experiments like this. remember that the samples in the repository were not independent samplings of the possible world of the anthracis ames. they have their own in dependencies and relationships, some of which we knew little about, much of which the fbi knew about during the course of their investigative work. the problem is that many statistical tests required independence among the samples. that was not the case here. >> have a question from the member of the public in the back them up i am paul walker. >> i have two quick questions. thank you for all your good remarks already. number one, if an anthrax attacks or to take place this year in 2011 rather than 10

years ago in 2001, do you feel we would be better off in trying to understand and prosecute the perpetrators of the attack? number two, i want to draw you into some broader and recommendations. from your investigation of the last couple of years, how would we better improve by a-the security today? i'm thinking of non- proliferation funding in the u.s. government which is threatened with budget cuts in the current budget debate. i am thinking primarily of the biological weapons convention of which we have long been a party which has its five-year review later this year. thank you. >> i believe we are much better off than we were in 2001. the fbi at that time did not have a structure for organizing such a complex investigation and now they do. there are also many other bodies that have been assembled

in the government and experts that have come forward and can help guide these kind of investigations. also, the technology has evolved. the capabilities to do these experiments rapidly and effectively has improved. on that note, i would like to say that i think one of the important aspects -- and we don't talk about it in the report but i think it is important to recognize -- our national ability to carry out an investigation like this really relied on scientists, many in universities and labs all over the country, who took the time and effort to come to the aid of the nation and help. there are fewer and fewer scientists working on these types of pathogens.

there are many regulatory hurdles and it is challenging perhaps to get that work done and the funding for it and the facilities in order to carry out that work. if we lose that body of scientists, we will be at more risk because we really rely on people like dr. relman who understand these things in a detailed way and understand and study the way these types of pathogens work. >> those are both very important points. in some ways, this investigation and this discussion that we have had and will have about this case highlight the importance of trying to anticipate what might be the threats and challenges from biology, from the biological world. we know the vast majority of bile -- biology is beneficial to

the environment and to us. a very small subset carries some risk. this shows what the challenges might be. we realize that although this investigation was very difficult, the next one may be even more so. the threat agent may be genetically even more complex. it may be engineered. there may not be a direct sample of the attack material available as there was in this case. that made things somewhat easier. having said that, one of the optimistic notes perhaps alluded to in your question is that there is a great mill more sensitivity now about what it means about interacting with their biological friends out there in the world. how we might try to anticipate and preempt ways of misuse. >> we have time for one or two

more questions. >> dr. re,man, you had contact -- you had said that the silicon in the samples was judged not to be necessary for the dispersal that was observed. i wonder if you could say bill more about that -- if you could say a little more about that. even if it wasn't necessary, is it possible that was added for the purpose of dispersal and might have had an effect of that sort. number two, and what effected the reported size of the sports in the letters to the senators which was reported at one point as being 1.3-3.0 microns in diameter. that was dramatically smaller

than the earlier known sample from the u.s. or soviet arsenals. thirdly, in the hart building, the spores apparently wafted up individually from the letter that was opened and seemed to have a buoyancy that was quite remarkable. were there chemical or physical properties that might have caused that? >> all very good questions. i will take a stab in turn to my colleague here. first of all, we are saying that we found and the fbi found no evidence for the addition of dispersants. such an feel that addition would be necessary to account for the properties of the material that was steady.

silicon was found but we also know that silicon is naturally inc. or can be naturally incorporated into sports as they grow. -- into spores as they grow. that was determined by the fbi during the investigation. silicon was there we think perhaps due to natural processes. do we need to invoke the possibility of additional silicon? it is hard to comment upon that. there was one sample where there was a discrepancy between the amount of silicon in the individual sports and the overall bulk silicon content. there was that one sample. we did not find a compelling explanation for that discrepancy. as for the particle size, the work that was sponsored by the fbi found that there was a

bimodal distribution of particle sizes. there were particles in the range you have described but there were also larger particles. we have no further information on how one might generate that particular bimodal distribution and whether it projects other procedures or not. >> at that size, it is not surprising to have the small particles spores easily dispersed into air and ending up everywhere. it hinges on that small particle size.

