 Thank you very much. My name is John Hamery. I'm really delighted and honored that you are here. This is a very important moment for me personally. This is, I think, one of the most important projects that we have been working on. I've been here 13 years. There isn't anything that I'm more proud of or excited about than this effort. And I need to explain why that is. You know, this is in a town that has been so preoccupied with partisan battling for the last, well, I don't know how long, certainly last two years, probably the last ten years. This is a completely bipartisan effort to find common ground. Common ground that both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, business and government, everybody can come together on an agenda. And what is that agenda? It's an agenda to create a better world. That's what development is all about. It's healthier people, healthier societies, healthier communities. And that's an agenda that should unify everyone. That isn't a conservative agenda or liberal agenda or Republican or Democrat agenda. That is a human agenda. And when America was strong, when America was welcome, when America was proud, it embraced this agenda. It was America. We kind of lost our ways over the last 20 years. We've become too bureaucratic. We've had too many battling over whose budget, my budget, I'm in charge, you're in charge, all of that sort of stuff has kind of gotten in the way. So we asked, could we bring together some truly remarkable people to spend some time with us developing a genuine, honest, bipartisan consensus for the development agenda? That's what this is about. A new foundation, a way to think about this that brings everybody together. It doesn't divide Washington or divide the country, it brings everybody together. I hope you're going to see that. It is an inspiring piece. I want to say my sincere thanks to all the commissioners, my sincere thanks to the co-chairs for making it possible. I'm very thankful to Chevron that made it possible to have the resources that we could do this project. Very important to us. We're going to start, and I'm going to turn to Tom Pritzker. He's my boss. He's on my board, so I have to pay attention. But he also is going to be the leading of the co-chairs. He's going to lead the conversation this afternoon. I'll turn to him and then we're going to show a brief video. Tom, please. Thank you all for coming. So thank you very much, John. I'm pleased to be here with you. I wear two hats. I wear my hat as executive chairman of Hyatt, and I wear my hat as a trustee of CSIS where I work for John Hammering. First, let me congratulate the CSIS Executive Council on Development. It's both a very prestigious group that's worked over the past year to develop a set of ideas in ways that the U.S. can better harness the power of the private sector and the energy and dynamism in developing countries. It's also a group that has coalesced around some of the ideas that you read about in the report. From my perspective, it was a remarkable process. The members of our group represent the finest companies, government entities, NGOs, and philanthropic organizations in America. Each person is individually accomplished and committed to development and work in organizations that are committed to improving the lives of people in the world. And as I said, the process was very interesting because we had a group that was very diverse in their experiences, very diverse in their particular jobs, and very passionate about the same topic. And I think that coalescing around that passion is what resulted in what I think is a very good piece of work. We're really pleased to have a number of our members here today and who we'll hear from shortly. Some were unable to join us. I'd like to share with you a video that we want to show you. So thank you and welcome. The developing world today, unlike 10 years ago or 20 years ago, is a very dynamic place. There are a lot of opportunities and the opportunity to leverage commercial involvements, which means jobs and income for American citizens and American workers, is greater than it probably has ever been in any of our lifetimes. We don't want to not take advantage of that opportunity. The developing world holds huge promise for Hyatt. That's where development is going to happen. And so for us, it's not only a source of customers and employees, but it also represents the place that the business world is moving to. So we need to have a presence there, both for our customer base and for our employee base. While the U.S. government has played historically a very important role in development, that role is being questioned. Is it effective? Does the role need to change because the world has changed? Because the private sector, for example, plays a far more effective and a larger role in development than even the government does today. I believe that the best way to sell foreign assistance is to recognize it as preventive diplomacy, to recognize that if we don't address the economic issues, one day we're going to have to address them in a military or in a much more severe state of circumstances. I think the most we can do is to ensure that we create the kind of stability and economic vitality around the world to keep the tension, keep the pressure, keep all of the extraordinary circumstances that develop when that doesn't happen in check. About 87% of the capital flows into the emerging market countries are private sector driven. That means 13% is public sector driven. In terms of development, people typically think companies are only engaged in community activities or what people know as CSR, but it's way beyond that. When we look at local supply chains, we will put billions into the local economies versus millions into what we call CSR. So the supply chain factor is much more significant and much more a contributor to local economies than our community investments. Rather than looking at the people that we work with as recipients of charity, what we're trying to figure out is how to plug them into real economic activity. Expectations have changed. It once was kind