authority. So what would the Program Look Like . One is act aggressively overseas, disrupting both physical and as you mentioned, mr. Chairman, cyber safe havens. Second, federal Law Enforcement must work with local officials to share the heavy burden of investigation and in doing so, those officials must understand islam and all its diversity so that they may distinguish between peaceful adherence and violent extremists. Defensive measures must be in place. And we must have a robust strategy for a country of almost 300 million. And that would include Education Programs for state and local officials on islam done in conjunction with local muslim communities. Engage ment with muslim organizations, recognizing the massive diversity like every other religion we have here in the United States with those muslim communities. Fostering engage ment with the Technology Community and muslim organizations to enable effective ngo ideological engagement where the u. S. Government cannot and should not engage. Diversion programs, modelled on andy gang and antidrug programs. Leveraging all elements of u. S. And local governments to ensure leadership is far beyond Law Enforcement officials. And fully developed metrics to make sure where were put ourg money, theyre dollars well spent. There are a number of program as the Ranking Member said that i think are at risk both domestically and overseas from the president s budget. I look forward to answering those and working with this committee on this and other issues which face us on violent extremism on all strikes. I did want to have in my Opening Statement have a peefs paper with me. I wanted to read a full quote into the record. Again this is written in 1945. Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intoll ranlt if, were not prepared to defend a toll ranlt society against the onslaughtst toller anlt then the tolerant will be destroyed. Mr. Lighter in, your testimony you sfed we think, if we think this is a serious problem, we need a serious solution. Thats the point of this hearing. Do you think this is serious problem . I mean, the reason i call this hearing, by the way, is wall street journal article written by mrs. Ali describing dawa versus jihad. I hadnt heard of that, honestly. You describe dawa as benign. I think it could be. Whether it is christian missionarieses you are trying to promote. But what are you he vafrpg liesing about . Are you ee vanc liesing the moderate, the nonviolent form or evangelizng islamic terrorist form. Do you knee there are elements, there are money in funneling those into potentially Islamic Terrorist Groups . Blch, i spent 4 1 2 years of my life working for a democratic and republican president trying to keep the American People safe have violent extremism. So any suggestion even in your question that i somehow deny that i think is no, okay. Great. I wasnt trying to challenge you. Good. I dont mean to make because youre minimizing. There are undoubtedly organization whos clothe themselves, who wrap themselves in the cloth of religion who are pursuing violent means. We have to stop that and we have to educate u. S. Government officials and other officials to make that distinction, to draw that distinction between those organization thats are pursuing legitimate charitable means in the name of any religion versus those that are pursuing illegal and dangerous violence or funding of other organizations. Truthfully, i was not trying to challenge you. I respect what you have done and the testimony you provide this committee. Were not in disagreement here between the witnesses. Is there anything that you heard from our two female witnesses you disagree with . First of all, i want to say much of their work i greatly respect. Rather than to characterize allst statements, there are things they have written with which i disagree. What i heard mostly today, i would largely agree with. I dont agree with a few small things. I dont think there that there has been, at least in my experience, significant selfcensorship within the u. S. Government talking about this. I tripled the resources at the National Terrorism center to stud i didnt think ideological aspects of this so we can train state and local oeflz on islam. So there was no issue about saying this isnt islamic. We knew and people had to understand that. We started a program so go out and train Community Groups on understanding islam. We started a program that helped train muslim communities on understanding what was available to their sons and daughters. So we did not at all ignore it. I do agree that u. S. Governments policy and budgetary priorities have not always aligned with that. I dont think it was political censorship in trying to bury our head in the sand with what some of the problems were. Can you kind of respond . Yeah. I have been waiting for this hearing for 15 years. I remember a moment when i went to the state department several years ago and there was a meeting of public di home si and it was that talk about what strategies we could put into place and i said to her very simply its about the idealology. Its about the idealology that you know very well is put out into the world by governments like ie ron, cutter and saudi arabia and their proxies. I was told we cant have this conversation about idealology. It wants to see us put in with rights that are not equal to men. So this is a reality. It is in herndon. It is a road because of off of route 7 are the mosques, think tangs, bookstores that put this out to our community. In this book of law here on the anniversary it tells us that homo sexuals should be killed. This is not the islam my parents taught me but this is a reality. Im so happy we are finally confronting the ideal logical problem. Would you like to respond . Yes. I think its not so much a question of disagreement but maybe a question of perspective. I would like to start where we agree on all of us here on the panel and i hope all of you so i would like to start as a set of believes, as a doctrine, civilization on the one hand and human beings as muslims. It is spiritual but it also has a military political component. There are some muslims, the spiritual religious like your Mother Holding your hand and the way your parents raised you who tells you that the way they see the spiritual component of their religion is peaceful and they wish no one else any harm. If they engage that is only about spreading that peace and goodness and wellness. We are dealing with this other group are extenuating the military. This is ea reality. Im so happy that were finally confronting the ideological problem. Ms. Ali, would you just like to respond . Yes, i think its not so many a question of this agreement but maybe its a question of perspective. And i think what i would like to do is start where we agree on. All of us on the panel and i hope all of you. What we all agree on is that muslims are not synonymous with terrorism or repression or any of that. So id like to start by making this distinction between islam as a set of beliefs as a doctrine as a tradition as a civilization on the one hand and the human beings as muslims. And if you take islam and you study, there are books on