>> good afternoon. this is our home for nearly 100 years, we are honored to have as our neighbor, the united states department of state and its secretary, hillary rodham clinton. i am delighted to note that throughout her career in distinguished service, she has been a friend of this university and a frequent visitor to our campus. we are proud she is an alumna of the george washington university, had received an honorary doctorate and deliver the keynote address at our commencement ceremony in may, 1994. it is a distinct pleasure to welcome secretary clinton back to our university for this

address entitled," internet rights and wrongs." this is a topic of particular interest to our faculty in the elliott school of international affairs. we can all agree that the role of the internet in recent events in the middle east make this topic especially relevant this afternoon. ladies and gentlemen, please join me anin welcoming the 67 secretary of state, hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> thank you all very much and good afternoon. it is a pleasure once again to be back on the campus of the george washington university, a place i have spent quite a bit

of time in different settings over the last nearly 20 years. i would like especially to thank president knapp and provost lerman because this is a great opportunity for me to address such a significant issue and one which deserves the attention of citizens, governments, and i know is trying that attention and perhaps today in my remarks, we can begin a much more vigorous debate that will respond to the needs we have been watching in real time on our television sets.

hundreds of thousands egyptians had marched to demand a new government and the world, on televisions, laptops, cell phone, and smart phones have followed every single step. pictures and videos from egypt flooded the web. on facebook and twitter, journalists posted on the spot reports, protesters poured edit their next moves, citizens of all stripes share their hopes and fears about this pivotal moment in the history of their country. millions worldwide and entered in real time "you are not alone and we are with you." then the government pulled the plug. cell phone service was cut off, a tv satellite signals were jammed, and internet access was blocked for nearly the entire population. big government did not want the people to communicate with each

other. it did not want the press to communicate with the public. it certainly did not want the world to watch. the events in egypt recall another protest movement, 18 months earlier in iran when thousands marched after the disputed elections. their protesters also used websites to protest. video taken by cell phone showed a young woman killed by a member of the paramilitary forces and within hours, that video was being watched by people everywhere. the iranian authorities used technology as well. revolution regard stocks member of the green movement by tracking their online profiles. like egypt, for a time, the government shut down the internet and mobile networks altogether. after the authorities raided homes, attacked university

dorms, made mass arrests, tortured and fired shots into crowds, the protests ended. in egypt, the story ended differently. the protests continued despite the internet shut down. people organized marches through fires and word-of-mouth and used dial up modems and fax machines to communicate with the world. after five days, the government relented and egypt came back on line. the authorities then sought to use the internet to control the protests by ordering mobile companies to send out pro- government text messages and by arresting bloggers and those who organized the protest on lie. 18 days after the protests began, the government failed and the president resigned. what happened in egypt and what

happened in iran which this week is once again using violence against protesters seeking basic freedoms was about a great deal more than the internet. in each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. they stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. the internet did not do any of those things, people did. in both of these countries, the ways that citizens and the authorities use the internet reflected the power of connection technologies on the one hand as an accelerant of political social and economic change. on the other hand, as a means to stifle or extinguish that change. there is a debate currently under way in some circles about whether the internet is a force

for liberation or repression. i think that debate is largely beside the point. not inspiring people because the communicated using twitter. it is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future. iran is not all because the authorities used facebook to shadow and capture members of the opposition. the run is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people. it is our values that cause these actions to inspire or outrage us. our sense of human dignity, the rights that flow from it, and the principles that ground it. it is these values that want to drive us to think about the road ahead. 2 billion people are now online, nearly 1/3 of humankind3