of enough to be a good citizen, maybe contribute to the United Way or local charities. Now society expects business to be at the table with the full array of business resources helping solve social problems. The U.S. government and the private sector have been working together for a number of years. And in the future we would hope that they would do more thinking together about what the community, the common good goals are for a country. You begin to look at the education systems, the healthcare systems in a country, the ministries within the government, areas that are both business opportunities but also would help in the development of that country, help the people of the country. What I believe public sector players ought to be doing is looking for ways that they can fit into the for-profit investment strategies of businesses around the world. And many of those businesses I think are very open to working together with public sector players on enhancing the sustainability and the developmental impact of their investments. If we're really going to be serious about using all three sectors to tackle problems, you've got to break down those cultural silos. You have to teach folks in government what it's like to think from a profit and loss perspective, which of course corporations have to do. You've also got to teach people in the private sector, hey, government is slow often because it doesn't have the ability to convert everything into a bottom line of dollars and cents. It has to take in lots of different stakeholders into account. These procedures are there for fairness. All of us on the council believe the government plays a vital role that the U.S. taxpayer needs to understand the value of that role, but that the U.S. government also has to become much more effective at leveraging what works and in working in particular with the private sector, both NGOs and for-profit to help raise many people out of poverty all over the world. It is good business to address problems in society and if we do so in the right way, there'll be economic development, growth and success, both with regard to the solving the problems that people are facing and the growth of our businesses and making them more competitive. More thoughtful organizations realize that the private sector is actually a critical role player, that there are lessons from the private sector that can be applied, that incentives matter, that people having a job matter and that partnerships with private sector companies trying to solve water and sanitation problems actually are a good thing. Really long-term impact is not about projects, it's about transforming societies. This is in our interest. We're not giving people stuff. We are building partnerships that have a tremendous return on investment. There's a tremendous payoff to us in terms of national security, diplomatic relationships and economic relationships and opportunity. The foreign assistance budget, development assistance, is a relatively inexpensive way of maintaining American involvement and leadership in a rapidly changing world with a lot of threats as well as a lot of opportunities. We're living in a smaller and smaller world that places far from here directly affect our lives and our future. The greatest story in the world today is that we've got millions of everyday hard-working Americans who give their time, treasure and talent to people they've never seen, places they've never been and in many cases couldn't find on the map. It's who we are. Where would you like to sit? I don't know. They didn't tell me where to sit. This will do. Is this working? Can you hear me? Yeah, great. Okay. So let me start first of all by welcoming my fellow chairs and make some introductions. All four of us were very engaged in the development of this report and the deliberations for the past year, year and a half, and so along those lines. First to my right is Carly Fiorina. She served as the CEO of Hewlett Packard and there she pioneered work on bringing technology to the developing countries. It has been very committed to seeing a more robust relationship between companies and government in achieving these development roles has been active here in Washington in pursuing that. So the far right is Tom Daschle who probably needs no introduction in this town. Tom was Senate Majority Leader. He's from South Dakota, an avid believer in development and particularly the role that private and public partnerships can play in enhancing the country's development capabilities. And Vin Weber sitting between Tom and Carly was a member of Congress from Minnesota. He's former chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy. He and Senator Daschle have brought to the group a realistic perspective on Capitol Hill about the environment for development in Congress and congressional constituencies. As you can imagine, if we're actually going to move the needle and move this, translate the report into action, a key element of that is the political process. The person not here is Henrietta Four. Henrietta was administrator of USAID and Deputy Secretary of State. Henrietta was involved all the way through. Henrietta got sick and is suffering with a cold today and didn't want to get on an airplane. And I serve as the Executive Chairman of Hyatt Hotels. Also, as I said, a member of CSIS's board. And I'm here because I believe firmly that we're not doing enough to help countries grow their economies and grow their employment base. And that there's an opportunity to rethink how we're doing things in the United States in a way that can actually make it more efficient and economical in terms of how much we're spending on the effort. And can make it more powerful in terms of serving our own national interests. So let me start and ask the members of the group, why did you join this council? What was it that brought you to a willingness to spend your valuable time in the deliberations and the development of what we did? Let me start with Tom. And as I mentioned in the introduction, during our discussions, Tom particularly emphasized the importance of public-private