 Thank you, Anne-Marie. I wish I could say that when we met on that bus in Davos that I knew all along that you'd be hired for this job. But it is true to say, as David Bradley can confirm, that once that this job became open a couple of years ago, David and I worked tirelessly to convince Anne-Marie to take this job. And she's done such a marvelous, marvelous job in leading the institution, reinventing the think tank and all of that. It's hard for me not to reminisce seeing all of you and, given the fact that our board about an hour ago approved a $34 million budget for 2016, it's hard for me not to reminisce a little bit about our somewhat humbler beginnings when I moved to this town with $150,000 to start the organization. And my partner's in crime. Michael Lind, are you here somewhere? I assume. Michael, over there. Cheryl Schwenender. Cheryl, where are you? He may not be here. There's Cheryl. And then the fourth partner in crime was Walter Mead. So you got a picture back then, four guys with an idea. Walter and Cheryl were up in New York. Michael and I were the ones who said, we're going to work full time on this. We're going to launch this thing. And we took the big step of hiring an administrative assistant. But then we wondered, well, where are we going to work out of? We need an office. So we had a philosophy back then of build it and they will come and think big. So we found a rather ambitious real estate broker. And he started showing us office spaces. And of course, he showed us all spaces that were far larger than we could possibly use in the short term. But there was one prime space in Dupont Circle, a top floor of a fantastic building. It was marvelous. But inevitably came the uncomfortable moment I was worried about where the broker said, well, could I see your financials? And of course, we had $150,000 in the bank. So the best I could produce was a piece of paper that said potential grants with some foundations and some dollars, some of which we had applied to, some of which we hadn't. The broker did one creative thing. He took out the word potential. He put it in the world committed. And next thing you know, we had a 10-year lease on 4,000 square feet of office space, top floor beautiful building, and $500,000 in tenant improvements. And that was the birth of New America. You will be pleased to know that the foundation now manages itself in a former conservative fashion. Doesn't take crazy leaps like that. Anne-Marie mentioned some of what makes us so unique. I've always liked to say that what's most unique about New America is that we pursue an honest search for big, new ideas unencumbered by predetermined ideologies, factions, parties, and so forth. We have tried in countless ways to reinvent the think tank model. It's been a continuous theme. And Anne-Marie's brought that to a whole new level with her reinventing think tank model that you will hear about a little further. So going back to those early days, in the first year, all we did is we appointed eight fellows. Why? Because we wanted to build intellectual capital. So in year one, we were basically a fellows program. And Mike and I set to work with a lot of help from Cheryl on a book called The Radical Center. And I believe I do this and I get that, yes. So that's the result of our first two years of work. And what was important about this book is it served as an intellectual foundation for the early days of New America and a blueprint for many of our original policy programs. The major theme of the book is that America was undergoing profound technological, economic, and demographic changes and that our political institutions were failing to keep pace, that our major parties were failing to provide adequate solutions to the problems of our time. And I reread the book in the last two days, or at least the conclusion of it, and it said clearly there our timeframe is not the next election, our timeframe is the next 25 years. The book was written 16 years ago now or something like that and it predicted a near perfect political storm for a whole number of reasons. Well, we may be in that near perfect political storm and this may be a very pregnant moment for policy change in America. One of the main themes of the book though was the need for a new social contract, a new division of labor between the public realm, the private realm and the communal realm. And we not only put forward a number of programs but also some underlying principles for a new social contract. One of them was that because we have a more sophisticated citizenry they deserve a broader array of choices. So what we meant by that was more voting choices, more healthcare choices, more career choices, more education choices, more lifestyle choices. And by the way, if you put all those choices together they don't fit easily in the preexisting or still the current ideological boxes. In order to get to this new social contract we argued for a citizen based social contract and what do I mean by that? I mean a social contract that is tied entirely to the individual in contrast to say our employer based social contract. Healthcare in America despite Obamacare remains primarily employer based which is a relic of the industrial era. We meant a citizen based social contract in contrast to place based systems. If you think of the way we fund education when one of the only OECD countries that funds them through local and state property taxes which creates vast inequities. And we're also thinking of getting beyond the race based affirmative action social contract of the past again towards a citizen based social contract. So that's what tied a lot of the early New America programs and social contract ideas together. Our biggest success by far was on healthcare. We put forward the idea of mandatory health insurance back in 2001 and I wanna pause for a moment and just tell you about how think tanks differ from businesses. If you're a business you want the strictest possible property rights. If you're a think tank you want the weakest possible property rights. Why? Because you want politicians to take your ideas. You rarely get credit but there's a very, very strong New America set of fingerprints on mandatory health insurance. To give you a couple examples. After a book came out with this as a major theme we wrote out beds and all the leading papers. Mike and I briefed presidential candidates from both parties. I spent a weekend with 50 senators briefing them on this idea. And then there was another thing that contributed. We had two staff defections which bothered me because one of the best parts of my tenure in New America is that we had almost no senior staff defections. But we had two and it's worse because it was defections to first time senators. Our healthcare director Lori Rubiner was stolen by a first time senator from New York who happens to be Hillary Clinton. Our Karen Cornblue who was the other senior staff defection in my time was