 Thank you very much indeed, Bill. Let me start by saying that it's very difficult to follow the very excellent keynote address which we've all just heard. It expressed in very clear terms the issues fundamental to the debate about migration. If I may be personal for a moment, I have believed all my life in processes and laws, in the creation of an environment which is based on substance and which works as a result of the development of institutions. And I'd like to start by paying tribute to the fact that since I became special representative under Kofi Annan and in more particularly in recent times, the engagement of IOM in the leadership of the issues relating to migration has been vitally important for the global community. And in particular, the leadership of you, Bill Swing, has been a central element in a new dynamic, which is, I think, a positive step forward in terms of where we're going and how we're going to get there. In 2006, excuse me because I also have a touch of flu, in 2006, we had a situation where we have nothing within the UN which brought together effectively a response to the issues of migration, and in particular, its nexus with the issue of development. That high-level dialogue gave birth to the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which has been chaired by a litany of relative saints in countries from that day to this, most recently Sweden and now Turkey. And that has created a dialogue which I think has been a positive development between North and South. In the early days, that dialogue was not as productive or indeed as positive as it has become. Now thanks to the high-level dialogue and its successor, thanks to the Global Forum, thanks to IOM, we are at least creating a global debate that is working in terms of developing policy initiatives. The Pulse 2015 agenda issue is one which is of crucial importance, although it may appear to be peripheral to some of the main issues. The fate of migration's presence in the Pulse 2015 agenda will have been decided a year from now when we gather again at the IOM Council meeting. And how hard and how well we work together in the coming weeks and months is critical to dealing with this issue. It seemed amazing to me at the outset that anyone could argue against migration playing a crucial role in the issue of development. It is one of the great phenomena of our time. It is changing the lives of countless millions of people both in countries of origin, destination, and transit, even at the most simple levels of remittances. The impact of migration has an enormous effect on development and on object poverty in parts of the world. And therefore, we now call on the IOM and its members, which 20 years ago consisted of just a few dozen countries, but now stands at 157 as we heard earlier today, to embrace and actively move forward with ensuring that migration is properly reflected in the Pulse 2015 development goals. 20 years ago, the human smuggling industry was a small fraction of the size it is today, charging $1,000 then to navigate the US-Mexico border, for example. Today, a single boat, grossly unsafe in many instances, crossing the Mediterranean, can gross $2 million for a criminal syndicate. And the smuggling industry is now larger than the illicit trade in drugs and arms. That's the nature of what is happening in our environment, in our world today. The World Bank estimates that if all international migrants were grouped together, they would constitute the world's sixth largest economy, with a GDP of $2.6 trillion. It's also worth reflecting on how the exploitation of migrants exacerbates inequality within countries, not only because they are forced to work in subpar conditions in some places and at subpar wages, but also because employers use them as leverage to lower wages of others. There's a long list of milestones of our progress since the first high-level dialogue. I've mentioned already the advent of the GFMD. But even in the area of laws, we're really making progress, for an example, in the area of the Domestic Workers Convention. At national level, matters are changing, too. I can refer to President Obama's executive action last month, which stands out. So, too, does Germany's exceptional efforts vote to shelter refugees and to integrate migrants in recent years. Morocco, for decades, one of the best at engaging its diaspora, has now set out an immigration framework that is ambitious and in the right direction. Turkey has shown great progress in organizing its migration system. So, too, is Brazil, the Philippines. Mexico continues to play a significant role in thinking through the issue. And so do many others. But it's more accurate, I think, to frame where we are in this way. We're at the early stages of a positive global awareness and that migration is not only a profound enduring theme in human history, but one that must be proactively and positively shaped. We've had great difficulty in reaching the achievements which you've just identified in the latest draft. In the development community, may have felt that linking migration to development was in some way a denial of the essential elements in development itself. This is, of course, profoundly wrong. It is an additional factor, not one which, in any way, reduce the commitment to development funding that is required around the world. Throughout our history as human beings, people have traveled. They did so for centuries, for millennia, without passports. They cultivated cultural and economic choice. But now, that all seems to be upended in a world where increasingly nationalism, xenophobia, concern around terrorism, and, of course, attempts to protect economic gains and socioeconomic systems by protection are increasingly the norm. There are some developed countries, and I'm going to say this bluntly, who don't like to mention the word migration. They're worried about using the word migration