Gentlemen, and were ready to get started. My name is david ibsen. Im the executive director of the counterterrorism project. And its my pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon for our discussion, rights and responsibilities of social media platforms in an age of global extremism. For those who may not be aware, our group is a research and Advocacy Organization working to combat extremism worldwide. In addition to researching extremist entities and formulating and implementing counter radicalization programs in communities around the world, cpp also works to pressure expose with the hopes of degrading extremist financial and Communication Networks and Online Internet networks in particular. And this part of our work in the online space has been of continuous importance to us as our organization has grown. As extremists demonstrate their ability to radicalize, recruit and inspire acts of terrorism with tragic results, and weve seen this very recently, unfortunately in the case of the halloween attacker in manhattan, when he was apprehended, he had almost 4,000 images on his phone, 90 videos of isis material on his phone, including material that directed how to use a truck or vehicle as a weapon of terror. Similarly, salman abedi who killed people in manchester, england following a concert was helped in part by instructional videos he found online on how to build a bomb that he found on youtube. From our research we found some of that same content was Still Available on youtube a full two months after the attack occurred. But we are seeing progress being made. Just recently today in the New York Times, there was a long story about how youtube has finefin finely acceded to Civil Society and counterterrorism officials and decided to remove completely material from anwar awlaki, american born notorious cleric who inspired and has connections to dozens and dozens of attacks. So our guests today will discuss these issues and the myriad challenges posed by extremists operate i dont think line, and also discuss how tech and private sector, government and Civil Society can best respond. Id also add that the issues that were going to discuss today, the misuse of Technology Platforms by hostile actors, hostile foreign act, to private sector, accountability and responsibility and the changing perception of Silicon Valley, towards Silicon Valley amongst policy practitioners, media and the public generally resonate beyond extremism and terrorism. And they touch upon a number of different issue context and policy contexts. So we hope that it will be informative to you if youre interested in illicit content online, or just issues related to Free Expression and free speech in the digital age. Before we get started, and before we welcome our distinguished lineup of experts, and to appropriately begin todays program, its a pleasure to welcome someone whose legislative creche has been devoted to security of u. S. Citizens. Senator ron johnson of the great state of wisconsin. Senator ron johnson was elected to the senate in 2010. He he is the chairman of the Senate Homeland security and Governmental Affairs committee. He proves his Ranking Member over set of government management and federal contracting oversight. Senator johnson also serves on the committees budget, science, commerce and foreign relations. Prior to being elected to the u. S. Senate, senator johnson worked for 31 years at a polyester and plastics Manufacturing Business which he cofounded in 1979. He received an accounting degree from the university of minnesota and is the proud father of three children and residence in oshkosh, wisconsin with his wife jane. Please all welcome senator ron johnson. [ applause ] well, thank you, david. And thank you all for coming here. Good afternoon. I really do want to appreciate the counterterrorism project. It is extremely important. I think youre raising incredibly important issues, serious issues, things that we really need to discuss as a society. For my part, opening the conference here, rather than stealing the thunder of excellent guest, the type of people by the way that we would call in to our committee and pick their brains and get their information, i would like to provide a slightly broader perspective. Im chairman of the Homeland SecurityGovernment Affairs committee. I come from a business background. The first thing i did when i took over the chairmanship is we develop admission statement. Pretty simple. To enhance the economic and National Security of america. We established four goals on the Homeland Security side of the committee. Border security, cybersecurity, protecting our critical infrastructure, which has an awful lot of cybersecurity component to that, and then countering violent extremists no matter what the origin. Well focus a lot of time and attention, and really, in congress, yes, we write legislation. Its hard to get it passed. I really view my primary roles chairman of the committee as to hold the hearings, bring in people like dr. Freed and Fran Townsend and peter bergen, the experts on the subject matter to do a problem solving process. Define the problem, provide the information, try and establish achievable goals. And so thats certainly what ive been trying to do. And we held a hearing just last week. Now this was a confirmation hearing for what i hoped will be the next secretary of Homeland Security. One of the things i did in that hearing is i laid out starting with the sikh temple shooting in oak creek, wisconsin. 