. we hail from every corner of the world and live under every form of government and subscribe to every system of beliefs and increasingly, we are turning to the internet to conduct important aspects of our lives. the internet has become the public space of the 21st century. it is the world's town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. we all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting. that presents a challenge. to maintain an internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us, what rules that exist and should not exist, and why. what the papers should be encouraged or discouraged and how. the goal is not to tell people

how to use the internet any more than we want to tell people how to use any public square, whether it is tahrir square or times square. the value of this derived from the variety of activities people can pursue from holding a rally to selling their vegetables to having a private conversation, these spaces provide an open platform and so does the internet. it does not serve a particular agenda and never should read it people around the world are going to come together every day on line and have a safe and productive experience, we need a shared vision to guide us. one year ago, i offered a starting point for that vision by calling for a global commitment to internet freedom to protect human rights on line as we do offline. the rights of individuals to express their views freely,

petition their leaders, worship according to their beliefs, these rights are universal whether they are exercised in a public square or on an individual blog. the freedom to assemble and associate also apply in cyberspace. in our time, people are as likely to come together to pursue common interests on line as in a church or a liberal. --labor hall. the association online comprises the freedom to connect. the united states supports this freedom for people everywhere and we have called on other nations to do the same period we want people to have the chance to exercise this freedom. also supports expanding the number of people who have access to the internet. because the internet must work evenly and reliably for it to have value, we support the multi-state older system that

governs the internet today which has consistently kept it up and running through all manner of interruptions through networks, borders, and regions. in the years since my speech, people worldwide have continued to use the internet to sell shared problems and expose public corruption from the people in russia who tracked wild fires online and organized a volunteer firefighting squad to the children in syria to use facebook to reveal abuse by their teachers to the internet campaign in china that helps parents find their missing children. at the same time, the internet continues to be restrained in a myriad of ways. in china, the government censors content and redirects certain requests to error pages. in burma, independent news sites have been taken down with denial of services.

in cuba, the government is trying to create a national movement not to allow their citizens to access the global internet. bloggers to criticize the government are arrested and abuse. in iran, the authorities block media website, target social media, and steel identifying information about their own people in order to hunt them down. these actions reflect a landscape that is complex and combustible. it is sure to become more so in the coming years as billions of more people connect to the internet. the choices we make today will determine what the internet looks like in the future. businesses have to choose whether and how to enter markets where internet freedom is limited. people have to choose how to act on line, what information to

share and with whom, which ideas to voice and how to voice them. governments have to choose to live up to their commitment to protect free expression, assembly, and association. for the united states, the choice is clear. on the spectrum of internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. we recognize that an open internet comes with challenges. it calls for ground rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. internet freedom racist tensions like all freedoms do. we believe the benefits far exceed the cost. i would like to discuss several of the challenges we must confront as we seek to protect and defend a free and open internet.

we are helping lead a conversation and defending universal principles but the interests of our people and partners. the first challenge is achieving both liberty and security. liberty and security are often presented as equal and opposite, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. in fact, i believe they make each other possible. without security, liberty is fragile. without liberty, security is oppressive. the challenge is finding the proper measure, enough security to enable our prisons but not so much for so little as to endanger them. finding this proper measure for the internet is critical because the qualities that make the internet a force for unprecedented progress is

openness. it is the level in effect of its reach and speed which enables wrongdoing on an unprecedented scale. terrorists and extremist groups use the internet to recruit members and plots and carry out attacks. human traffickers use the internet to find and lure new victims into modern-day slavery. child pornographers use the internet to exploit children. hackers break into financial institutions, cell phones, and personal email accounts. we need successful strategies for combating these threats and more without constricting the openness that is the internet's greatest attribute. the united states is aggressively tracking and deterring criminals and terrorists online. we are investing in our nation's cyber security to prevent cyber incidents and to lessen their impact. we are cooperating with other

countries to fight trans- national crime and cyberspace. the united states government invests in helping other nations build their own law enforcement capacity. we have also ratified the budapest cyber-crime convention which sets out the steps countries must take to insure the internet is not misused by criminals and terrorists while still protecting the liberties of our own citizens. in our vigorous effort to prevent attacks or apprehend criminals, we retain a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. the united states is determined to stop terrorism and criminal activity online and offline. in both spheres, we are committed to pursuing these goals in accordance with our laws and values. others have taken a different approach. security is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on freedom.