development. And so maybe you could talk a little bit about that. Well, Tom, thank you for your kind introduction. And let me just say what a pleasure it's been to have the opportunity to serve as a co-chair with my colleagues here on the dais. It's been a real experience, a learning experience for me in particular. I want to thank John and CSIS and the extraordinary staff with whom we've had the opportunity to work. They've just been enormously supportive and extremely dedicated to this project. I've worked on a lot of different things over the years, but none quite as fulfilling as something like this. So I've enjoyed it immensely. I start with the premise that we cannot ignore as a country the importance of international engagement, that the world is getting smaller and more intricately connected. I've made mention of the fact just a couple of minutes ago that we're probably closer digitally to Beijing or to New Delhi than I was to Minneapolis when I was growing up. We always thought of Minnesota as the gateway to South Dakota. But that international engagement really has, in my view, four major components. Obviously, we'll always have a defense component. The components are what I call the four Ds, defense, diplomacy, democracy and development. Unfortunately today, that international engagement largely requires that we spend more on defense than we do on the other three Ds combined. And when we consider the future prospects of the success of engagement, I don't think that's a sustainable model anymore. I think we've got to look beyond just the first D and really put emphasis, because of this integrated society within which we live globally, on the importance of the other three. And of the three, developmental assistance, in my view, holds the key to our success. And that developmental assistance really has its trisector. It's the government role through policy and diplomacy, democracy and defense. But it's also the private sector in two components, the business community as well as the NGO and nonprofit community. All three have to work together. The problem we have today is that there's so much siloization among those three components, those three sectors. The silos are probably stronger and thicker than they've perhaps ever been before. So successful engagement, successful integration, requires somehow that we tear down those silos. And I like to think of the way to do it is what I call my ICE approach. We've talked about it. I think it's generally shared, but it's the need for innovation to think out of the box and to find ways of which to do things in a much more innovative way. than we have in the past. The second is collaboration. We can't succeed at this international engagement with the 4Ds unless there is far more collaboration among the three sectors than we see today. And finally, engagement, recognizing that we've got to develop partnerships on the ground and with governments and with the private sectors in the countries with which, with whom we are engaging if we're going to be successful. So all of this comes together in this report that I think is just really, I'm very proud of the work product and the sort of the resolution that we have been able to collectively agree to as a result of this concerted effort to find new ways to engage as we go forward. Vin, so you talked a lot about trade and the role trade can play in development and in engagement with other countries. Can you talk a little bit about that? Sure. First of all, I want to echo everybody's remarks about what a delight it's been to work with the professional staff at CSIS and with Carly and Tom Pritzker, as well as with my friend Tom Dashel. I represented the second district of Minnesota at the time that he represented the ninth district of Minnesota. And we were always good friends. I'm going to back up a little bit and then I will get directly to your question, Tom. When John Hamme asked me and the rest of us to join this project, I had just completed eight years as you mentioned as chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy. Which I learned a lot about the link between free economy, economic development, and political development. And I had finished three years as a member of the Secretary of Defense Policy Advisory Board, which was sort of driven into us that we were facing periods of declining or pressured defense budgets and a real need to reconfigure the way that we were thinking about defense spending around the world. And the two thoughts kind of came together in my mind as the budget crisis, which we're still in the middle of really descended on us. And we saw great pressure on development assistance budgets and still see great pressure on development assistance budgets. And as one who believes strongly, the United States can't accept the alternative of simply withdrawing from the world. We have to figure out what are smarter, better, and more effective ways of both leveraging United States interests and helping to reinforce United States values, political values, social values, and economic values around the world. And it's increasingly clear to me that that can be done better more effectively and more efficiently through development strategies, not to just say development assistance, than it can through some of the other programs of government, including military spending that we've been engaged in for certainly all of our lives. And trade in that way is, I think, trade somewhat differently than I used to. I've always taken the view that trade is a good thing, liberal trade is an objective, but trade is really the linchpin of a strategy now. When the United States engages with other countries around the world, particularly in what we now think of as the developing world, trade is the opportunity for us to influence substantially and in a positive way our relationship with those countries and those countries' involvement in the broader world. And it involves United States government assistance, but even more so, as Carly and Tom have taught us, private sector funds and, of course, NGO funds as well. So I think, just to conclude, I