20 different mass murders is a pretty depressing list. And it ended, of course, with the november 5th massacre at southern springs, texas, where 26 individuals, 26 souls were loss, 26 individuals wounded. In that list of 20 incidents, 262 souls were lost, over a thousand people were wounded. Later that night, sunday night, november 5th, with my family, my daughter just asked the question i think were all asking ourselves. Whats happening . Why it is happening . And what can we do about it . Now, these arent very easy questions to answer whatsoever. President obama, lets face it, had a fair amount of criticism when he compared terrorism to casualty counts to other things. For example, overdoses. And by the way, thats a huge problem in this nation, a growing crisis. 64,000 deaths last year. Gun deaths, 38,000. 27 due to suicides. 262 individuals were killed in acts of terrorism. Why do we concentrate so much time and effort on those acts of terrorism when lets face it, the body count is so much lower . Well, i would argue the reason we devote that much time and attention, the other deaths are part of life. They dont threaten to shut down potentially our economy. Remember, after Charlie Hebdo and other terrorist attacks in france, the city of brussels shut down. Not because there was a terrorist attack. Just because of the threat of a terrorist attack. And so what is happening in this world . The evolution of primarily islamist terror, but lets face it. In those 20 that list 20 attacks, they were homegrown terrorists. These are people who inspired or copycats. Not always tied to islamic terror. But what is so concerning about islamic terror is that it is reaching a new phase. Now i often take a look at islamic terrorism from this viewpoint of phases. We had the pre9 11. You could almost date it back to the attack on the olympic from palestinians. But specifically, al qaedatype attacks began really in the mid90s when they tried to bring down the twin towers with a bomb. They killed about six people and injured close to a thousand. And then 9 11 happened. And then we have the post 9 11 wars in afghanistan and iraq. And then of course the rise of isis after we foolishly bugged out of iraq, declared victory, and allowed isis to rise from the ashes of what was a thoroughly defeated al qaeda in iraq. We are dealing with Something Else now. We finally defeated the physical caliphate. Theyre doing a little mopup operation. But the caliphate as a physical entity is pretty well over. A year ago in our threat hearing, fbi director talked about a diaspora, a spreading of terror around the world. The head of the director of the National Counterterrorism center said that dias pora is not as severe as we thought it was. They fought and they died, which is a good thing. But recently at a hearing in Senate Foreign relations, as chairman corker pointed out we have troops in 19 Different Countries where that threat exists. So al qaeda, Isis Islamist terror has spread. It has eevolved. It has metastasized. And were entering this new phase, certainly demonstrated by isis where theyre using social media and incredibly sophisticated in incredibly effective ways. One of the reasons i uwas quite critical of the obama administration, if you remember president obama after fallujah fell referred to isis has the jv team. And then about six months later, mosul fell. And we saw the acts of barbarianism during 2014. The fact that we did not immediately put all of our effort into defeating isis and ending that caliphate, that territory every day the caliphate existed, every day it wasnt losing, it was perceived adds winning. And it was gaining more and more adherence online, inspiring them through social media. That is i think what our reality is today that is the phase were in right now. As isis has spread to at least these 19 countries where we have troop presence and probably beyond. And they have their social media platforms set up. And theyll continue to inspire it. The question is what do we do about it . Well, let me just give some basic direction. First of all we had to end that physical caliphate. Weve done that. We must address recruitment, the incitement, the training on social media. And thats really what this conference is all about. And youre going the hear from some real experts on what we need to do. We have to have a rational Legal Immigration system. We have to realize that the people that we allow in this country and gain permanent residency we have to assimilate them. Within thing america does better than probably for example in france or bill yuelgium, we do assimilate immigrants into this country better. But we have to ask ourselves how many can we accept . How many can we assimilate . Any nation, any nation, any sovereign nation has to secure its border, those control immigration. But assimilation is key. I do want to quote a philosopher, carl popper. In 1945 described the paradox of tolerance. He said unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are not intolerant, if were not prepared to defend a Tolerant Society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them. Americas a very Tolerant Society. We value that, almost above anything else, our freedom, our liberty. But our compassion and our tolerance. But in this new era, in this new phase, with this new threat to National Security, we really need to ask ourselves very serious questions. And youll hear this on the panel today. We dont allow child pornography on the internet. It is illegal to download it. And yet we allow howto guide books, how to create a bomb, how to buy a truck. The right truck to buy with two wheels in the back axle so when you run somebody down you, have you a greater chance of killing that individual. These are serious questions our society has to ask. How much can we really tolerate understanding that paradox of tolerance. If we tolerate too much, our tolerance itself will be ended. Its vital that we improve our intelligence