this tactic is not new to the digital age. it has new resonance. as the internet has given government's new capacities for tracking and punishing human rights advocates and political dissidents, governments that arrest blotters pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens and limit their access to the internet, may claim to be seeking security. in fact, they may even mean it as they define it. they are taking the wrong path. those who clamped down on internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their peoples yearning for a while, but not forever. the second challenge is protecting both transparency and confidentiality. the internet's strong culture of transparency derives from its power to make information of all kinds available instantly.

in addition to being a public face, the internet is also a channel for private communication. for that to continue, there must be protection for confidential communication online. think of all the ways in which people in organizations rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. businesses hold confidential conversations when they are developing new products to stay ahead of their competitors. journalists keep details of their sources confidential to keep them from exposure or retribution. governments also rely on a confidential communication online as well as offline. the existence of connection technologies may make it harder to maintain confidentiality but it does not alter the need for it. i know that government confidentiality has been a topic of debate during the past few

months because of wikileaks. it has been a false debate in many ways. fundamentally, the wikileaks incident began with government documents being stolen as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase. some have suggested that this was justified because governments have a responsibility to conduct all of our work out in the open in the full view of our citizens. i respectfully disagree. the united states could neither provide for our citizens security nor promotes the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our efforts. confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise. consider our work with former soviet states to secure loose

nuclear material. by keeping the details confidential, we make it less likely that terrorists or criminals will find a nuclear material and steel at for their own purposes. consider the content of the documents that wikileaks made public. without commenting on the authenticity of any particular documents, we can observe that many of the cables released by wikileaks relate to human rights work carried on around the world. our diplomats closely collaborate with activists, a journalist, and citizens to challenge the misdeeds of oppressive governments. it is dangerous work. by publishing diplomatic cables, wikileaks expos people to even greater risk. for operations like this, confidentiality is essential, especially in the internet age when dangerous information can be sent around the world with

the click of a keystroke. governments also have a duty to be transparent. we govern with the consent of the people and that consent must be informed to be meaningful. we must be judicious about when we close of our work to the public and we must review our standards frequently to make sure they are rigorous. we have laws designed to insure that the government makes its work open to the people. the obama administration has also launched an unprecedented initiative to put government data on line, to encourage citizen participation and to generally increase the openness of government. the u.s. government possibility to protect america, to secure the liberties of our people, and to support the rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what is public

and what should and must remain out of the public domain. the scale should and will always be tipped in favor of openness. tipping the scale over completely serves no one's interest. let me be clear -- i said that the wikileaks incident began with a fact. just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. the fact that wikileaks used the internet is not the reason we criticize its actions. wikileaks does not challenge our commitment to internet freedom. one final word on this matter -- there were reports in the days following these leaks that the united states government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to wikileaks. that is not the case. some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to

disassociate from wikileaks while others criticize them for doing so. public officials are part of our country's public debate. there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct. business decisions at private -- that private companies may have taken to enforce their own values or policies regarding wikileaks were not at the direction of the obama administration. a third challenge is protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility. i don't need to tell this audience that the internet is home to every kind of speech, false, offensive, incendiary, innovative, truthful, and beautiful. the multitude of opinions and ideas that crowd the internet is both a result of its openness and a reflection of our human

diversity. online, everyone has a voice and universal declaration of human rights protect the freedom of expression for all. what we say has consequences. hateful or defamatory words can incline hostilities, deepen divisions, and provoke violence. on the internet, this power is heightened. intolerance speeches often amplified and impossible to retract. the internet also provides a unique space for people to bridge their differences and build trust and understanding. some take the view that to encourage tolerance, some hateful ideas must be silenced by governments. we believe that efforts to curb the content of speech rarely succeed and often become an excuse to violate freedom of expression.