because it alienates some of their own voters. So they're not necessarily always as helpful as they can be in including migration in matters such as the post-2015 development goals. Goals. So the 20th century and the early 21st century have upended an age-old tradition of greater hospitality and open borders and fiercely guarding our sovereignty, as some seem intent on doing today. As, of course, one must accept a certain persuasive logic, or at least ostensibly has. But in reality, it plays straight into the hands of populists who, in the absence of economic hope, are feeding citizens with nationalism and identity politics, which have been perhaps the greatest discourage in human history. So we need the development goals to express the issue of migration in a more positive and constructive way. And in a modest way, it is a start to reversing this tide to which I have just referred. This is not about open borders, nor is it an argument for more or less migration. States can determine how many people to allow in so long as they respect their obligations under international law and the moral sensibilities of their own citizens and the global community. It's about how people move across borders, how they can do so safely. It's not about squandering the gains from migration. It's about making sure they end up in the right hands and that they work to the advantage of all, including the countries of origin. It's also about changing the way migrants and migration are perceived, not through the lens of criminality, but through the prism of our essential human nature and the founding principles of the UN itself in terms of the dignity of the individual and the equality of man. One day, migrants, one can hope, will be seen, not seen and treated as second, satanic class citizens, or not as citizens at all. This may take some time, but this is a time to start. I've been out meeting after meeting throughout the period of my involvement with the UN, where the expressions of general support for migration policy have been profuse and the member states, they have not always, I must stage, converted this into the type of cooperation between their own agencies and ministries and between those ministries, and while it's happening in New York or in Geneva, in a way which is as constructive as it should be. But with the right incentives, governments and the private sector can be encouraged to pursue policies that protect the rights of individuals, that allow them to work at decent conditions and that prevent discrimination. It will improve their own societies and the societies of origin of the migrants themselves. The policies we need to pursue are not ones that pit states against each other, or against the interests of migrants, against the interests of citizens. This should make domestic consumption of migration in post-2015 easier. It's not rocket science, it's common sense. If we reduce the cost of remittances from today's weighted average of 8%, take it down to almost zero. An extra $35 billion can reach the hands of the world's poorest people. How many of the agencies and government departments have spoken to their own departments of finance about reducing those costs in their own banking system? I wonder. Also, let's put crooked middlemen out of business so that workers take home what they earn rather than lining the necks of recruiters. And this will redirect tens of billions more each year to the poorest families in the world. Let's ensure that migrant workers have the same rights as others, that they receive healthcare and equal opportunities for their children at school. There's no good reason why some states cannot protect the fundamental labor rights of their workers abroad, and others cannot. It's not acceptable that only about 20% of international migrants can take their social security benefits with them when they return home. They pay for it, especially when some countries, such as Turkey and Morocco, are able to ensure through bilateral agreements that over 80% of their migrants enjoy these rights. This is not about charity, it's about basic fairness. How we treat migrants says more about us than it does about them. And migration, therefore, is the NICMAS test for the relevance of the Pulse 2015 agenda. How can a 21st-century narrative of sustainable development ignore the world's most powerful agents of development? Migrants, this summer, Jeff Sachs and Bjorn Lomborg, two of the loudest voices of this debate, wrote that the Pulse 2015 agenda will direct more than $700 billion in resources over 15 years to the goals that are ultimately chosen. How could we not take migration into account? In sum, the Pulse 2015 agenda can help us to mobilize the resources and the political will to design concrete, practical, and measurable ways to reduce the human social and economic costs of migration. It can help us to frame migration properly, not as a scourge, but as the original strategy for people who travel and leave their homes because they have to. Their deep knowledge about migration and development resides right here in Geneva, with all the experienced diplomats and missions who follow day in, day out the work of IOM, UNHCR, and all the other relevant institutions. But the Pulse 2015 negotiations are taking place 5,000 kilometers away in New York City. They're not living as we do in Geneva with migration as a daily issue. Allow me to close by repeating the words spoken by Pope Francis on Tuesday. He implored us then to remember that Europe and the international community, I quote, revolves not around the economy, but around the sacredness of the human person. Speaking of migrants specifically, he added, there needs to be a united response to the question of migration. We cannot allow the Mediterranean to become a vast cemetery. The boats landing daily on the shores of Europe are filled with men and women who need acceptance and assistance. Thank you.