islam. And studies on islam. What it boils down to is idz islam is part religion and spiritual and has a very rich history of spirituality. But it also has a military political component. Now there are some muslims who accentuate the spiritual and the religious like your Mother Holding your hand today and the way your parents raised you who tells you that the way they see the spiritual component of their religion is peaceful. And they wish no one else any harm. And if they engage in evangelization or in dawa that, is only about spreading that peace and goodness and wellness. But there are other groups and that is why were having this conversation. What were dealing with is this other group who are taking out of the historical and civilizational context of islam and accentuating the political and the military. Now both groups invoke the prophet mohammed, they invoke the koran and scripture. The question is does the prophet mohammed support the muslims, you know, those who accentuate the politics or those who accent wait spirituality . He does both. When he founded the religion in mecca the first ten years, it is all about religion and spirituality. Later none mecca after immigration, it is all about politics. Its about military. He has militias. He wages wars. He develops a new law and his men in the 21st century were organizing themselves as nongovernmental organizations like the muslim brotherhood. That just one entity or a thee of course are acy like saudi arabia or iran, they invoke the prophet mohammeds legacy in madina. I think its extremely important that we make this distinction. Now we have problems with those muslims and only those muslims who accentuate the political and military doctrine of islam. As weve been focusing on those who use violence and use jihad, terrorism. We havent paid as much attention to what you call the puddles, the breeding places. Those people who get into the hearts and minds of Vulnerable People and turn them toward the idea that its okay to run your car over with people. That its okay to kill homosexuals, that its okay to kill people, its okay to pursue a world view of a society thats based on a seventh century law. That, is i think, to begin with we should have that clarification. And i want to say i came and i accepted your invitation to talk about only that group, not to vilify or stig my timatize thos accent wait the spirituality. I appreciate that. What do we agree on . Really, what is the truth . What is reality . Again, i was not challenging you. Im trying to find out where are the areas of agreement, what dont we disagree on so we can try to probe that to figure out what really is truth . What is reality . The only way were going to try to address what youve been working so tirelessly to address and to prevent is in those realities. Much appreciated and completely understand. Senator mccaskill . I think we agree that extreme ideology is important and that we must focus on it. And we must fight it. But we have to do that within our constitutional parameters. For example, we cant ban that book. We cant ban it in the United States of america. Thats not how we role. We have to fight it with the appropriate tools of our government and civil laws. As we fight it i think the facts really matter. I think its important it remain fact chul. You discussed european no go zones. You brought experience working with our partners. You worked arm in arm with your counter parts in these year pea yan countries. Is that fact chul . Are there no go zones in europe . In my experience in denmark, germany, france having worked with Law Enforcement officials i never saw anything resembling no go zone. And in the written testimony and by the way, i would love to see the citations of the 140 cases because the one you site specifically it is therefore subject to sherrea law. Are you familiar with that case . I am. The case arose an individual was seeking or wife was seeking restraining order against a husband for sexual abuse and the new jersey state trial court refused to find criminal intent based on the husbands belief that the sherrea marriage contract could not have allowed him to do what he did. The first round of appeals in the new jersey next level of court, i was also a clerk at the Supreme Court for justice and i believe it would be called a smackdown saying that the trial court deeply misunderstood u. S. Constitutional law and new jersey law and there was no way in which this husband would be permitted under any interpretation of u. S. Law to go forward. And the case you site until missouri, i know to prosecutor in that case. This was the case where a Family Member abused a child over what they were wearing. In this instance it was a head covering. It could have been a short skirt. It could have been a bare midriff. This Family Member pulled the child out of the school and physical physically assaulted the child. The case is still pending, by the way. Now i fail to see how that is an encroachment and the case is still spending bishgs the way. I didnt im not completely familiar with that case. I read something about it. But i didnt write about it. I acknowledge that that particular case in new jerseys with r was reversed on appeal. But the fact that it got force. He was never even charged. Facts matter, sir. He was never acquitted of anything. Perhaps i used the wrong language. Language matters. I understand. The judge made the decision based on shariia that it never should have gotten as far as it should have do d. Having fought in the missouri legislature, believe it or not, in this country, in as me as a state legislator, i fought to make sure that men could not rape their wives in missouri. That law was just overturnd ed 1995. Up until 1995, men could rape their wives in the state where i live. So i mean, i think that this notion do you believe that sharia law is slowly becoming the law of the land in this country . I think it is deeply mistaken factual belief that sharia is making any inroads. Religious laws can be the basis for contracts between people if they choose to. Ultimately, the u. S. Court system has a very, very welldeveloped theories, judicial theories of when those religious agreements, those religious contracts between two individuals can or cannot be honored in federal courts. Thats well established. And i see no signs, no credible signs that sharia law poses even the most minute risk to u. S. Constitutional principles and u. S. Law. And could you briefly address the resource issue as it relates to the president s budget and what that will do to our cve efforts in this country as we try to do what these witnesses want us to do, that is combat the ideology that is recruiting people to violence. Talk about what we can actually do to counter this important problem. Senator, let me start by making this as bipartisan in my criticism as i can. Both democrats and republicans before this president have failed to adequately resource these issues. Its not just the president s budget on this front. I do believe that in terms of what the main threats are were facing today, largely low technology attacks in scattered locations, paris, london and the like, i believe the president