as it has historically been proven time and again, the better answer to offensive speech is more. speech people can and should speak out against intolerance and hatred by exposing ideas to debate. those with marriage tend to be strengthened while we can false ideas tend to fade away, perhaps not instantly but eventually. this approach does not immediately discredit every hateful idea or convince every bigot to reverse his thinking. we have determined as a society that it is far more effective than any other alternative approach. the lead in writing, blocking content, arresting speakers, these actions suppress words but they do not touch the underlying ideas. they simply drive people with those ideas to the fringes

where their convictions can deepen unchallenged. last summer, ahnnah rosenthal, made a trip to dachau and auschwitz with a delegation of american imams and muslim leaders. many of them had previously denied the holocaust. none of them had ever denounced holocaust denial. by visiting the concentration camps, they displayed a willingness to consider a different view. the trip had a real impact. they prayed together. they sign the messages of peace. many of those messages in the visitors' books were written in arabic. at the end of the trip, they read a statement that their

growth and signs together condemning without reservations holocaust denial and all other forms of anti-semitism. the marketplace of ideas worked. these leaders had not been arrested for their previous stance or ordered to remain silent their mosques were not shut down for the state did not compel them with force. others appealed to them with facts. their speech was dealt with through the speech of others. the united states does restrict certain kinds of speech in accordance with the rule of law and our international obligations. we have rules of libel and slander, defamation and speech that incite imminent violence. we enforce these rules transparently and citizens have the right to appeal how they are applied. we don't restrict speech even if

the majority of people find it offensive. history is full of examples of ideas that were banned for reasons that we now see as wrong. people were punished for denying the divine right of kings or suggesting that people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion. these restrictions might have been the dominant view of the time and some of these views are still in place around the world, but when it comes to online speech, the united states has chosen not to depart from our time tested principles. we urge our people to speak with stability, to recognize the power and reach that their words can have on line. we have seen in our own country, a tragic examples of how on-line

bullying can have terrible consequences. those of us in government should lead by example in the town we said and the ideas we champion. leadership means empowering people to make their own choices rather than interbreeding and taking those choices away. we protect free speech with the force of law and we appeal to the force of reason to win out over hate. these three large principles are not always easy to advance at once. they raise tensions and they pose challenges. we do not have to choose among them. liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, freedom of expression and tolerance, these all make up the foundation of eight free, open, and secure society as well as a free, open, and secure internet. universal human rights are respected and provides a

greater progress and prosperity over the long run. some countries are trying a different approach, abridging rights on line and looking to be wrecked permanent walz. ls. they want to keep what they like and suppress what they don't. this is no easy task. search engines connect businesses to new customers and also attract users because they deliver and organize news and information. social networking sites are not the only places where friends share for lotus. they also share political views and build support for social causes or reach out to professional context to collaborate on new business opportunities. walls that divide the internet that block political content or bann broad categorie of expression or intimidate people

from expressing their ideas are far easier to erect and maintain. because people using human ingenuity find ways around them and threw them, there is not an economic internet and social internet and a political internet. there is just the internet. maintaining barriers that attempt to change this reality entails a variety of costs, moral, political, and economic. countries may be able to absorb these costs for a time, but we believe they are unsustainable in the long run. there are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression. there are costs to a nation's education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential.

when countries curtailed internet freedom, they place limits on their economic future. their young people don't have access to the conversations and debate happening in the world or exposure to the kind of free inquiry that questions the old ways of doing and invent new ones. barring criticism of officials make government more susceptible to corruption which creates disruption with long-term effects. freedom of thought and a level playing field made possible by the rule of law or part of what fuels innovation economies. it is not surprising that the european/american business council, a group of more than 70 companies made a strong public support the statement last week for internet freedom. if you invest in countries with aggressive censorship and surveillance policies, your website could be shut down without warning.