began my involvement in this project viewing it as a defensive operation that was not likely to have great success, but maybe would hold back a little bit of the viciousness of the cuts in the budget that I saw coming to some of the programs that I believe in. And I ended the project quite a bit more optimistic, thinking that, yeah, we're still under budget pressure for government programs, but that's just a small piece of a much bigger picture, which is that we are at the moment of great opportunity to do good things for the developing world and in the process for the United States. Carly, you just earlier at lunch articulated sort of captured the overall message of what the report says. Can you capture that for us and talk a little bit about each of the points and why you think those are important? Certainly. And let me just begin by saying that I, like my fellow co-chairs, we're all here because John Hamry told us to be, but beyond that, and we were happy to answer the call, I think we were united in our passion for the cause. The cause being the United States has to engage proactively around the world for good. And we were enthused as well by the people that we were going to get a chance to serve with, not just the co-chairs, but our fantastic council members as well, and an incredibly diverse group of people. We spent a lot of time as a group thinking through everything that has changed in the world, what is going on in the private sector, both in companies and in NGOs, as well as what has changed in the government. And in brief, while the report is a bit thicker than the couple minutes I am going to spend summarizing it, I think we concluded that there are three very important recommendations. The first is that the organizing principle around all of our development engagement as well as around the private sector engagement in the world should be a focus on our shared prosperity, job creation, economic development and growth. That is that the opportunity to lift as many people out of poverty as possible is what will have the biggest impact, both for our own good as well as the benefit of people all around the world. And it is such an obvious thing to say, but I think our belief that shared prosperity, lifting people out of poverty, creating jobs should be at the center of our agenda. That belief was punctuated over and over again as our work progressed. And perhaps the most obvious and recent example of the need for this is to remember that the Arab Spring began when a merchant set themselves on fire in a marketplace in Tunisia. That incredible statement by that individual was a recognition that without the hope of ever being able to create a better life for themselves or their families, their future was hopeless. As a chief executive of a major global company, I think Tom and I and other members of our council have also seen personally how much difference it makes when a community has jobs, how hope is lifted, self respect is lifted and of course standards of living are lifted. And it's true, I think all of us from our various perspectives will agree that it's absolutely true that even in the most desperate of situations the opportunity to earn a living can make all the difference in the world. So we start with a premise that shared prosperity, both ours in this country and everyone else's around the world, are shared prosperity. The desire to lift as many people out of poverty as possible. The desire to create jobs, to grow an economy, must be the centralizing, the central mission of our work together, both as government, as NGOs and private sector. The second principle conclusion of this report is that times have changed and no longer can the US government think of itself as a standalone actor, just as the private sector cannot think of itself as a standalone actor. I can recall being a member of the Defense Business Board and participating with other members of that business board in observing that as our military is investing more and more and going in more and more places around the world, that one of the biggest sources of influence on a government, whether friendly or hostile, happens to be the private sector engagement in that country. And certainly Tom's experiences through high-it, building high-its in places like Iraq and Afghanistan has demonstrated that. As you heard in the video today, the US government, the total amount of spend that's going on across the broad rubric of development, the US government spends about 13% of those total dollars. The private sector broadly defined, whether it's the Catholic Relief Fund or a private company or other NGOs, the private sector spends 87%. And so if we want to be effective in helping to lift people out of poverty and creating shared prosperity, it just makes sense, to the senator's point about collaboration, that we think about that mission and think broadly about leveraging all of the assets that we can bring to bear on the problem, whether those assets are Chevron or USAID or anything in between. Of course we all think a lot these days about China, and I know virtually all of us on this council have seen how effective the government of China is in engaging with its state enterprises and bringing all of its power and money collectively to a country, and that has huge positive impact, not just for that country, but for China as well. So that's our second point, that the private sector broadly defined and the public sector really have to engage together so that in this time of constrained budgets, we are using to the maximum extent every resource that we have as a nation and the resources we have are considerable. Finally, our third point is that frankly we're just not really organized to do this very well today. Many of us, I can recall Farooq Qathwari who's a great member of our council and I being engaged in a philanthropic effort and trying to partner with USAID it's not always so easy for the private sector and the public sector to collaborate effectively. Sometimes that is because of all of these silos that Tom Daschel spoke about, sometimes it's because frankly there is a lack