s budget does violence to some of those pieces, especially for this committee. Potential cuts in funding to the viper teams, to the coast guard for port security, for rail transit. These are real issues. These are places that need to be defended. Theyre not been adequately defended and they should be. To the president s benefit, some of the funding for the fbi budget is good. Commissioner neil in new york has been vocal, as is las vegas. There is real cuts in uac funding and other programs that have been critical in situations like orlando and boston for preparing people to respond when the tragedy occurs. That cant be cut. Last but not least, i know this is not directly in this committees purview, but it is interconnected. Which is the International Aspect of this. And im deeply, deeply troubled by the proposed cuts to the state department and usaid which are critical to the International Programs we have that the doctor noted. I think we have to seriously regard those as secretary mattis has so eloquently said, it just means he has to buy more bullets. And you cant buy enough bullets. So in those regards, i think the president s budget is deeply problematic. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And Ranking Member mccaskill. I want to start this morning, too, by adding my thoughts and prayers with those who were injured following this mornings horrific shooting. And i want to thank the men and women of the Capitol Police for the service they provide. They keep us safe every day and all the time. And as we saw today, are willing to risk their lives for the mission of keeping us all safe. So i am very grateful to them as i am to all Law Enforcement and First Responders today. And with that said, i want to turn to broaden the discussion a little bit. Mr. Leiter with you, about the issue of homegrown extremist and terrorism. In your view how can the department of Homeland Security work to prevent americans from being radicalized, whatever their idealogy or whatever the idealogy is that inspires them to be radicalized to the point where theyre willing to carry out violence . Are we going to be able to arrest our way out of the threat of home grown terrorism or are we going to have to build partnerships . And, again, youve addressed some of the issues about resources, what kind of resources do we need to be able to do that . Theres no doubt that we cant arrest our way out of it. No bigger a softy than Donald Rumsfeld noted that where he said the question is not how many are we killing, are we producing more than were killing. Its a slightly different situation with arresting, but its the same challenge. Arresting those who have already gone beyond a certain level of extremism towards violence is a critical part of that. The best way that a, were going to be able to find the people that need to be arrested, and b, reduce the number who are arrested is those deep partnerships. Are those deep partnerships with communities. Now the fbi is good at that and has a global and national presence, which is probably unmatched. But the department of Homeland Security plays a key, key role because theyre not all in Law Enforcement. And partnerships cannot just come from people with badges and guns. So from my perspective, the department of Homeland Security can play several roles. You have the protective element. Theyre most responsible for our Critical Infrastructure, whether its oil and gas, pipelines, ports, borders, they have to do that and they have to be funded to do that. Programs like viper do that. They have to be on the front lines of that engagement. Its not just dhs people Walking Around the country. Its engaging with communities so communities understand how they are under threat and what sort of partnerships they have to engage with. It is helping them understand what ideologue radicalization is occurring online and also building those relationships im looking over at senator harris, because so many of these companies are in the valley. Building those relationships between government and ngos and Technology Communities because there are things that the u. S. Government cannot say as matter of constitutional law and doesnt have any credibility anyway. The dhs can play a key role in building those partnerships. Last but not least, dhs along with the fbi have to be remain at the center of the sharing of information and not just sharing information, but sharing investigative leads with state and local Law Enforcement. So we never have a situation where boston where something falls below the threshold for the fbi but the boston or Cambridge Police Department Might decide to pursue it. The police have to understand constitutional limitations and understand the ideological distinctions between this. Thank you very much. I yield the remainder of my time. Senator harris. Thank you. I join with senator hassen, expressing my prayers and best wishes for our colleagues and the folks that were attacked this morning and also thanks to the First Responders in the Capitol Police who are so incredibly courageous and are sacrificing so much to protect other people. So my prayers go to their families as well. You know, this morning actually senator hassen and i were both at a Prayer Breakfast at the senate Prayer Breakfast. And its a wonderful time when we get together in a bipartisan way. Only senators in the room to share our faith. And our faith not only in the gods we worship, but in each other. And it was poignant this morning and there was actually a presentation by senator cassidy, our colleague from across the aisle from me, but from louisiana. And what i took away from what he shared this morning, was something i think we all agree on, which is there are certain universal truths. There are certain things that in spite of what might appear to be differences among men and women, certain things and most of the things that we share that bind us, that we have in common. We have so much more in common than what separates us. And i think that when we are facing challenges, it is important for leaders to emphasize those things we share in common. And unify us, understanding that they are just universal truths. So with that spirit, i have several questions, but id like to talk with you, mr. Leiter, in particular about your thoughts which you have touched on this morning about what can be done to improve the situation where work needs to be done. And if we can talk about it in the context of the dhs budget, and we are, obviously, a committee that has oversight on that issue. So you mentioned the george salim program has being a good one at dhs. Can you tell us what makes it good . I think what makes it good are probably three things. One, you have someone who in running it is deeply experienced in the u. S. Government and understands islam. Im sure there are many people who understand islam more. He happens to be muslim and hes thoughtful about that. Thats very hard to find in the u. S. Government. The number of senior officials who understand islam is painfully low. So thats the first thing. The second thing, i think he understands there is only so much the government can do and the u. S. Government tends to lack credibility