your service could be had by the government, your designs stolen or your staff threatened with arrest or expulsion for failing to comply with a politically motivated order. the risks to your bottom line and your integrity will, at some point come out with a potential -- rewards especially of their market opportunities elsewhere. some have pointed to a few companies, particularly china, that appears to stand out as an exception, a place where internet censorship is high and economic growth is strong. clearly, many businesses are willing to endure restrictive internet policies to gain access to those markets. in the short term, perhaps in the medium term, those governments may succeed in maintaining a segmented internet. those restrictions will have long-term costs that threaten one day to become a news that

restrains growth and development. there are political costs as well. consider tunisia where online economic activity was an important part of the country's ties with europe. online censorship was on par with china and iran. the effort to divide economic internet from the everything else internet in tunisia could not be sustained. people, especially young people, found ways to use connection technology to organize and share grievances which helps fuel a movement that led to revolutionary change. in syria, the government is trying to negotiate a non- negotiable contradiction. just last week, it lifted a ban on facebook and youtube for the first time in three years. yesterday, they convicted a teenage girl of espionage and sentenced her to five years in

prison for the political opinion she expressed on her block. this is unsustainable. the demand for access to platforms of expression cannot be satisfied when using them lance you in prison. we believe that governments to have erected barriers to internet freedom, whether they are technical filters or censorship regimes or attacks on those who exercise their right to expression and assembly online, will eventually find themselves boxed in. they will face a dictator's dilemma and will have to choose between letting the wall's fall or paying the price to keep them standing. that means both doubling down on a losing hand by resorting to greater oppression and enduring the escalating opportunity cost of missing out on the ideas that have been blocked and people who have been disappeared.

i urge countries everywhere to join us in the best we have made. it is a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger and more prosperous countries. at its core, it is an extension of the bet that the united states has made for more than 200 years, that open societies give rise to the most lasting progress, that the rule of law is the firmest foundation for justice and peace and that in ovation thrives where ideas of all kinds are aired and explored. this is not a bet on computers or mobile phones. this is a bet on people. we are confident that together with those partners in government and people around the world who are making the same bet by choosing universal rights that underpinned society will preserve the internet as an open space for all.

that will pay long-term and gains for our shared progress and prosperity. the united states will continue to promote an internet where people's right to protect it and it is open to innovation, interoperable over the world, secure enough to hold people's trust and reliable enough to support their work. in the past year, we have welcomed the emergence of a global coalition of countries, businesses, a civil society groups, and digital activists seeking to advance these goals. we have found strong partners in several governments worldwide. we have been encouraged by the work of the global network initiative which brings together companies, academics, and ngo's to work together to solve the challenges we face. they deal with several different problems like privacy issues.

we need strong corporate partners that have made principled, meaningful commitment to internet freedom as we work together to advance this common cause. we realize that in order to be meaningful, online freedoms must carry over into real world activism. that is why we're working through our civil society 2.0 initiative to connect ngo initiative with training that will magnify their impact. we are also committed to continuing our conversation with people everywhere around the world. last week, we launched twitter feeds in arabic and farsi. we will start similar ones in chinese, russian, and indeed. this enables us to have real time two-way conversations with people were ever there is a connection that governments do not block. our commitment to internet

freedom is a commitment to the rights of people and we are matching that with our actions. we're monitoring and responding to threats of the internet freedom which is the daily work of our diplomats and development experts. they are working to advance internet freedom on the ground, at our embassies, and missions around the world. the united states continues to help people in oppressive internet environments get around filters. we want them to stay one step ahead of the centers, the packers, and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them with what they say online. the rights we seek to protect and support are clear. the various ways that these rights are violated our increasingly complex. some have criticized us for not pouring funding into a single technology. we believe there is no silver bullet in the struggle against internet repression.

