Secretary Tim Geithner gave the following testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism

Secretary Geithner. Chairman White-house, Ranking Member Kyl, and distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Treasury Department's contribution to the Obama Administration's July 2011 integrated strategy to address the threat posed by transnational organized crime (TOC). In early 2010, the United States completed a comprehensive assessment of transnational organized crime—the first since 1995—which concluded that TOC networks have expanded in scope and sophistication, engage in a range of illicit activities, and are taking advantage of the increasingly integrated international financial system. Among the most startling conclusions of that assessment is that these groups’ growing infiltration of legitimate commerce and economic activity fundamentally threatens U.S. economic interests at home and abroad and could cause significant damage to the world financial system through subversion, exploitation, and distortion of legitimate markets and economic activity. Terrorists and insurgents increasingly are turning to crime and criminal networks for funding and logistics. Criminal networks are increasingly exploiting vulnerabilities in information technology and are involved in cyber crime. The result is a convergence of complex, volatile, and destabilizing threats to U.S. national security.

To combat this growing threat to U.S. and international security, the Obama Administration announced this past July a national Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime (the “Strategy”). The Strategy lays out five strategic objectives, 56 priority actions, and new and innovative capabilities and tools to mitigate the threat.

President Obama's opening message to the Strategy makes clear that despite a long and successful history of dismantling criminal organizations, not all of our capabilities have kept pace with the expansion of 21^st century transnational criminal threats. Shortly before the White House announced the Strategy, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13581, thereby providing the Treasury Department a new tool and authority to target the financial underpinnings of the world's most powerful transnational criminal organizations.

This Executive Order supplements an array of the Treasury Department's tools and capabilities that can be used to target TCOs and safeguard our financial system from abuse. Our targeting capabilities include financial sanctions, the imposition of special regulatory measures and requirements, and engagement with at-risk financial institutions and jurisdictions.

In my testimony, I will focus on the Treasury Department's efforts to implement E.O. 13581, as well as the other authorities we have available to use in implementing the Strategy, such as Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. I will also discuss our ongoing work to promote financial transparency domestically and abroad, and the importance of transparency in mitigating the threats posed by TOC and other forms of illicit finance. In particular, I will address the abuse of legal entities as a systemic vulnerability to TOC networks and a chronic challenge to achieving financial transparency. Addressing this vulnerability requires a broad approach, including the adoption of legislation to facilitate the availability of meaningful beneficial ownership information for companies created within the United States.

Targeted Financial Measures

Historically, economic sanctions have been the Treasury Department's primary tool to target the financial networks of illicit actors, including drug trafficking organizations. As these organizations generate hundreds of millions of dollars per year that are often placed in or moved through the international financial system, we have used targeted financial measures to restrict their access to the U.S. financial system. One such authority specifically designed to target drug trafficking organizations is the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (the “Kingpin Act”). Since June 2000, over 1000 individuals and entities have been designated under the Kingpin Act, resulting in the blocking of millions of dollars in financial assets in the United States. The Kingpin Act provided the flexibility necessary to continue targeting Latin American drug cartels over an extended period of time as the drug trade under the control of Colombian cartels gave way to a more segmented market progressively dominated by Mexican TCOs and shifted geographically from Colombia to Mexico. Recognizing the success of measures such as the Kingpin Act, the Strategy proposes that a similar method, with the flexibility to adapt to varying situations, be used to target TOC.

Executive Order 13581

While the Strategy draws from a broad range of tools and authorities to combat the threat posed by TCOs both domestically and abroad, targeted financial sanctions will be employed to help protect the U.S. financial system from these groups. On July 24, 2011, President Obama signed E.O. 13581, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations,” imposing sanctions against significant TCOs that threaten the U.S. national security, foreign policy, or economy and granting the Treasury Department the authority to address TCOs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. For the first time, the President recognizes that TOC warrants the declaration of a national emergency and the imposition of economic sanctions.

In the annex of E.O. 13581, the President identified and imposed sanctions on four significant TCOs: the Brothers’ Circle (a.k.a. Moscow Center), the Camorra, the Yakuza, and Los Zetas.

The four groups in the annex were chosen because they are large, sophisticated, multi-national organizations engaged in a wide variety of dangerous criminal enterprises ranging from narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, weapons trafficking, murder, complex financial fraud, and intellectual property theft that threaten the U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economy. Let me provide you additional background on these four organizations.