in speaking about any sort of religion, but especially in islam. Going back to my first point that there simply a lack of understanding. In doing that the office has sought not to make official dhs pronouncements, but instead use funding in grant money to enable those people who are doing good work away from washington, d. C. I think those are probably the third piece i would say is they are innovative in focusing on areas which are nontraditional counterterrorism drivers. Who normally does counterterrorism, intelligence, Law Enforcement, border people. They have focused more education institutions, theyve worked on something called the peer to peer program, which partners with educational institutions. They have worked closely with a variety of organizations, immigrants rights organizations. Again, who dont show up with a badge and gun as investigators. I think what weve generally seen overseas in places like the United Kingdom and netherlands, their counter radicalization programs have tended to work best when they have a little bit of arms length. Not working independently, but a bit of arms length from the attorney generals of the world. They will become an adversarial relationship. Is viper the same as that . No, senator. Viper is a Rapid Response team which shows up for transit when theres a threat. I believe previously there have been roughly 31 viper teams around the country. The president s budget cuts it to eight. When we saw threats in the United States, if we had Something Like the attack in london, we would immediately activate those viper teams, because then they would show up around the b. A. R. T. Stations with long guns or like San Bernardino. Absolutely. These are Critical Response teams. Another element which is separate from viper but i think equally important. Many interagency programs for training for an attack, i would love to stop every attack. Were not going to stop every attack. The question is how do we optimize the response . We have done that generally in joint programs between fema, the fbi and the terrorism center. They have included. Muslim organizations, you respond, save the people that are injured. That was effective in orlando, boston. And cutting those funds would be tragic. As an expert in this area, i take it youre recommending to our committee that we fully fund those programs in the effort to combat terrorism in our country . I think those programs in light of the threat we face from isis are only more important than they have been. Can you unpack a little bit for me the possibility for collaboration with Silicon Valley and the Technology Industry . I can. Ill carry that back to california with me. In full disclosure i spent three years working in Silicon Valley as well. I now have no economic interest in this. But what we started doing in 2009, 2010, 2011, was this idea of the government cant speak athoreitatively on this. But there were muslim ngos who wanted to know how to stop radicalization and they didnt know how to get the message out. Anwar alawlaki was better at doing that. It was bringing together Companies Like google to sit down. How do you optimize search where you dont get an alawlaki video. I think Technology Companies, obviously, between 2009, 2011 when i left and today, we are in a even more problematic posture. I say that for at least two reasons. One, the threat because terrorists use of the internet has become vastly more effective as the chairman said. Isis knows how to get the message out using music and communications in a way that al qaeda never did. So the threat is greater. Second, the tension between the u. S. Government and the valley, Technology Companies, are broad is higher than it was in ten, 2011. Its a variety of issues beginning ing with Edward Snowden. Finding that partnership will be more difficult, but its critical. I think Prime Minister may at the g7 raised the issues. Its the issue of reporting terrorist content and taking it down and even a harder nut to crack is the issue of end to end encryption. Which has not always arisen but will increasingly prohibit or keep u. S. Law enforcement officials not just working on terrorism from access and communications in a way they have become accustomed over the past six decades. Thank you. At the moment just a quick interject. Mr. Mccaskill was talking about the First Amendment rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, which we all value. But we do within those rights. We ban things like child pornography. Where is that line . But with that, senator hidecamp. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Again, we are so grateful. We have two Capitol Policemen right near us today and were so grateful for everything that you do. Not only defending us personally, but the institution of this government. And after an attack like today, we understand and brings into sharp focus our gratitude. I want to thank the two who are present today, but i also want to say my hearts and prayers go out to all of those who are wounded and injured. An attack against them is an attack against our own country. I dont think theres any doubt about it. Ive spent a lot of time with the counterterrorism folks because i think this is one of the toughest nuts to crack. Which is, how do we participate in communities in ways that build community, build relationships, and prevent radicalization . I dont think anyone here would disagree that we kind of know the formula. But we need resources to do it and we need education and training to do it. You already for senator harris, i think drew on some of your experiences on how things have changed. I need to understand your experiences between 2007 and then coming out of it in 11 but even going forward. How do you see the threat is changing, and where have we seen best practices in attacking that threat . The threat has changed and im on the advisory about for nctc and im happy that at the end of my briefings i can go home and not stick around and address them all. The threat is more challenging than what i saw with possibly one exception. We were worried about large scale attacks in a way that we dont face in the same manner today. We were worried about ten planes blowing up over the atlantic and really big attacks. Thats the good news. The bad news is, the scale of the radicalization thats occurring, the pace at which its occurring, the independence with which its occurring so you dont necessarily see the same communications between domestic elements and international elements, which were so important for us detecting them. In all those ways, the threat is significantly worse, even if the likelihood of a large scale attack was lower than it was in 2011. Now, where have i seen success in combatting this . Ive seen a lot of success in the United States combatting this. Lets pat ourselves on the back just a little bit. We have done remarkably well. Now, any moment you say that, you have to in the same breath recognize the tragedies weve experienced in the United States, whether its orlando or San Bernardino, and i never mean to make light of that. But we had generally been pretty effective at disrupting attacks before they occur, and compared to most of