there is no app for that. [laughter] start working, those of you out there. [laughter] we are taking a comprehensive and innovative approach, one that matches our diplomacy with technology, secure distribution networks for tools, and direct support for those on the frontline. in the last three years, we have awarded more than $20 million in competitive grants through an open process including interagency evaluation by technical and policy experts to support a burgeoning group of technologists an activist working at the cutting edge of the fight against internet repression. this year, we will award more than $25 million in additional funding. we are taking a venture capital- style approach, supporting a portfolio of technology, tools, and training.

and adapting as more users shift to mobile devices. we have our ear to the ground, talking to digital activists about where they need help and our diversified approach means we can adapt to the range of threats they face. we support multiple tools so if repressive governments figure out how to target one, others are available. we invest in the cutting edge because we know that repressive governments are constantly innovating their methods of oppression and we intend to stay ahead of them. likewise, we are leading the push to strengthen cyber- security and online innovation, building capacity in developing countries, championing open and interoperable standards and enhancing international cooperation to respond to cyber threats. deputy secretary of defense lynn gave a speech on this yesterday. all the separate bill than a decade of work to sustain an internet that is open, secure,

and reliable. in the coming year, the administration will complete an international strategy for cyberspace, charting the course to continue this work into the future. this is a foreign policy priority for us, one bill will only increase in importance in the coming years. that is what i have created the office of the court never for cyber issues, to enhance our work on cyber security and other issues and facilitate cooperation across the state department and with other government agencies. i have named christopher painter to have this new office. the dramatic increase in use is in the last 10 years has been remarkable to witness. that was just the opening act. in the next 20 years, nearly 5 billion people will join the network. it is those users who will decide the future.

we are playing for the long game. unlike much of what happens on line, progress on this front will be measured in years, not seconds. the course we chart today will determine whether those who follow us will get the chance to experience the freedom, security, and prosperity of an open internet. as we look ahead, let us remember that internet freedom is not about any one particular activity on line. it is about insuring that the internet remains a activities of all kinds can take place from ground-breaking historic campaigns to the small, ordinary acts that people engaged in everyday. we want to keep the internet open for the protestor using social media to organize a march in egypt, the college student email and her family photographs of her semester abroad, the lawyer in vietnam blogging to

expose corruption, a teenager in the united states who is believed and finds words of support online. for the small business or -- order in can get using mobile banking to manage for profits, the philosopher in china -- academic journals for dissertation, the scientist in brazil sharing data in real time with colleagues overseas, and the billions and billions of interactions with the internet every single day as people communicate with loved ones, follow the news, do their jobs, and participate in the debate shaping their world. internet freedom is about defending the space in which all these things occur so that it remains, not just for the students here today, but your successors and all who come after you. this is one of the grand challenges of our time. we are engaged in a vigorous

effort against those who we have always stood against who wish to stifle and repress, to come forward with their version of reality and to except in another. we enlist your help on behalf of this struggle. it is a struggle for human rights. it is a struggle for human freedom and it is a struggle for human dignity. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> a couple of congressional hearings to tell you about on cspan 3. president obama's proposed 2012 pentagon budget is $671 billion. that is down from last year's request of $708 billion. this morning, robert gates and the head of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullins, will testify about the military budget. that is live from the house armed services committee at 10:00 eastern. later in the day, on c-span 3, treasury secretary tim geithner will be back on capitol hill for a second day to testify about the president paz budget. live coverage from the house budget committee at 2:00 eastern. >> the cspan networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history available on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites and find our

content any time through the cspan video library and we take cspan on the road with local content vehicle bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the cspan networks, now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable and provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" is next. the house gavel's beckham this morning. they will start today with members beaches and continued debate on additional spending for 2011. live house coverage on c-span. coming up, more about the federal budget. this hour, joined by the chairman of the american conservative union. then house budget committee member, a democrat from wisconsin. later, russell wheeler from the brookings institution discusses brookings institution discusses judicial