of trust between the public and the private sector. Suffice it to say that in order to collaborate effectively, in order to innovate so that we can truly lift more and more people out of poverty. We need to think differently about how our efforts are organized, how our efforts are rationalized and how our efforts are integrated. That's important in order to do more with less, which goodness knows as the sequester enters day three. We all know our budgets are constrained. One of the things we say in this report is we think it is possible to do more with the same amount of money that we're spending on development or potentially less, but it does mean that we have to leverage more effectively all of our U.S. government capabilities along with those of the private sector. So those are the three big headlines from this report and I think we're delighted that you all have such an interest in them and you'll hear more about them as the afternoon progresses. Great, thank you. So let me talk for a minute about how I came to this effort, other than what Carly said, John called and said you're going to do this. I said yes, sir. So at Hyatt we've done a lot in developing countries and we've been pretty much ahead of our competitive set. So we were very early into China. We were early into India. We were early into the Middle East. And I was the guy at Hyatt who had passion around that. So I spent a lot of time in those various countries and putting some of our strategies together in those countries. And that exposed me to the opportunity, frankly, not only to make a difference for Hyatt but also to make a difference in the communities in which we were doing business. Second experience that formed my views on all of this was over the last 10 years I made several trips both to Iraq and Afghanistan during the wars there. And I saw a similar thing to what I was seeing at Hyatt and that is that prosperity is a big deal anywhere you go. I have to do archeology in very remote areas of the Himalayas and I can go into the smallest village and the local guy there who's illiterate what it's about for him is providing for his family. So from the Iraq and Afghanistan experience what I came out of that with was that peace and prosperity are two sides of the same coin. And as I said before, knowing nothing about how to do peace, I figured prosperity would be an interesting area for me to put some time and energy into. And as I began working with this group and with the members of the council, it sort of began to coalesce. And that is that this issue of prosperity can dovetail nicely with America's own interests if it can bring stability to these various countries. And so one of the ways that I framed it is if you give a person a fish you'll feed them for a day, if you teach them how to fish you'll feed them for life. But there's another aspect to that and that is that addresses just the economic aspect. But in addition to that, if you teach them how to fish, you're going to give them hope. And hope is a critical aspect of social stability. If people believe that their lives are going to be better in the following years and that your children's lives are going to be better, it has an important role to play in the whole issue of peace and prosperity. So coming from the Hyatt experience, coming from the Iraq and Afghanistan experience, I started thinking about this issue of U.S. development efforts. And then, and had talked to John Hamre actually about it to sort of have him as a sounding board to the thoughts I was developing. John then called and asked me whether I would do this and it gave me an opportunity frankly to learn a lot about the issue and about Washington and about some of the challenges in bringing new ideas to Washington. And as I said in my introduction, I think I'm very encouraged and pleasantly surprised by the results of this effort. And of course now the challenge is how do you actually translate that into action? How do we organize differently? And to my way of thinking, what Carly said is the critical element of it. And that is growth and job creation should be the centerpiece of our development assistance. We should be looking through that prism as we think about the various programs that we should implement. And if we make that a major tactic in our foreign policy strategy, I think we could make a difference and leverage the amount of spending that we're putting into this area. Tom mentioned the 4D's defense diplomacy, democracy and development. And I really believe that development if elevated to that level can make a difference in our foreign policy strategy. So let me stop there and just ask Tom and Vin particularly, so what are the problems? How do you sell this to both legislative and executive branch? Where are the challenges? How do we go about this so that this becomes more than just a report? Well Tom, I would start by stating what is probably the obvious. There's a great deal of skepticism on the part of a lot of people about whether we should be engaged. We're concerned about an economy here that is sluggish at best and has been so ably discussed the concerns about budget. And I think I'd add a third element. There's a tremendous amount of fatigue I think as a result of two wars and experiences around the world that have led a lot of the American people to say we've got to start thinking more about what's going on here. And so I think it starts with addressing those very legitimate concerns and skepticisms. I think there's also, as I attempted to describe, a great deal of concern on the part of the private sector that they've tried this. They've tried to find a way to work with the government or the private sector in many dimensions, whether it's business or NGOs, have all been repelled in various ways. They've not been successful. So I think the real question is how do you get over all that bad experience? And it starts with just a real important lesson in good leadership. Somebody's got to take this issue on. And I would hope the President and his cabinet in a new administration recognizing how critical this is that we are