our western allies, weve been very successful at reducing radicalization rates in the United States. If you look at radicalization in the United Kingdom they have a significantly larger problem than we do. Same in belgium, the netherlands, same in france. Weve done that for four reasons. Our Muslim Community is more integrated than their communities are. Our muslim communities are better off economically than those are. Our muslim traditions tend to come from more moderate strains than some of the more extreme strains that are more central. And our muslims, when they come to america this is obviously, a gross generalization but they have tended to be focused on being americans, not overseas fights as opposed to many in the south Asian Community and the uk and the like who have stayed focused on the issues. Weve had exceptions on that. But overall weve done a pretty good job because were americans. Not because we had great programs to stop it at reducing it. Where have i seen good programs . We have a lot to learn from the uk program. Some of the engagement with communities and much more aggressive ways was very important. I think the dutch as well have thought about this deeply and have a number of social programs. Im hesitant to look very far at deradicalization programs because those have generally been in states which have a set of tools and a lack of constitutional protections we do not have. Its not to say that some of the saudi problems on deradicalization havent been good, but we cannot implement programs the way they do. Where in the United States . What communities, what cities . I think the example of minneapolis, st. Paul and the somali community. That community faced a crisis with Second Generation somali americans going to fight in a nationalistic war under the banner of al shabaab. The federal, state and local community and partly led by the u. S. Attorney and the mayor in minneapolis did an outstanding job. I think some of the counter gang work, which has been implemented and pulled into the counterradicalization work in los angeles by the lapd has been quite good. One example, after 9 11, the Police Athletic league in new york added cricket to its list of sports. Its way of making sure that communities that come from different traditions are not separated from their governments and feel like theyre partners and not adversaries. I dont think theres any doubt one of the first steps in radicalization is isolation and the need to better understand. Weve done a lot of work over the last, you know, really since the 90s on concepts called Community Policing. This is Just Community policing became the model of surge mentality in the military as were looking at not fighting nation states as much as fighting rogue groups. I think its really interesting to think about Community Policing in those dynamics. Im very concerned about the reduction in resources to local Law Enforcement where this has to happen on the ground with real resources and real commitment and real training. To address not only that the concerns that you would have keeping a community safe, but then the critical Important Role that local Law Enforcement plays in counterterrorism. And so i am deeply concerned about the cuts to Community Policing and the cuts to the Antiterrorism Program at dhs. Senator, i could not agree with you more. State and local and police and medical and fire, all these people on the front lines, they have to understand it. If theyre not funded to learn it, they wont recognize it and we will end up with violence after the fact. So much of this is now occurring on the internet. It is not as a general matter, it is not occurring in mosques. It is not occurring in public spaces. It is occurring on the internet for individuals. And helping local officials also understand that piece, and then address that piece, is something that they are not accustomed to. Its not regular Community Policing and its critically important. Those are the kinds of things weve seen just for a second, when you look at what weve been able to do in child pornography, which has been an incredible model we could adopt in this fight. You know, the child pornography work thats being done by the department of justice is, i think, a great model for the work that can be done here in terms of images and messages that could be shared broadly with all of Law Enforcement. Absolutely. I think nick mick is hailed as a success story. I have note there have been bipartisan bills in the past, as recently as 2015 coming out of the Senate Select committee on intelligence by chairman burr and vice chairman feinstein requiring a similar approach and those have been strongly resisted. Its complex issue but i think its one with which the senate will have to tackle. Senator peters. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First id like to send my thoughts and prayers as well to all the victims in this mornings shooting in alexandria and thank the Capitol Police for what you do each and every day. Thank you so much. Todays topic is certainly a very important one. I appreciated the testimony of all the witnesses today. And recent tragedies certainly underscore the threat posed by violent extremism. Reading through some of the written testimonies, i became concerned about a recurrent theme of antiislamic sentiment. Muslim and arab americans serve honorably in our military and our Law Enforcement agencies. In the Intelligence Community. And i will say theyre an incredibly important part of the social fabric in my state of michigan. And they contribute a valuable and necessary perspective to that that is critical for keeping all americans safe. And perpetuation of antiislamic attitudes i believe undermines our collective values and it contributes to the undercurrent of xenophobia, thats being levied at some of americas ethnic and religious minorities. This erodes positive Community Relations and feeds into the larger extremist narrative that the west is at war with islam, which we are not. Rather than lending legitimacy to a distorted and prejudiced view of islam we should endeavor to counter all types of extremism, regardless of who may inspire it. As a nation we should seek fact based solutions that enable us to address all extremist threats in an adaptive and integrated matter. My question relates to online radicalization and over the last several years we have seen improved efforts, as you mentioned by the u. S. Technology companies, to identify and shut down User Accounts that espouses benefits. There is challenges in identifying content. These realities and the ubiquity of the internet and our robust protections says we dont need sweeping legislative chases. You witnessed firsthand these groups such as isis are able to leverage the internet to disseminate content. In other words, contact that is really unmistakably designed to support the objectives of a foreign terrorist organization. If you could make only one recommendation to the committee, what would that be in terms of your approach to confront the issue of isis propaganda on our popular social networking sites . Rebuild trust between the u. S. Government and those Technology Communities. Because were