First, the Brothers’ Circle is a multi-ethnic criminal group composed of leaders and senior members of several Eurasian criminal groups largely based in countries of the former Soviet Union, but extending to the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. The Brothers’ Circle serves as a coordinating body for these criminal networks, including mediating disputes between the individual criminal networks and directing global criminal activity.

The Camorra, Italy's largest organized crime group, is a loose collection of allied and competing local clans in the province of Naples and the Campania region of Italy. The Camorra operates internationally and is involved in serious criminal activity such as counterfeiting and narcotics trafficking. The Camorra may earn more than 10 percent of its roughly $25 billion annual profit through the sale of counterfeit and pirated goods—such as luxury clothing, power tools, CDs, DVDs, and software.

The third group, the Yakuza, comprises the major Japanese organized crime syndicates, and had more than an estimated 80,000 members in 2008. The Yakuza derives a majority of its profits from the drug trade, but is also involved in weapons trafficking, and nearly all aspects of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. The Yakuza is also heavily involved in white-collar crime, often using front companies to hide illicit proceeds within legitimate industries, including construction, real estate, and finance.

Lastly, Los Zetas, formerly the armed wing of the Gulf Cartel, is an extremely violent transnational group based primarily in Mexico. According to press reporting, the organization is estimated to have thousands of members collectively in Mexico, Central America, and the United States and is specifically responsible for the safe passage of large quantities of illegal narcotics, including cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana from or through Mexico and eventually into the United States. In addition to drug trafficking, Los Zetas is involved in extortion, money laundering, intellectual property theft, and human smuggling. President Obama previously identified Los Zetas as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker under the Kingpin Act in 2009 (its former parent organization, the Gulf Cartel, was similarly identified in 2007). Since that time, 58 individuals and entities have been designated as associates of the two groups. Its listing under E.O. 13581 demonstrates that Los Zetas has expanded its illicit activities beyond drug trafficking.

The President's strategy draws from a broad range of tools and authorities to attack the threat posed by these organizations. As part of this broad strategy, sanctions will complement U.S. law enforcement authorities in the fight against transnational criminal organizations, as they have the in the case of Kingpin Act designations. The Treasury Department intends to build on our close cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice and other United States Government agencies to identify key nodes of operation for coordinated action in disrupting TOC networks.

In order to implement E.O. 13581 effectively, the Treasury Department has scoped out a series of actions that Treasury will undertake simultaneously in furtherance of the President's Strategy. These actions include: pursuing derivative designations of the four groups, identifying additional transnational criminal organizations, liaising with key foreign partners, and conducting outreach to the private sector.

The Treasury Department, in partnership with law enforcement and Intelligence Community counterparts, will attempt to map out the criminal networks of these groups in order to pursue derivative designations aggressively. As affiliates of the groups do not make transactions under the group name, it is essential to designate the groups’ leadership, operatives, associated companies and businesses, and financial facilitators. Designating such individuals and entities owned or controlled by, or providing material support to, these organizations will increase the financial pressure on their networks and affect their ability to conduct financial transactions.

In addition to pursuing derivative designations of groups currently listed in the annex of the E.O., the Treasury Department will work with our interagency partners to identify additional TCOs that pose a threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the U.S. for potential designation.

We will work with like-minded foreign partners to build an international coalition to combat TOC more broadly. Many countries in Europe and Asia have recognized the TCO threat long ago and have taken domestic steps to mitigate the threat. We believe they are natural partners in this initiative. We have already begun outreach to strategic allies to raise awareness of our authorities, to discuss potential information sharing opportunities, and build support for an international effort against TOC. Under Secretary David Cohen was in Europe last week, where he raised TOC as a priority issue with his counterparts there. I will travel to Moscow next week, where I will also raise this as an area where we hope to expand our cooperation with our Russian counterparts.

We will make outreach to the U.S. and international financial community an essential component of our efforts. Our goal will be to ensure that banks understand the risks of doing business with TCOs and are taking appropriate due diligence measures. Our partnership with the private sector on other sanctions programs has amplified the effects of our actions. Our aim, therefore, is to replicate the success of that partnership in order to make it more difficult for these illicit groups to abuse the U.S. and international financial system.

While enacting targeted financial measures against these four groups is our first priority, the Treasury Department is also investigating whether it would be appropriate to use other restrictive measures against TOC.

Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act

The Administration's Strategy calls for use of Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, in addition to the new Executive Order, to combat TOC. This powerful tool allows the Treasury Department to take action to protect the U.S. financial system from specific threats. It authorizes the Treasury Department to identify a foreign jurisdiction, foreign financial institution, type of account or class of transactions as a primary money laundering concern, and impose any one or combination of a range of special measures that U.S. financial institutions must take to protect against illicit financing risks associated with the subject of the action. In practical terms, Section 311, where appropriate, enables the Treasury Department to cut off foreign financial institutions from the U.S. financial system on the grounds that they facilitate transnational organized crime or other illicit activity.

