 Mr. Secretary, happy New Year to you and on behalf of the Vale Global Energy Forum, thank you for taking the time to talk to all of us. It's an outstanding forum and I've watched it develop over the years. It's quite impressive. You can learn a lot if you keep your ears open. And you have, in fact, a few years ago, you had suggested that we put some focus on the North American energy as a regional energy focus and indeed we have followed up on that and in this meeting I think we have a pretty healthy mix of Mexican, Canadian and American dialogue and participation. So thank you for that leadership and which we have followed. I want to get into first the United States, your views of what's happening, then the North American focus and then the world. There is a very important transition going on right now as we speak in Washington, D.C. And we, of course, want the next team to be as successful as possible. And you have been through many such transitions in the past and any such transition opens up opportunities that we never had before. From what you've seen so far, where do you think we have for the United States the biggest opportunity? I think, first of all, that the future in energy looks really good almost no matter what. We've learned some things, we're not going to learn them about how to develop fields. We've learned a lot about solar energy and wind energy from what I can see in listening to the scientists involved. We are soon going to have large-scale storage, a reasonable-scale storage of electricity. That takes the intermittency problem away from solar and wind, gives us some security in case the grid is knocked out. So lots of things are happening. And as far as North America is concerned, Canada is an energy-rich country. Mexico is but has not been able to develop its resources because of regulatory requirements. Those have been lifted. So put this all together and you can't go wrong. Terrific. Now, given the new team coming in, they obviously will take a little bit of time to settle down and introduce some policies. Where do you think that could go and where are the biggest opportunities out there? I think the basic policy structure should be support for energy R&D. Actually, the federal government's support is not very large. And when it comes to, say, Stanford or MIT or somewhere, there's about a three-to-one private match. So the private sector is very much into this. And then I'd like to see that accompanying what the incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has long advocated, namely a revenue-neutral carbon tax. So you put all forms of energy on an equal footing and let them compete. You knock out all this regulatory morass, put a price out there and let the market decide. So in the past, you've always advocated and taught us that any choice of decisions we make on energy has to have a balance between our security, our economic growth and our environment. And I think what you have suggested and I've been saying for a long time, the revenue-neutral carbon tax gives you an insurance policy to address issues of the environment and the climate change, et cetera. How do we get that done? We'll get it done by advocacy, by example. It's really astonishing how much pricing of carbon there is around the world. It's very widespread in the United States. If we could do it on a revenue-neutral basis, we'd be well off. And we can internationalize it by saying we'll put a border tax on any incoming goods that haven't had a carbon adjustment in them. And if people say, and that can be part of the money that's distributed, and if some other country says, how do we get rid of it? We say it's easy, impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax. So you get this spread around the world and you'll be in business. Now you have advocated in the past not only a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but to take those revenues and give it back to the people. That's revenue-neutral. Which means that that's revenue-neutral. And that can be done by putting it in the hands of the Social Security Administration. Right. Because that's a bureaucracy that's accustomed to taking money in and passing money out. And they do a pretty good job of it. Now, this has been tried out as you know. We had a whole workshop out here at the Hoover. This has been tried out in British Columbia. And there they have introduced not only the money going back, but also a little bit of that being used for corporate taxes and others. Where do you stand on do we give everything back or is there room for helping the industry? Is there room for helping R&D with that or do you think we should give everything back? Where do you stand on that? I think we should return the money to people. And the corporate tax system needs revision. You don't have to bribe it. It's obviously way out of the kilter. And I think from what I read it's going to happen, so we don't have to mess with that. I'm ashamed of the environmentalists on this. I'm ashamed of the state of Washington on a revenue and profit tax. And the environmentalists all opposed it because they wanted the money. They don't care about the principle. They just want money. Give the money back to people. So you have been a huge fan of R&D. That the government should support the R&D and get out of the way for the industry. What's most exciting to you? You're here at Stanford. You are the chair of the advisory board of both Stanford and MIT Energy. What excites you? Well, it excites me to see the high quality of scientists of different dimensions who are working on this in a very energetic way. And that's fun because they're learning things. Learning is always fun. So I watch people learning and I'm learning in the process. So it's very good. And I think it's not only MIT and Stanford that's what we're familiar with. And we have a little consortium almost. We published a book called Game Changers based on our joint efforts. But all over the country there are people doing good things. So that's exciting. It's also true, little noticed, little noticed, that we are learning how to use energy much more efficiently. There's a book by Jim Sweeney here at Stanford that details this out. His graphs are astonishing to show how much savings there have been. And the inflection point interestingly is 1973. I remember it well. I was secretary of treasury. Here comes the Arab boy blockade. And it was a huge event. At that time a lot of electricity was produced by OL. So we were way down. And it was driving. Gas stations closed on weekends. Christmas lights. Awful. But it made a deep impact. And people have learned how to save in their use of energy. They're careful with it much more than before. So looking ahead, obviously it's very hard to predict crises coming up. But do you think we are prepared for something similar to that coming in the future? We hope it doesn't happen. But should it happen, do you think are we prepared for that? Well, I think where we're going is if suddenly there were another boycott, or if Hopec decided to stop producing oil, which they can't do, but if they decided to cut way back, we conserved. And we're getting less and less dependent on oil and gas anyway. I have solar panels on my house here at Stanford. And I've long since paid for them by what I've saved on my electricity bill. And I drive an electric powered car, which uses less electricity than the solar panels produced. So how much does my fuel cost me? Nothing. What's not to like? On that very high note, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. And again, on behalf of the Vail Global Energy Forum, I greatly appreciate your time. Well, I congratulate the forum on the way it has developed, and it's making a real contribution to our understanding of important issues.