talking about trust a lot here. Were talking about trust between the u. S. Government and muslim communities. Thats critical. There is a lack of trust and cooperation between many Technology Communities and the u. S. Government. Thats very problematic. I very much understand, companies are doing what theyre designed to do. But were in a place and companies have done a lot. Google, facebook, twitter in particular have done a lot over the past two years to increase cooperation. But it was starting at a pretty low point. Because of the leaks of Edward Snowden and that alienation. We have to get back to a point where there is a cooperative relationship where easily identifiable features which are rather indisputably associated with Political Violence of any sort are rapidly reported to the u. S. Government. That is not what happens today. It is often removed, it is rarely reported. And the u. S. Government simply doesnt have the means to monitor the internet. Its impossible. So building that trust, rebuilding that trust with people who are really good, smart wonderful americans in the valley like the general counsel at facebook. I mean, these are thoughtful people who want to be of assistance and we have to figure out a way that their interest as companies can be protected. The privacy and Civil Liberties of people using the tools are protected but you have a rapid methodology for reporting instances like you suggest to Law Enforcement officials so they can start to find some of those needles in what is a massive hay stack. In your recent piece, you mentioned the g7 is a potential vehicle to influence Technology Companies. To what degree is the threat of online radicalization going to require an international approach to what youve just mentioned . I think the reason that Prime Minister may brought this up was because the uk itself probably didnt have the market power to drive Technology Companies behavior. So in my view, the first thing we should do even before we get to the g 7 is to try to drive this between the u. S. And our companies. Otherwise well end up with International Pressure on our companies, which will not be in the same vein as our normal constitutional protection and they may find even more comfortable. I do think that it is inevitable they will begin to see increased pressure from the uk, germany, france, and the belgians at least on some of these issues. I dont think that they can withstand that pressure over time. As were working with our companies here in this country, do you think theres a need for the u. S. To play a leading role in terms of defining what actually constitutes extremist content so private companies are able to develop new terms of service and identify problems . Only when you have that clear definition its probably a little bit easier in child pornography than in this context. Only once you have that can you have that reporting mechanism that protects Civil Liberties. We have to give them some rough boundaries, even if its not capturing 100 of the material we want to get down, if it captures a big enough percentage, it will still be of meaningful assistance in terms of internet radicalization. Appreciate it, thank you for your comments. Thank you, senator peters. I want to comment that i also fully read the testimony. Certainly i saw antiislamic terror comments. I didnt see antiislamic. The witnesses were careful to distinguish that. Theyve been careful in their verbal testimony to distinguish between muslim whose are practicing their faith, you know, peacefully and spiritually as opposed to little islam. Theyre bending over backwards trying to make that distinction, and hopefully we can agree that we are against islamic terrorism that incites and kills. This has been an unusual committee. I appreciate your im happy to step out. No. I want you there. But as ive been watching this, ive seen other witnesses jotting down notes. Before i start a second round id like to offer those witnesses an opportunity to respond based on your notes. Basically the questions and answers. Ill start with the doctor. Thank you, senator. In all of this discussion, we havent talked about the war of ideas. We havent talked about the fact that the emanating force between radical jihadism is a moral attack on the United States and the west. And our culture. And there are things that we can say in response to this. This isnt something that has that can be developed particularly at the local Law Enforcement level. This has to be done by National Leaders who are the representatives of the American People at the highest levels where such things as a Human Rights Campaign can be launched. One of the most effective things that is being done right now in the online war is done by very Small Organization called good of all. Its dedicated to fighting against radical jihadism in a radicalization prevention operation by standing for the and promoting the universal declaration of human rights as an alternative set of ideals. As an idea virus that can capture the imagination of the new generation of socalled digital natives, the Younger Generation who are fluent with computers and cell phones and social media and the like. And this has taken some of this effort, which is barely funded at all. Its privately funded. Has managed to catch fire on different parts of the world. Millions of hits in egypt, for example, on the work of this organization that where egypt wasnt particularly targeted. But this was the natural course. Senator peters mentioned earlier that we are not at war with islam. Well, you know, one of the biggest arguments of the jihadists is in fact the west is at war with islam. And sound arguments have to be made that this is not the case and that we are opposing a certain kind of a radical political idealogy. Im also concerned here that too much of the conversation is focused on the question of terrorism and not on the question of trying to establish a basically totalitarian theocrattic form of government. Sharia law may not have made the kind of inroads in American Society that it has in other parts of the world, but if you look in europe European Countries have plenty of enclaves that have established a parallel structures, parallel track for sharia law. And there are cases in u. S. Courts when it comes to family law, where a muslim man may marry an american woman. They will have children, the man can then make his proper muslim declaration of divorce and then sharia family law has triumphed in cases like this where the husband can take the children off to saudi arabia and the American Mother will never see those children again. Im not an expert on all of that particular stuff, but ive read enough about it to know that such things exist and that the parallel track for sharia law has established a very good foothold in a number of European Countries. I think that there are i think that we have to be making it very clear that insofar as there are those who want to try to establish a political order in this country, that is at variance with our constitutional freedoms that this has to be opposed. And it is being done under the shroud of religion, under the protection of religious freedoms. But in fact, it