For example, in February 2011, the Treasury Department identified the Beirut-based Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB) as a financial institution of primary money laundering concern for its role in facilitating the activities of an international narcotics trafficking and money laundering network operating across five continents. The LCB action was the product of close coordination and cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration. Similarly, in 2005, the Treasury Department identified two Latvian banks (VEF Bank and Multibanka) under Section 311 because they were being used to facilitate or promote money laundering and other financial crimes.

Several of our Section 311 actions against foreign banks have highlighted the role of shell companies in illicit activity. The Multibanka and VEF actions I mention above noted that the banks were involved in transferring funds involving illicit activity by multiple shell companies with no legitimate business purposes. Further, the Section 311 findings against Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA) and Infobank in Belarus alerted financial institutions around the world to the role that front companies play in furtherance of a wide array of illicit conduct. In these actions, the Treasury Department exposed the fact that BDA was providing services to North Korean front companies, and Infobank was involved in laundering improper fees derived from the United Nations’ Oil for Food Program via shell companies. These findings illustrate the need for enhanced financial transparency, which is also a component of the President's Strategy.

Financial Transparency

The success of our efforts to combat TOC networks through targeted action, including through the application of E.O. 13581, relies on our ongoing work to promote a transparent global financial system. The President's Strategy notes that such transparency is critical to law enforcement's efforts to combat TOC. Enhanced transparency also enables financial institutions, law enforcement and other relevant authorities to implement and enforce the targeted measures described above. More broadly, financial transparency is the cornerstone of our efforts to protect the financial system from abuse. It is the foundation of virtually all of our efforts and successes to date in countering illicit finance, from an increasing reliance on targeted financial measures in addressing global security threats to supporting international efforts to strengthen global anti-money laundering/combatting the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) standards.

The growth and increasing sophistication of the international financial system in recent years has enabled TCOs and other illicit actors to move money, hide assets, and conduct transactions anywhere in the world, exposing financial centers to exploitation and abuse in an unprecedented way. Our success in combating these illicit actors going forward will depend critically on our continued efforts to increase transparency across the international financial system. By requiring the collection of key information regarding the nature of transactions and the relevant transacting parties and beneficial owners, a transparent financial system will compel some criminals to avoid transactions altogether and pose significant obstacles for others who nevertheless seek to move funds in support of their illicit activities. And if, despite our best efforts, these individuals and entities still manage to access the financial system, the information collected by financial institutions enables law enforcement to trace the money and track down criminals and other bad actors.

The stakes are high. Just as financial transparency has helped us combat WMD proliferators, corrupt kleptocrats, and terrorist financiers, it also serves as a powerful weapon against transnational organized criminal networks. Where transnational criminals seek to exploit complexity and opacity, we must seek to untangle and bring clarity. As we enhance financial transparency, we diminish their ability to commit crime.

How we achieve financial transparency

In the broadest sense, our efforts to promote a transparent financial system encompass ongoing work to strengthen financial transparency across the formal financial sector and expand such transparency to the informal sectors, such as hawala and other informal remittance systems. This has not been limited to the U.S. financial system, but has included efforts to strengthen global standards and facilitate implementation of effective AML/CFT regimes in countries around the world. Working through various multilateral bodies, we have promoted transparency throughout the international financial system and have integrated robust systemic AML/CFT safeguards into the international financial architecture. This global AML/CFT architecture has enabled us to systematically identify and address illicit financing vulnerabilities in the international financial system on an ongoing basis. I would like to take a moment to discuss some of these successes in more detail.

Developing a Global AML/CFT Framework

The global threat of transnational criminal organizations and the increasing interdependence of the international financial system require a global approach to combating transnational organized crime. The Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) has worked with its interagency and international partners to help create a global AML/CFT framework as a foundation for taking action against criminal networks and for closing down vulnerabilities that they exploit. This framework consists of several intergovernmental organizations that collectively develop, assess and facilitate jurisdictional implementation of measures that are essential to combating various forms of illicit finance, including transnational organized crime. Such organizations include:

Financial Action Task Force (FATF)—The FATF is the premier international policy-making and standard-setting body in the international effort against terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit finance. Established by the G-7 Economic Summit in 1989, the FATF is an intergovernmental body that has grown to include 36 members, representing most major financial centers in all parts of the globe. The FATF sets global AML/CFT standards, promotes and assesses compliance with those standards, and, when necessary, promotes compliance through diplomatic pressure and coordination of economic countermeasures through its member governments. Through a combination of technical expertise and political and economic strength, the FATF has been unique among international bodies in its ability to take strong, effective multilateral action to prompt positive change in strengthening jurisdictional AML/CFT regimes worldwide. My office, Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes (TFFC), manages the FATF program for the U.S. government and heads the interagency U.S. delegation to the FATF. The U.S. delegation to the FATF includes the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security; the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the Securities and Exchange Commission; other federal financial regulatory agencies; and federal law enforcement agencies.

FATF-Style Regional Bodies (FSRBs)—Through the FATF, TFI and its interagency and international partners have also supported the creation and development of eight independent FSRBs that serve as leaders in their respective regions for advancing AML/CFT policy, including by conducting periodic compliance assessments of member jurisdictions against the FATF's AML/CFT standards. In conjunction with the FATF, these bodies are intended to establish a global framework for ensuring the adoption and implementation of the FATF standards.

IMF/World Bank—The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have become strong partners of the FATF and the Treasury Department in assessing global compliance with international AML/CFT standards, and providing high-quality technical assistance. In 2003, the World Bank and IMF officially recognized the FATF Recommendations as one of the 12 Key International Standards and Codes. Since then, the FATF, the World Bank and IMF worked together to develop a joint standardized methodology for assessing countries against the FATF Recommendations. Today, all formal World Bank and IMF Financial Sector Assessment Programs (FSAPs) must contain a full AML/CFT component, and the World Bank, IMF, and the FATF are coordinating to ensure that virtually every country in the world is subject to an AML/CFT assessment using the joint methodology.

Group of 20—The Group of 20 Ministers have endorsed the important work of the FATF in combating money laundering and terrorist financing, including by calling for the FATF to enhance the transparency of the international financial system and to publicly identify countries of concern for money laundering and terrorist financing. TFI works with AML/CFT experts in the G-20 countries to adequately respond to the G-20 calls and facilitate multilateral action in protecting the international financial system from abuse by illicit actors.

To facilitate compliance with global AML/CFT standards, the G-20 has called upon the FATF to continue to publicly identify jurisdictions that fail to meet the international standards and may pose a risk to the international financial system. I have had the privilege of serving as co-chair of the working group within the FATF that oversees this process. Jurisdictions that have been identified by this process must commit to an Action Plan of ambitious reforms. If the reform timelines specified in the Action Plans are not met, the FATF will issue increasingly strong public warnings, potentially culminating in a specific call for regulatory counter-measures from member countries. In response to this process, numerous jurisdictions have passed important AML/CFT legislation, which likely would not have happened so quickly without the encouragement from this FATF process.

Abuse of legal entities as a fundamental challenge to financial transparency

Despite our ongoing efforts and longstanding commitment to promote a transparent global financial system and to combat money laundering and illicit finance, federal law enforcement agencies and other information sources indicate that hundreds of billions of dollars of illicit proceeds are generated each year in the United States from criminal offenses stemming from illicit drug sales, various forms of financial fraud and tax evasion. The challenges in identifying and recovering proceeds of crime laundered through the U.S. and global financial system may be attributed in large part to ongoing and substantial criminal abuse of legal entities and a lack of insight into the beneficial ownership of those legal entities. These challenges, which are applicable to all manner of financial crime perpetrated by TOC networks, have been exhaustively described in various testimonies and publications. The following provide some examples:

In 2007, the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and the Treasury jointly issued the National Money Laundering Strategy (2007 Strategy), which in part, identifies current and emerging trends in money laundering, as well as specific vulnerabilities. The 2007 Strategy specifically emphasizes the risks associated with shell companies and trusts, noting that the use of these entities for illicit purposes has become increasingly popular with criminal actors because of the “ability to hide ownership and mask financial details.” The 2007 Strategy re-iterates the longstanding concern regarding shell entities by the international community, citing a 1998 statement by the United Nations: “…the principal forms of abuse of secrecy have shifted from individual bank accounts to corporate bank accounts and then to trust and other corporate forms that can be purchased readily without even the modest initial and ongoing due diligence that is exercised in the banking sector.” As asserted by a representative of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the United States Department of Justice (AFMLS), law enforcement faces “considerable difficulties when investigating U.S. shell corporations due to the lack of beneficial ownership information available in the United States.”