gathering capabilities. Our first line of defense against violent extremists, whether its homegrown or whether its foreignborn is a robust and effective intelligence gathering capability. Together with strong alliances so we can share that intelligence. We cant be all places at all time. Now, i realize when we Start Talking about intelligence gathering, we Start Talking about Civil Liberties. In a free society, you always have that delicate balance between Civil Liberties and security. And unfortunately, unfortunately, i would have to argue today the fulcrum point of that balance has to tip towards security, or again, we will lose our society. There will no longer be tolerance. One thing we have to be prepared to do is be relentless in our pursuit and destruction of violent extremists. I mentioned before, one of the huge strategic blunders of the last administration was bugging out of iraq, declaring victory, allowing isis to rise again, creating that additional threat. We cant afford to do that anymore. One of the things we discussed is authorizations for use of military force under this new threat. I want to quick read the three that are at stake right now. Currently, we are operating under the authorization of use of military force signed into law september 18, 2011. Seven days after 9 11. This is an authorization that works. It reads, the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines now heres the problem he determines planned, authorized or committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11 or harbored such organizations or persons. If you read that authorization, i certainly dont come to the conclusion it applies today. But some lawyer somewhere it did and by precedence, it does. Now, we have had a debate whether we have a new authorization for use of military force. The problem in debating a new one is apparently we dont have enough votes to pass one that will give the commander in chief the ability to be that thenacio relentless to achieve victory. Let me read you another effective use of military force. This is what congress passed. First on december 8, 1941, against japan. Then december 11, 1941 against germany. This is a declaration of war. The president is authorized and directed to deploy the entire naval and military force of the United States and the resource of the government to carry on war against, in this case japan, and to bring the conflict to successful termination. All the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the congress of the United States. Thats called an allout effort. And i would argue in this phase, this generational struggle, this generation of war that were in, we need that kind of allout authorization declaration. Now, in february of 2015, you take a look at the 2001 authorization, it really doesnt apply in this situation. There was a debate in congress. The problem is, the authorization the administration requested simply wasnt that type of relentless, tenacious request for an authorization. The president is authorized subject to the limitations in subsection c. That doesnt send like an allout declaration, does it . To use the armed forces of the United States against isil or forces defined in section five. By the way, that definition is quite good. See limitations. The authority granted in subs subsection a does not authorize the use of armed forces during offensive Ground Combat operations. The only reason the physical caliphate is over is because this president used ground troops, not a whole lot of them, thousands, not tens of thousands, but gave the commanders on the field the authority to end the caliphate and its been ended. So again, thits extremel lly important not to hamstring any administration in winning a war. Finally, we must rebuild our military. I want to show you a little chart here. This is a history of the United States spending on defense. Kind of looks all downhill, doesnt it . I want to give you the stats on this, because its interesting what we continue to do to the finest among us. In the 70s, we averaged about 5 of our gdp for defense spending. It was a high of about 7. 6 under nixon. Then jimmy carter drew the military down to about 4. 4 . In the average we averaged about 5. 5 of defense spending, up to a high point of 6 under reagan. We ended the cold war. And so during the 90s, that was the peace dividend. So we went from about 5 under george h. W. Bush to 2. 8 under bill clinton. Then 9 11 occurred, so in the last decade, we averaged about 3. 9 , a low of 2. 9 to a high of 4. 6 . Of course, we declared the war over in iraq and once again, we started hollowing out our military. Last year, we spent 3. 2 in 2016. 2017, the best estimate i can get is about 3. 1 . We are not devoting the National Resources we need to defend our nation, to keep the homeland safe. This is all within the context of the fact that Neither Party is seriously taking seriously addressing what i consider the number one threat to our National Security is our debt and deficit. We are 20 trillion in debt. Over the next 30 years, it is projected we are going to run another at least 129 trillion worth of deficit. How can we spend enough on military when were already in debt over our heads . We have got to start getting serious about addressing the fact that we are mortgaging our kids future. Let me end on that note. Because i wanted to broaden this discussion. My daughter asked that question, what can we do about this . Why is this occurring . Whats happening . I was in a high school on friday, and i had one of the senior girls ask me almost the exact same question, what can we do about it . Well talk about some specific solutions in terms of social media, and what we can do there. But i would argue the br