we will have melissa rodgers and ellen alvira, and marty lederman, and michael mcconnell here. we invite you to come and you can sign up for the event on our web page. today, we are going to address a timely and important topic, religious freedom and religious extremism, lessons from the arab spring, we will hear from some of the nation's top pexperts on the topic. as always, we want you to be encouraged to be involved in the conversation. both today and in the future. let us hear from you. the over arching question is what role if any ought religious freedom to play in the struggle for self governance. can it play a role in rooting demauk r demauk rassy in these -- democracy. -- open to the use of violence. can religious freedom in fact limit religious extremists, how should american policy seek to best counter religious extremism in practice. our first panel will discuss a growing body of work, some of it produced, of much of it producen their own about how the forms of religious political engagement, and second the conditions under which greater religious freedom might under

. >> it's interesting that michael mcconnell, at george washington university, former director of national intelligence said current u.s. cyberdefenses are work and the bills on capitol hill are insufficient. the former director of national intelligence has a significant disagreement with your assessment. so, according to a reason article in "the washington post," the white house blocked draft legislation that would have given nsa or any government entity the authority to monitor private sector networks for computer viruss are operate active defenses to block them. the nsa supported the authority but the white house did not according to administration official blocking of the draft caused some consternation because nsa want to get that authority. there are some who propose that nsa should be able to detect but not read the cyberattack information. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i disagree. i think the approach that we have put on the table is the appropriate one, which is we give that to industry, they can look at that and when they see that, tell us. i think that's the first right

watching who's talking about these things sometimes the mainstream press won't tell you that michael mcconnell works for. a government contractor that stands to make millions tens of millions perhaps hundred thousand dollars on cyber security expert that's right he knows a few things there's no two ways about that but he has a point of view but he's selling and maybe he's literally selling. and you talked about sort of the money involved here i know the u.s. government is expected to spend ten and a half a billion dollars a year on this by twenty fifteen analysts have estimated that the worldwide market is as much as one hundred forty billion a year the defense department says it seeking more than three point two billion in funding just for this year was sort of the story behind these numbers here will there is there is something the u.s. government can do which is to be a smart purchaser of hardware software and services itself so that to the extent it is spending money on cybersecurity in the stuff that it buys that's actually a good idea and that will improve the market for secure hardware

. >> it's interesting that michael mcconnell, at george washington university, former director of national intelligence said current u.s. cyberdefenses are work and the bills on capitol hill are insufficient. the former director of national intelligence has a significant disagreement with your assessment. so, according to a reason article in "the washington post," the white house blocked draft legislation that would have given nsa or any government entity the authority to monitor private sector networks for computer viruss are operate active defenses to block them. the nsa supported the authority but the white house did not according to administration official blocking of the draft caused some consternation because nsa want to get that authority. there are some who propose that nsa should be able to detect but not read the cyberattack information. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i disagree. i think the approach that we have put on the table is the appropriate one, which is we give that to industry, they can look at that and when they i think that is the first rights that. if we go t

. >> it's interesting that michael mcconnell, at george washington university, former director of national intelligence said current u.s. cyberdefenses are work and the bills on capitol hill are insufficient. the former director of national intelligence has a significant disagreement with your assessment. so, according to a reason article in "the washington post," the white house blocked draft legislation that would have given nsa or any government entity the authority to monitor private sector networks for computer viruss are operate active defenses to block them. the nsa supported the authority but the white house did not according to administration official blocking of the draft caused some consternation because nsa want to get that authority. there are some who propose that nsa should be able to detect but not read the cyberattack information. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i disagree. i think the approach that we have put on the table is the appropriate one, which is we give that to industry, they can look at that and when they see that, tell us. i think that's the first right

china's cyber thievery as national policy must be challenged" former dni, mike mcconnell, former homeland security secretary, michael chertoff and former deputfens w lin noted ability of cyber terrorists to cripple -- cripple -- our critical infrastructure. they sounded an even more urgent alarm about the threat of economic cyberel espionage. citing a report by office of national counterintelligence executive, the of the catastrophic impact that cyber espionage, particularly that pursued by china, could have on our economy and competitiveness. they estimated that the cost easily means billions of dollars and millions of jobs. this threat is all the more menacing because it is being pursued by a global competitor, seeking to steal the research and development of american firms to undermine our economic leadership. the evidence of our cyber security vulnerability is overwhelming. it compels us to act now. some members have called for yet more studies. even more hearings, additional markups. in other words, more delay. the fact is since 2005 alone, our committee alone has held 10 hearings on the cyber throat, including