Further, in 2006, Congress directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine vulnerabilities associated with company formation in the United States. The report cites examples of abuse of the financial system by illicit shell company activities and reports that federal law enforcement officials are “concerned that criminals are increasingly using U.S. shell companies to conceal their identity and illicit activities,” and that shell companies are also a way of providing access to the U.S. financial system to offshore illicit actors via correspondent account relationships at U.S. banks.

The abuse of legal entities is an international problem; both foreign and domestic legal entities can be used for illicit purposes. Viktor Bout, an international arms merchant who was designated by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), used U.S. shell companies to mask his ownership and facilitate his illegal arms trafficking activities.

Law enforcement believes that the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the major Mexican drug trafficking organizations, uses both U.S. and Colombian shell companies to launder drug proceeds. Additionally, illicit actors use foreign shell companies to mask the involvement of designated persons and circumvent U.S. sanctions programs relating to Iran and North Korea.

Treasury's 3-pronged approach Addressing the ongoing abuse of legal entities to perpetrate all manner of financial crime requires a broad approach. Accordingly, the Treasury Department has developed a strategy on beneficial ownership that has three independent, but interrelated, objectives.

First, we are working to enhance the availability of beneficial ownership information to law enforcement regarding legal entities created in the United States. Together with our interagency partners and with Congress—including, in particular, Senator Levin, who has been a leader in this area—we are working to address this issue through legislation. These efforts, guided by the President's Strategy, also aim to ensure that legal entities can produce a clear statement of their beneficial ownership to any financial institution that is seeking such information as an element of their customer due diligence. Increased transparency in company formation in the U.S. will also improve law enforcement's ability to respond to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) requests from foreign partners.

Second, we plan to clarify and strengthen customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for financial institutions with respect to the beneficial ownership of legal entity account holders. In March 2010, the Treasury Department, together with the functional financial regulators, issued Guidance to clarify existing regulatory expectations for obtaining beneficial ownership information for certain accounts and customer relationships. We are also working with the regulatory and law enforcement communities, and consulting with the private sector, to determine how such due diligence requirements can be further clarified and strengthened as necessary through rulemaking or otherwise.

Third, we are working with our international partners in the FATF to clarify and facilitate the global implementation of international standards regarding beneficial ownership. As with our domestic efforts, our beneficial ownership work in the FATF focuses on both issues of legal entity formation within jurisdictions, as well as customer due diligence by financial institutions. We continue to work closely within the FATF and support the current ongoing revision to the FATF recommendations in this regard. The FATF hopes to have a new international standard adopted by February 2012. It is particularly important that we do not neglect this international effort as we move forward in addressing the issue of beneficial ownership in the United States. A unilateral solution is an incomplete and ineffective solution. Without widespread global implementation, even if CDD practices at our domestic institutions forbid dealing directly with a particular customer due to beneficial ownership risk, this same customer may nevertheless seek to access the financial system through foreign correspondent channels.

Conclusion

The President's Strategy calls upon the Treasury Department to deploy our targeted tools and to enhance financial transparency in order to close vulnerabilities, disrupt and dismantle illicit financial networks, and apply pressure on transnational criminal organizations. We are committed to disrupting TOC infiltration of the global economy to better protect the financial system, including by freezing the assets of criminal networks under our new sanctions authorities. At the same time, the United States remains intent on improving the transparency of the international financial system, which will benefit our efforts to combat all manner of illicit finance, including transnational organized crime.

Ambassador Jeffrey DeLaurentis made these remarks at the U.N. Security Council Open Debate in New York

Ambassador DeLaurentis. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me start by thanking you for bringing us together to discuss these new challenges to peace and security. Many thanks also to Executive Director Fedotov, High Commissioner Guterres, and Director General Chan for their briefings today.

I also welcome the ministers from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil and Columbia to our discussions today. Mr. President, The threats we are discussing today—illicit trafficking, climate change and pandemics—know no boundaries and cannot be tackled by one country alone. They require collective action, which the Council encourages by placing these items on its agenda and taking stock of UN programs aimed at addressing them.

I would like to comment briefly on each. First, illicit trafficking of drugs and arms, and particularly trafficking in persons, is devastating—destroying lives, fueling conflict, and preying on the powerless.

The criminals involved operate in increasingly complex and diversified underground markets and networks without respect for borders, laws or basic human dignity. These networks subvert legitimate economic activities, undermine sustainable development and political stability, fuel violence and corruption, and weaken the rule of law. In some areas, these criminals are aiding and abetting terrorists, undermining effective development and governance.