stolen by a first time senator from Illinois who went on to slightly greater things. So our success there was RomneyCare 2006, Obamacare 2010. So that revolution though is far from over. It's not as if we've gotten there on healthcare. But I am looking at the clock and I'm going to move on from healthcare and go to my next slide. So the social contract work that New America has continued and this book by Anne-Marie added tremendously to it because she emphasized the need to expand our interpretation of social contracting to include not just workers but also the needs and contributions of caregivers. And New America has continued in all kinds of social contract programs. This is a summary of them. Okay, New America is about two things. No ideas, big ideas. In three words, big new ideas. So if you don't mind, I'm going to spend the balance of my time on a big new idea which is how could we solve what I believe will be the defining issue of the 21st century and that is climate change. Despite the Paris Accord, despite the fact that every leading head of state in office has publicly said that we must keep emissions down to temperatures below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Not a single country has an adequate policy in place to get us there in the required scale and speed. Everybody knows what needs to be done, carbon taxes. All economists agree on this. There's widespread agreement. The problem, however, is that there has not been a coherent or winning political formula or policy to actually get us from here to there. The challenges are profound. They're psychological challenge, geopolitical challenges. And please read the report. I spend the first third of it detailing the psychology and the geopolitics of it. Let me though just turn to the solution because we don't have that much time. So how do we get carbon taxes passed in a way that can gain popular support? And it's more than that. One thing that is dramatically missing in most discussions of carbon taxes, people think of it as a static problem. Pass it once and you'll get there. So there are those on Capitol Hill now who think, okay, we'll pass the carbon tax, use the money to rebate to lower corporate income taxes. And there you go, we'll have it. Well, British Columbia just did that essentially. And what they proved is that if the carbon tax is not continually increased, you cannot solve the problem. So what we need is not only a strategy to pass a carbon tax, but a continually increasing carbon tax. Seems like a tall order, but it's really not. The idea is to take all proceeds from a carbon tax and give them back to the American people in the form of dividends. What would this do for you? Number one, it would solve what is the biggest problem the lack of short-term benefits. It would give people an incentive to overcome the burden of carbon taxes and have more money in their hands. Amazing as this may sound, the majority of Americans would come out ahead in such a system. Why? For the simple reason that the wealthy, due to their more lavish lifestyles, tend to pollute more than the ordinary citizen. So there have been serious studies on the distributional effects of this. And what you find is that the three bottom income quintiles would come out ahead under such a system. So you therefore have something that could be the most effective solution according to all economists. The most popular solution, but also the most equitable solution to climate change. There are also reasons why this can enhance economic growth and we can get into that. Well, actually, I don't have time. So read the report for that part. What I want to end with though is why this may happen now because it happens to respond to four of the key trends in American politics today, actually in world affairs. One is a growth of inequality. The second is the growth of populism. The third is political partisan divisions and the fourth is nationalism. Real quickly, imagine that every American citizen gets $5,000, no, I'm sorry, every American family gets $5,000 in climate dividends per year. This provides a whole new solution to inequality. One that is not a giveaway, nor is it over at redistribution. It's not a giveaway because this is something given for the good behavior of lowering your carbon footprint. And it is not over at redistribution because it just results from the fact that the wealthy so happened to pollute more. A wealthy, if Bill Gates stopped flying on his airplanes, he would pay as little as the rest of us. It also responds to our populist moment and this is extremely important. A lot of Americans, whether they're voting these days for Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or Marine Le Pen, they feel that the system is fundamentally rigged against their interests. And there's reason to believe that. What the system I'm talking about would accomplish is it would provide a way to set new ground rules that make economic sense and make intuitive sense as well. The more you pollute, the more you pay. The less you pollute, the more you get back. It would also tip the scales towards the interests of the little guy and may actually inspire renewed legitimacy in our political institutions. There's a whole argument in my piece about why this should appeal to the Republican Party which has cornered itself on climate change. Without going into the details, please read the report. This could actually shrink both the size and the reach of government. It could be done in a way that also appeals to, for example, Trump's voters because they care about inequality and their populists. It could even be done in a way that lowers corporate income taxes. But finally, oh yes, I forgot to mention, it happens to be very popular. 67% of Americans favor the idea of carbon taxes when rebated, including 54% of conservative Republicans. That changes the politics. But interestingly, this also responds to nationalism. You pair the idea with border adjustments for carbon taxes and suddenly you have these new geoeconomic incentives where if any leading country goes first, the others will be compelled to follow. So as a closing comment, just imagine this idea in China. Apart from solving climate change, China wants to move to a consumer-led economic development model. Imagine if every Chinese individual suddenly had $1,000 in their bank account to start spending. Nothing would do more to put China on a new path and to boost the global economy. The possibilities, whether in Europe, in Asia, are immense. So in addition to releasing this report today, I'm also launching a new institution called the Climate Leadership Council, which over the next year will establish offices here in Washington, but also in Beijing, Berlin, and New Delhi, corresponding to the four leading countries or regions that are the largest carbon emitters. I look forward to talking to many of you about that and to seeing you throughout this retreat. Thank you so much.