 Good morning to everyone. It's a privilege to be here to contribute to this conversation. It's important. And the high stakes one for both business and government. I wanted to focus my remarks on the US policy perspective on BEPS, both from a government and a business perspective, but also addressing Pascal's reference to the fact that I was there at the origin of the BEPS project at the OECD when I was the US delegate to the OECD to talk a little bit about context and I think some of the confusion about how it originated and the objectives of the project. So just beginning with the US government policy perspective, I think concerns about base erosion and profit shifting are not new in the US. They haven't certainly gotten the media attention that it has gotten in Europe, but from a policy perspective and within the government, they have been top of mind for a long time. So in particular, the administration has been very focused on it. And the last six budgets presented by the Obama administration have included numerous provisions to address concerns about base erosion and profit shifting, particularly about aspects of the US rules that may encourage or facilitate the shifting of profit in ways that were not intended. In addition, both parties in Congress have been focused on the issue and have put forth tax reform proposals that have included aspects that are intended to address base erosion and profit shifting. So I'd say that there is some broad consensus across policy lines that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and also a broad consensus around the need for pretty fundamental tax reform in the United States. In that regard, with respect to fundamental tax reform in the international tax context, there's a lot of common ground in the United States between parties. In particular, there's agreement that the corporate income tax rate needs to be reduced. And so the base needs to be broadened, the rate speed to come down. There's broad agreement that the current system that we have, which is a worldwide tax system that taxes income upon repatriation, needs to be changed so that the tax on repatriation of income ought to be eliminated since it leads to undesirable behaviors. And there's also broad agreement that active offshore earnings ought to be subject to a rate of tax that's lower than the earnings in the United States. Many countries achieve that, including Ireland through an exemption system, so that income earned offshore is not taxed. The US has not traditionally done that. We've used deferral as a way to reduce tax on offshore earnings. But I think in the context of reform, there'll be a move to either having a minimum rate of tax on offshore earnings or a complete exemption of those earnings in certain cases. That said, there's also agreement that there need to be tight anti-base erosion rules or tighter anti-base erosion rules. And they include improving our CFC rules, maybe tightening those CFC rules, again imposing a minimum tax on certain offshore earnings, denying deductions in certain cases and limiting the deductibility of interest expense so that it is not easy to strip income out of the United States. And then addressing hybrid mismatches consistent with the OECD. So overall, I think the US political policy concerns about BEPS have been in line with the concerns that initiated or led to the initiation of the BEPS project. That said, I think US policy officials also have a number of concerns about some of the flavor and direction that the BEPS project has taken in certain instances. Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Tax Policy at Treasury, my successor at Treasury, Bob Stack, has indicated the US's support for the BEPS project stating in testimony before Congress that the United States has a great deal at stake in the BEPS project and a strong interest in its success. Our active participation is crucial to protecting our own tax base from stripping by multinational companies, much of which occurs as a result of exploiting differences between national regimes. That said, he as well as congressional leaders have also expressed the concern that the BEPS project may be being used by some to specifically target US multinationals in ways that are not consistent with a principled approach to addressing what is a very real policy concern. And interestingly, in a joint statement last June, Senator Hatch and Camp stated that, quote, we are concerned that the BEPS project is being used as a way for other countries to simply increase taxes on American taxpayers. So Deputy Secretary Stack has focused in his efforts at the OECD on making sure that the focus of the project is consistent with its origins. And Pascal, in his remarks earlier today, referenced those origins. The purpose of the project was to evaluate and reconcile gaps between sovereign jurisdictions who are taxing. And I think it's important to emphasize that context. International tax rules exist to allocate profit between jurisdictions. And they serve a very important role in that. And it's important to understand that they exist to allocate profit between sovereign jurisdictions. So sovereign countries are free to tax however they wish. They choose to agree to international tax rules effectively to agree to eliminate double taxation and prevent the differences between those sovereign taxing rights from inhibiting investment and cross-border activity. They also exist to help enforce domestic rules through transparency and exchange of information. So the origins of the project really came about because there was a perception that those international agreements that have existed for many years in which countries have effectively agreed to give up taxing rights in certain cases on cross-border income in order to encourage investment were resulting in circumstances where income was going untaxed. And the countries that had agreed to those international rules did not intend for the outcome to be that outcome. It was not unlike what the press sometimes depicts it, it was not an exercise or an effort to address tax evasion or the breaking of rules or the hiding of income or the enforcement. It was very much focused about whether existing international tax policies and standards continue to make sense in the current environment. So just turning very briefly to the business perspective and the US business perspective and concerns, I think the US business concerns are echo some of the US government policy concerns, which is the focus in the public conversation about BEPS that has at times characterized it as an issue about the behavior of companies, rather than focused on the policy conversation, which is very much the OECD's focus. And that has led to concerns about reputational risk because of the focus on certain companies. And it ends up with being there's a disproportionate focus on companies that are particularly sensitive to public and media attention and not necessarily addressing the policy, the overall policy concerns in ways that would address the issue more broadly. It also creates risks of unilateral action by certain governments in response to the political and public concerns, which again is not consistent with the hope here of having a collaborative outcome. Again, international tax rules by definition exist about collaborating as to how to allocate rights between jurisdiction. And if there isn't an agreement about how to go about doing that, you lose the purpose of having those rules in the first place. And it can also lead, and the big concern is it's gonna lead to increased controversy, increased compliance costs in ways that again don't serve the interests of governments or business. So I think that is the focus. We'll leave it to some of the questions and answers to talk about specifically what the likely US actions might be.