We must continue to work together to deny these criminals every advantage and defeat them at every turn. We must continue to set and update international standards; pool our resources and expertise; and close safe havens.

We are already on the right track. The United Nations provides critical assistance to states for implementation of the three UN drug control conventions that form the backbone of our common approach. In 2009, the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, ECOSOC, and the UN General Assembly adopted a counterdrug action plan. International organizations, such as UNODC, are essential in the fight against transnational organized crime and drug trafficking. Member states can rely on the 2001 UN Program of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in, Small Weapons and Light Weapons… sorry, Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects and the International Tracing Instrument to deal with the issue of small arms and light weapons. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, together with the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the primary international framework, are essential to countering trafficking in persons.

The United States continues to do its part. In 2010, we contributed $34 million US to support UNODC's programs for treaty implementation support. In the past year, we have announced three initiatives to combat transnational threats: the Central American Citizen's Security Partnership, the West Africa Cooperative Security Initiative, and the Central Asian Counternarcotics Initiative. We are committed to working with UNODC and other nations to deny safe havens to transnational crime and provide an environment where laws can be enforced, rights are protected, and sustainable development and business can proceed.

Turning to climate change, this Council held a debate last July and heard member states’ deep concerns that climate change will be a threat multiplier, exacerbating existing challenges and vulnerabilities. Climate change has the potential to reduce the availability of food and water, threaten biodiversity, raise sea levels, and disrupt weather patterns, exposing all of us to greater risk. Many regions of the world will be vulnerable to more intense and longer droughts, putting lives and livelihoods in peril. This is a particular concern where poverty or conflict already strains the capacity of communities to cope. Small and low-lying island states have real concerns about erosion and land loss due to sea level rise.

As our understanding of the effects of climate change on security evolves, including the risk of displacement and migration, we recognize the need for more collaborative analysis and action, and we believe the Council should remain open to continuing to consider this issue. The United States reaffirms the important role of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in facilitating an urgent response by all countries to address the challenge of climate change. We are committed to working with all countries to achieve a balanced and comprehensive outcome at the Framework Convention negotiations in Durban next month.

Finally, our interconnections are especially evident in global health. New infectious disease threats such as SARS and H5N1 avian influenza have emerged. Nearly eradicated diseases such as polio have returned. Infectious diseases pay no heed to international borders. A threat that emerges in one country can quickly spread across the globe, and can only be addressed through collective action.

The international community's response to the H5N1 outbreak, including sharing of information, expertise, medicines, and vaccines, was unprecedented and led to significantly improved animal-health surveillance and response capacities around the world. We all faced the challenge squarely, in both capitals and international fora. Now, we must maintain momentum to ensure those systems are regularized not only to keep the H5N1 virus in check, but also to protect us from the next emerging pandemic threat.

The United States actively supports several WHO initiatives which build on these lessons learned, including the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework and the 2005 International Health Regulations. We recently concluded a Memorandum of Understanding with the WHO to strengthen collaboration in global health security, and we continue to work with partner countries to improve their own public health surveillance, preparedness, and capacities for responses.

Mr. President, transnational threats are relevant to the Council's core responsibilities. The Council of the 21st century needs to continue to work to anticipate potential threats and be part of broader efforts to intensify collaboration across the system.

We look forward to working with fellow Council members to find ways to be better informed, including by opening dialogue with institutions that don't deal with conventional security threats, such as the World Health Organization, but which are on the front line in facing these new dangers. It is also important to be open to greater engagement with other parts of the UN system and to encourage UN agencies to work more closely together to anticipate and manage unconventional threats.

Finally, these issues remind us of the importance of a more traditional priority for us—the need to build state capacity. For example, post-conflict countries already struggling to rebuild infrastructure, strengthen institutions, and consolidate peace are especially vulnerable to some of the stresses posed by transnational threats. Climate change will demand stronger and more resilient institutional capacities for development as well as disaster prevention and response. Emerging infectious diseases require strengthened public health systems. Village clinics will often be the first to observe emergent disease and need to be able to respond swiftly and in cooperation with wider international capacities to manage infectious disease. Trafficking networks thrive where state institutions are fragile and interdiction capacities limited.

Mr. President, new challenges to security will be an important part of our Council's work in the future. Today's debate has been a step in the right direction and we thank Portugal for its initiative.

Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton gave these remarks in Geneva, Switzerland

Secretary Clinton. Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century.

Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world.

At three o'clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.

In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.

In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren't thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa's constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The Government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.

Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial, or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well.

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn't cultural; it's criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.

Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who've justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.

But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.

Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn't until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.

Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.

A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change.

So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women's rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality.

Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won't suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur.

Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear—I am not saying that gay people can't or don't commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.

And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home—the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.

And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people.

The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.

This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.

I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women's organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it.

The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.

This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, “If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.” There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love.

There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: “Be on the right side of history.” The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well.

I know that the thoughts I've shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. Thank you very much.

Secretary Hillary Clinton gave these remarks in Geneva, Switzerland

Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Mr. President. And I would also like to express my appreciation to all of the delegates and to my colleague, Minister Rosenthal, for his comments. I want to thank the Implementation Support Unit for all the efforts to advance the work here.

I want to start by acknowledging that our countries have accomplished a great deal together under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. One hundred sixty-five states have now committed not to pursue these weapons, and I am delighted to welcome Burundi and Mozambique to the Convention, and I join in urging all states who have not yet done so to join.

President Obama has made it a top goal of his Administration to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, because we view the risk of a bioweapons attack as both a serious national security challenge and a foreign policy priority. In an age when people and diseases cross borders with growing ease, bioweapons are a transnational threat, and therefore we must protect against them with transnational action.

The nature of the problem is evolving. The advances in science and technology make it possible to both prevent and cure more diseases, but also easier for states and non-state actors to develop biological weapons. A crude, but effective, terrorist weapon can be made by using a small sample of any number of widely available pathogens, inexpensive equipment, and college-level chemistry and biology. Even as it becomes easier to develop these weapons, it remains extremely difficult— as you know—to detect them, because almost any biological research can serve dual purposes. The same equipment and technical knowledge used for legitimate research to save lives can also be used to manufacture deadly diseases.

So of course, we must continue our work to prevent states from acquiring biological weapons. And one of the unsung successes of the Convention is that it has engrained a norm among states against biological weapons. Even countries that have never joined the Convention no longer claim that acquiring such weapons is a legitimate goal. But unfortunately, the ability of terrorists and other non-state actors to develop and use these weapons is growing. And therefore, this must be a renewed focus of our efforts during the next 14 days, as well as the months and years ahead.

Now, I know there are some in the international community who have their doubts about the odds of a mass biological attack or major outbreak. They point out that we have not seen either so far, and conclude the risk must be low. But that is not the conclusion of the United States, because there are warning signs, and they are too serious to ignore.

Terrorist groups have made it known they would want to acquire and use these weapons. And in the 1990s, the apocalyptic cult, Aum Shinrikyo unleashed two attacks in Tokyo by spraying a liquid containing anthrax spores into the air and unleashing sarin gas into the subway. In 2001, we found evidence in Afghanistan that al-Qaida was seeking the ability to conduct bioweapons attacks. And less than a year ago, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula made a call to arms for—and I quote—“brothers with degrees in microbiology or chemistry to develop a weapon of mass destruction.”

We all have an interest in ramping up our efforts to prevent outbreaks and attacks and then to be prepared to respond if they do occur. The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States killed five people and sickened 17. More than 10,000 were required to go on to antibiotics. A mass outbreak could cripple an already fragile global economy by cutting off the movement of people, goods, and sparking food shortages. And of course, a victim of an attack could just as easily travel from one country to another.

So shoring up our domestic and international defenses will make it easier to detect and respond. We need public health systems that can quickly diagnose outbreaks, whatever their source, and mobilize the right medical resources and personnel. By making any one country more secure, we make the international community more secure at the same time.

Two years ago, the Obama Administration released our national strategy for countering biological threats, which is a whole-of-government approach designed to protect the American people and improve our global capacity. We support our partners’ efforts to meet new international standards in disease preparedness, detection, and response. We are helping make laboratories safer and more secure, engaging 44 countries in these efforts this year. And since 2007, we've conducted more than a dozen workshops to help train public health and law enforcement officials.

But there is still more to do, and I want to briefly mention three areas. First, we need to bolster international confidence that all countries are living up to our obligations under the Convention. It is not possible, in our opinion, to create a verification regime that will achieve this goal. But we must take other steps. To begin with, we should revise the Convention's annual reporting systems to ensure that each party is answering the right questions, such as what we are each all doing to guard against the misuse of biological materials.

Countries should also take their own measures to demonstrate transparency. Under our new Bio-Transparency and Openness Initiative, we will host an international forum on health and security to exchange views on biological threats and discuss the evolution of U.S. bioresearch programs. We will underscore that commitment by inviting a few state parties to the Convention to tour a U.S. biodefense facility next year, as Ambassador van den IJssel and the UN 1540 Committee did this past summer. And we will promote dialogue through exchanges among scientists from the United States and elsewhere. In short, we are intending and our meeting our obligation to the full letter and spirit of the treaty, and we wish to work with other nations to do so as well.