is a Political Movement that is at variance with the constitution of the United States. I think we have to be vigilant about this and i think we have to make the proper moral arguments at the highest levels of this government that can both inspire those who would be radicalized to take a different path. And to alert those alert so much of the country about what the intentions are of certain kinds of people, which is not just violence, but it is the establishment of an unconstitutional order in this country. Thank you. Senator, i have a 14yearold son, so i watch a few Science Fiction movies once in a while. We oftentimes see the monster flailing. And we can take this approach that we try to address every place where that monster hits from San Bernardino to orlando to london to dhaka to kabul, or we can go to the heart of what is controlling that monster. And what that is, is an idealogy of extremism that everybody on this panel has acknowledged. I have lived on this earth and seen this idealogy take root in communities from my hometown of morgantown, west virginia, to Northern Virginia, to the rest of the world. The heart of this sits in propaganda machines that are churning out this dala of extremism. Those propaganda machines are in quatar, iran, in saudi arabia and all of their proxies. Senator mccaskill you said language matters. And as you said senator johnson, we do have rules, contracts in this country when you insight violence. When you lead people to violate our u. S. Laws. Amazon sent me overnight this book, woman in the shade of islam that outlines how a man can beat his wife. It was first delivered to me at my mosque in morgantown, west virginia, by the Muslim Students association. Ideas matter. Words matter. We have to get at the heart of the ideas that are then leading people to violence. We are on a conveyer belt. We should not just look at all of these incredible programs that are dealing with people once they become violent. We need to address the ideas that take them on that conveyer belt to that radicalization. And that is why i believe, also, that our Internet Companies are failing us, unfortunately. Amazon. Com brought me this how to book on how to beat a wife. Go daddy hosts a website. I invite anyone to go there and use the Search Engine and look up the word jew and see how many ways they say that jewish people should be murdered. Website of te Islamist Organization based in Northern Virginia and chicago that once an Islamic State. We are not doing enough to police these bad ideas. These are ideas that are not protected simply by the free speech rights in america. We stand together. We should stand together against the muslim supremacists. They exist as all of the members of the panel ha have agreed upon and unless we go to the heart. Its the terrorist acts for the generations to come. We have to dismantle the network of these bad ideas that are being put forward into the minds and hearts of young people and we have to do it today and investigate and dismantle. We have to put forward exactly be ideas in the Muslim Reform Movement are ideas are for a secular government. For peace, human rights, including womens rights and the declaration of human rights. We have to put forth the good ideas and shuts down and eliminate and take from the earth be as bad ideas either through the relationships and the countries that are putting forward the ideas or by any means that we are able to then stop the promotion of those ideas into the minds of our young people. Thank you. I would like to go back to the big picture. If you reflect on how the western governmenwestern governs performed, my evaluation would be we have failed. We have these small programs that if you look at the big picture look like small drops in the ocean we have spent trillions of dollars and we have waged wars and 9 11. Whatever names you choose to call them, theyve grown exponentially. They are sympathizers, state agencies, the money and the funding that they get, all of that has gone exponentially since 9 11. We can barely say that weve stopped that. It habecause doubled, tripled, n some places it has quadrupled. Weve completely failed to define the enemy. We are going to develop all of these programs to limit the consequences of the next attack in 2001 to stand for no attack at all. Im really worried and i dont think we have the sense of urgency. We worry about some of these countries. Do you realize that france is in a state of emergency. The groups in europe are on the rise like theyve never been. Ive been in holland for 14 years. There was a small group and today its the secondlargest policy. After this attack in london. Its absolutely true when it comes to these largescale attacks, weve made it difficult to do that. When they are entering the minds of human beings and turning them into missiles against us because they promised them that is fantastic but in that sense, we failed and we dont get to the ideology. We are seeing thousands and thousands of men that are prepared to use anything as a weapon and its easy for us to say this is happening online but that is not entirely true. Its still happening in the mosques. Its happening in schools. What exactly is happening . It is what i call the evangelization that is carried out by muslims that accentuate the political military doctrine that they are faced with and they are using it to turn peoples minds and heads away from the principles but what we thought of the universal decency that is what their hearts and minds are being turned away from and they are turned away from the idea that you are doing gods work to name and office and bring down societies. It hasnt happened in the United States. It hasnt yet happened in europe, but there are countries in africa that have been brought down in the middle east that have been brought down and i think that we need to bring to this discussion i know that this is the Homeland Committee and we dont speak for the entire government but i dont think we should walk away from this afternoon when we are done with an idea that there is no sense of urgency. We have failed miserably. We shouldnt be penny wise and foolish. The resources you start with the definition of the problem and again, when what i am hearing a great deal of agreement in terms of what it is. Thank you mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Of the ideology of violent and radical islamic extremism is a challenging topic and it certainly takes moral, political courage to speak up. As we reflect on and learn from these attacks, paris, london, manchester, istanbul, one year ago this week since the lone wolf attack in orlando we cant allow fear to disrupt our daily lives. We must remain vigilant about the growing threat of islamist extremism and worked to extinguish future tragedies. On the question regarding the freedom of religion, every one in the testimony made mentioning of it and that is we are not antiwar with a certain religion. At ththe freedom of religion whe pushing back. Out in the name of religion. Thank you for the question. They are a minority population. That is what my parents taught me. They are ones in which they are the sense of superiority to