successful. I'd love to see a summit or something where he could bring some of the leaders in the NGO community and the business community together to say, look, we all know our history. We all know the problems we've got in budget. We all know the skepticism that exists about international integration. And yet we all know that our future lies and our success at getting over those obstacles and addressing these challenges in a much more effective way. How do we do it? And will you help me? But it really is going to take that engagement, if I can use the word again, on the part of leaders in the private and the public sector. But I think it's incumbent upon all of us. And it starts with maybe a blueprint, and that's what I think the value of this report is. If we're going to do it, does this make sense? I happen to think it makes perfect sense. But if you all agree, I think the real question is how can we collectively put some fire behind this, some energy behind this and really try to energize those who can make a difference, whether it's Congress, the administration, or leadership in the private sector to get us to the next step. That's really, it seems to me, the fundamental question as we consider the challenge ahead of us. I think that that's exactly it. First of all, there are two real obstacles, this sort of broad obstacles that we face in trying to get policy right. And Tom emphasized one of those, which is that the country is not interested in the rest of the world very much right now. Maybe that's a little too strong, but not too much. I mean, the country is war weary and that translates into all sorts of weariness with America's engagement in the world. It's hard to convince people that American leadership in the world is quite apart from military involvement is important. So you have a, and you could almost see it in the last presidential campaign. We went through the election with very little discussion of foreign policy at all. Occasionally we talked about Iran, but other than that, there was very little discussion of it. And it's partly because I think both parties recognize the country doesn't want to hear about it. They just don't want to hear about it. They're blocking it out. That's an obstacle, not an easy one to overcome. I do think that the NGO community and the business community have to help us to overcome that, because on those issues, politicians are followers of public opinion, not leaders. The average member of Congress maybe should go out and tell his voters what they should care about, but he's more likely to talk to them about what they tell him they care about. But the business community can talk to their employees and the communities in which they're involved, as can NGOs, about the importance of American involvement in the world. And have some credibility and start changing opinion a little bit. The second real obstacle, I think, that we face, which we've talked about a good deal, is the budget problem itself. And in that regard, I'm not talking just about the limitations on resources. In fact, that's not really what I'm talking about. But the fact that this ongoing series of crises has paralyzed the policy formation process in Congress. You talk to people, and I don't want to get into the weeds of Congress too much, but you know, you've got the authorizing committees where policy is supposed to be made, and you've got the budget committee and the appropriations committee where the budget's set and the money's actually spent. All of those authorizers are very frustrated people. They haven't been able to do anything for a couple of years. And believe it or not, most of them Republicans and Democrats would really like to do something positive and constructive. That's why they're there. We need to get past obviously the budget problem, but we also need to try to engage policy makers in doing what they want to do. Think about some of the serious challenges the country faces beyond simply the dollars and cents on a budget ledger. Last point I would make to get back to the question that Tom originally asked me here, although the country and this capital particularly are really, as we hear about, Ad infinitum locked in a very polarized partisan environment. We have gotten past that a little bit on one set of issues, and that was trade issues in the last Congress. We managed to do three trade agreements, and that's not nearly as ambitious an agenda as I would like to see in trade, but it says that there is an appetite that extends into both political parties for U.S. and economic engagement in the world, and I would argue as, to get back to your first point, that ought to be where we begin to think about a broader strategy with trade as a linchpin, but certainly not the entirety of it, for changing the way that our government thinks about its economic relationship with the business and NGO community and approach to the developing world. You know, if I could just add, Tom, I think one of the first steps is to talk to the American people in terms of our own self-interest. Example, it's a fact that we lay out in this report, but it is true that I believe it's 20 of our previous aid recipients are now major trading partners. It is true that one of the bright spots in our economy over the last several years has been export-driven manufacturing growth. In other words, the fact that we are trading with the rest of the world, where actually 96% of the consumers are, is helping create jobs here in the world. So I think there is a very strong and real case that needs to be made, that lifting people out of poverty helps people here at home. The second piece of talking to the American people in terms of our own self-interest is to recognize the devastation that's caused when there is 20, 25, 30, 45, 50% unemployment and people living on less than $2 a day. I will tell just a brief story that my co-chairs have heard me tell too many times, but it goes to Tom Pritzker's point about hope and the devastating effect that hopelessness has on societies. Many years ago, not less than 10 years ago, but I was at a regional Davos Forum in Yassar.