Second, we must strengthen each country's ability to detect and respond to outbreaks and improve international coordination. As President Obama said earlier this year at the UN, “We must come together to prevent and detect and fight every kind of biological danger, whether it's a pandemic like H1N1, or a terrorist threat, or a terrible disease.” Five years ago, 194 countries came together at the World Health Organization and committed to build our core capacities by June 2012, and we should redouble our efforts to meet that goal. We will support the WHO in this area, and I urge others to join us.

Finally, we need thoughtful international dialogue about the ways to maximize the benefits of scientific research and minimize the risks. For example, the emerging gene synthesis industry is making genetic material widely available. This obviously has many benefits for research, but it could also potentially be used to assemble the components of a deadly organism. So how do we balance the need for scientific freedom and innovation with the necessity of guarding against such risks?

There is no easy answer, but it begins with open conversations among governments, the scientific community, and other stakeholders, in this forum and elsewhere. We have recently had our U.S. President's Commission on Bioethics develop ethical principles that could be helpful in this dialogue, and we urge a discussion about them. Ambassador Kennedy and the U.S. team look forward to working with all of you for a strong set of recommendations.

And let me conclude by saying we know the biological threats we face today are new, but our commitment to face threats together is not. More than 85 years ago, after the horrors of World War I, the international community took a stand against the use of poison gases and bacteriological weapons. And nearly a half-century later, that shared commitment brought us together to adopt the Biological Weapons Convention. So in that same spirit, let us move forward to address the challenges we face together in the 21^st century.

Thank you very much.

Secretary Hillary Clinton gave these remarks in The Hague, Netherlands

Secretary Hillary Clinton gave these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to this roundtable and once again voice my support for joining the Law of the Sea Convention. Signing onto the Convention is critical to protecting American security and enhancing our economic strength.

Joining the Convention would put America's resource rights on firm legal footing, protecting American business interests and helping those businesses stay competitive internationally. The Convention provides legal certainty and predictability that businesses can rely on, empowering them to pursue ventures that they would not be able to undertake otherwise.

For example, Chinese, Indian, and Russian companies are exploring deep seabeds for rare earth elements and valuable metals, but the United States cannot sponsor our companies to do the same. Joining the Convention will level the playing field for American companies so they have the same rights and opportunities as their competitors.

Past administrations—both Republican and Democratic—the United States military, and industry and environmental groups have all together signaled strong support for joining the Convention. It is a key piece of unfinished business. And I'm confident that the United States will soon do what over 160 other countries have already done and join the Law of the Sea Convention. Thanks to all of you for helping to make this a reality.

Assistant Secretary Thomas Countryman gave the following remarks via teleconference in Washington, DC

Assistant Secretary Countryman. The United States is pleased with the outcome of the 7^th Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention that was adopted yesterday in Geneva. The final document adopted a program for what we call the intercessional period, the next five years before the next review conference, that will focus on three major topics: first, strengthening implementation of the convention, that is, the implementation legally and practically by each of the states party; second, a regular and systematic review of scientific and technological developments in the life sciences relevant to the convention; and third, continuing to build capacity to deal with disease outbreaks, including capacity building in biosafety, bio-security, disease surveillance, preparedness, and response.

These are the three areas that the United States emphasized when Secretary Clinton spoke to the conference on December 7^th, and we're pleased, of course, that they are the focus of the final document. They were adopted not because the United States pushed them but because we selected the topics that it is clear the majority of states party agree are essential for future development. These are the very topics at the intersection of public health and international security that will help all the nations of the world confront some serious challenges in the years ahead. And so we are happy to see that these are the primary focus of the intercessional period.

Throughout the convention, the review conference, and throughout the period leading up to it, the United States consulted closely with countries around the world, not only our closest allies but many in the non-aligned movement as well, in order to get to this consensus document. We set a positive tone throughout the conference, of course highlighted by the Secretary's speech in Geneva on December 7^th. And afterward, the delegation led by Ambassador Laura Kennedy did an absolutely outstanding job of both listening to the concerns of our partners and putting forward a positive agenda that has resulted in consensus.

So we are happy with the results. We think they are significant for not only the United States as we move ahead on advancing the President's national strategy for countering biological threats, but that they have the same value for all of our partners around the world who share this concern about potential biological and toxic threats.

And with that, I'd be happy to take some questions.