anybody elses world order. The history of how we got here is rooted in the last 100 years. The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire brought with it those that wanted to create a new Islamic State and so some of them had created movements like the muslim brotherhood. They are the ones we are talking about in terms of what they have done. They had a ticket to manhattan because like a lot of emigrants he was given a ticket to the heartland of america and he loved this country and its values. He loved the dignity of labor he saw by the professors. Meanwhile they came to this country and to colorado and he hated this country and the freedoms that women get in this country. So how do we protect muslims and how do we resist the Islamist Movement it is by differentiating that Islamist Movement from muslims and isolating and marginalizing it, taking down the websites. This is how we have to create an image and a vision of islam that is compatible with the 21st century and with the west and the United States. You come from a state that is the heartland of america. You believe in the same type of values my parents taught me to believe, and it is that kind of universality we have to recognize there are people in all communities including the Muslim Community that do not share a universal value. In the testimony you mentioned the companies are planning on walking to her wrist material. As a society in the United States, we encourage the flow of information and ideas but there are limits. The platform is for gruesome actions and it must stop. I spent 12 years in the Cloud Computing and software business, and i appreciate the challenge and commitment to maintain reputable platforms. They spent over 625,000 accounts for promoting extremism since 2015. How can the government and western society augment the Tech Companies efforts . We have to make a moral decision that we have a right to speak up and against any form of extremism in even when it comes to religion. We shouldnt give them a pass because they are expressing religion. We shouldnt give them a pass as we are afraid of offending muslims. If we have to use the same standards that we apply against the muslim supremacists that wants to control our country when i was doing research for this testimony i looked up this term of service that facebook has and youtube has. There are so many operators as you kno would know that are violating the terms of service by preaching hate from within the Muslim Community. So i feel it is my obligation to say we cannot allow that to exist and we have to see something Say Something verse even if it is by your own ten. I want to turn how do we get the platforms outside to get a twitter and facebook removing inappropriate content . During the cold war, we had the u. S. Information agency that got information out against the United States and the face to counter the falsehoods of the antiamerican propaganda. We had information policies, we had american houses for example in germany where there could be good Public Policy debate about these issues. We had all sorts of educational, cultural and other exchanges. Visitors programs, so many people abroad have a caricature view of the United States as fast cars skyscrapers. We need to portray to the world they are shutting down the voice of america. It is a crime. We broadcast the truth and ideas and give people accurate history by the totalitarian regimes. I would even argue that it was the decisive element to have brought down the soviet empire but i dont think most people in the Foreign Policy community understand that. I think however they talk about these things and the u. S. Government can magnify their messages. This means that they will the rape of a 12yearold girl and the will of the epidemic in pakistan. Are you going to go to hell, is it a satanic thing to do. It is the language that can be put on programming for example. We had the mighty wurlitzer, newspapers, journals of opinion, organizations, congress for cultural freedom to fight the ideas against communism. Of the money came from the foundation. Thank you mr. Chairman. I just have one further question. Part of the reason is to explore this. To what extent do we follow the trail in terms of money being diverted from the works lets put it that way how much more work do we have to do on that . A foundational point all of the money is very important. I think in terms of the overall counterterrorist effort is important but small and what we are seeing in the attacks domestically the funding is about the least important thing. Second, i do think that the Fbi Department of treasury and Intelligence Community writ large actually do a fantastic job about the pieces of this. So in terms of identifying the money and using that as a tool to identify pursuing them through covert action or Law Enforcement or elsewhere a second piece of actually stopping the broad flow from the charitable organizations are admittedly probably the most difficult piece. I think that we have done pretty well with established organizations. Hamas, hezbollah. The fbi has done work on pursuing that money in these large organizations. It gets much more difficult and i dont think weve done as well. The more diverse the networks become when you are dealing with the small charities, that its really difficult. So i think it is something we have to continue pursuing. It is worth while on the investment. It is, again this is a penny wise and foolish because it foot cost a lot. And it is also an important way to build partnerships in the community and talk about those that are doing good work they are not alienating the community when you shut down a charity because some of it has gone to bad things. That people say we better not call it islamic extremism. Its actually deep thought about what the right language is, what the problem is and then i think, and i hate to say this but Congress Bears Responsibility for this as well, a lack of Strategic Vision and funding for programs in a global robust way to match the many fantastic military intelligence Law Enforcement people. That to me if we can come out of this hearing with a commitment both domestically and internationally to do that with our partners in partnership and to make her a ticket or Branch Officials speaking about this problem in a way that does not alienate partners, this will be more. I appreciate your testimony. I agree wholeheartedly what should be pennywise and poundfoolish in terms of resourcing but it starts with the proper definition of the problem not denying any reality in understanding how i dont like this reality we are dealing with that we have to do deal with it. U. S. Constitution does not have this path. They have to recognize that i want to make all the windows i encourage all the senators and the members of the audience read the full testimony of all the witnesses. Read the full testimony. I think thats probably a pretty good start. So again thank you all for your courage, for your time and your testimony. This hearing record remains open for 15 days until june 29 at 5 00 p. M. For submission of statements and for the record. This hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]