 Super. Thank you very much. And good morning, everyone. It's great to see so many old friends and hopefully new friends as well as I talk a bit, as Eric said, about our portfolio and where CSER fits within it. I'd like to point out, as Eric described, our strategic planning process. One of the aspects of that included establishing a working group of our advisory council specifically dedicated to genomic medicine and helping us to plan, you know, the directions we should take in that and several members of that group are here today. You see them at the table in various places. So, delighted to have them here. That working group was charged with advising us on research needed to evaluate and implement genomic medicine, particularly reviewing current progress, identifying research gaps and approaches for filling them. And that's one of the things that we have done, I think, quite effectively in developing our programs, publicizing key advances, planning a series of meetings that I'll tell you about in a moment, facilitating collaborations and exploring models for sort of long-term infrastructure building. This is it. The first of, this was the first of a series of meetings that we held, this one in June of 2011 in Chicago, where we invited whoever we knew who was engaged in genomic medicine implementation. About 20 groups came, and we then sort of developed a roadmap for how one might go about doing this. It was published in genetics and medicine. About six months later, we had a group come together on forming collaborations. About six months after that, brought together payers and other groups in terms of stakeholders as to what is needed to justify this implementation. In January of 2013, we had a whole meeting on physician education and spawned a group that is still ongoing to bring professional societies together in educating physicians. About six months after that, had a federal strategies meeting trying to engage the various federal partners that we have in moving forward with genomic medicine, and I'm happy to say that some of those initial forays have borne fruit now in the Precision Medicine Initiative with good collaborations going on with the FDA and the Office of the National Coordinator. Our sixth meeting in January of 2014 had to do with global implementation and identifying a number of very interesting models around the globe that can be useful, I think, to us all. We got a bit exhausted at running these meetings every six months, so we scaled back a bit to every nine months in October of 2014, held a meeting on genomic clinical decision support, and then the meeting that I'll talk most about today was just held in June, focusing on sort of an overview of all of our programs, how they fit together and what might be missing. I like to look at our programs as sort of covering a spectrum of intensity versus depth, so if you consider the depth of patient characterization, increasing as one goes down the slide here and the breadth increasing as one goes off to the right, we have sort of an arrow with programs that have an individual patient focus. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network is probably the most in this realm, which focuses on a small number of individual patients who are brought in for an evaluation that lasts a week, something that we can't do in any of our other programs, but really very highly focused. All of those are following sort of the same clinical protocol. We have other programs that are not quite so intense but still fairly intense in patient evaluation and site. The newborn sequencing program actually follows four different modules and models and protocols, and there are investigators from that group here. Cesar, as you well know, also is looking at a number of different models, and you'll hear more about Cesar in a moment. And then we have programs that are more focused on evidence generation, though we're generating evidence from all of these, but more large-scale evidence generation and sort of system-wide impact, and that would include our Emerge Medical Records and Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Consortium and then the Ignite Consortium that is actually trying to bring Genomic Medicine to less well-resourced settings and see what it takes to be able to do so. This is a list of them sort of all kind of shown together. I would note that the Undiagnosed Diseases Network actually is not funded by NHGRI. It's funded by our common fund, although there's been a strong NHGRI contribution in the Undiagnosed Diseases Program, which was begun in our clinical center by Bill Gaul in the Office of Rare Disease Research. But the UDN, per se, is now funded by the common fund. But our other programs are listed here. Cesar, obviously, being there. It's a fairly large investment, $65 million over a four-year, five-year period, and that does include substantial commitment from our colleagues at the National Cancer Institute, for which we are quite grateful. But until recently, Cesar was really the largest by far of our programs. Emerge was recently renewed and expanded considerably, so it's 56 million now over the four-year period. But you can see the goals and the funding levels of the other programs. The Return of Results Program, you'll hear a little bit more about, it ended in fiscal 13 and was a small focus of the LC Research Program, but integrated quite effectively with Cesar. I wanted to talk a bit about the meeting that we held in June to kind of look at an overview of all of our programs. The objectives of this meeting, which we would hope could be built upon by this group rather than necessarily repeated, would be to or to review our Genomic Medicine portfolio, identify related programs of other NIH institutes and centers, identify research needs in genomic medicine, and enhance approaches to capturing and disseminating best practices, as well as assessing the impact of our programs. We had six programs that we focused on. I've shown you five of them here. ClinGen is a curation, annotation database effort that I haven't described in detail, but many are familiar with it. And we also had 20 related programs, things that we felt were important to be aware of as we tried to look at what NHGRI was doing, should be doing, and might not be doing. We have a series of program summaries. We ask each of those 26 programs to produce these and to describe the website, the funded sites, the objectives, the funding period, et cetera. Questions often come up as to who's doing what in our various programs. And I would refer to you, since we do have Internet access, if you Google Genomic Medicine 8, you need to use the Roman numeral here to get it to come up as the first hit. But at any rate, this will bring you to this page, and there's a link that you can click for program summaries for both the focus and related programs. And if you click that, you can get to them if you have any questions about what one program might be doing. We also asked each of the programs to identify what their objectives were. Most of these were taken almost directly from the initial RFAs and the funding applications, and so they've evolved a bit over time. But you'll see that matrix also on the meeting website. And objectives that were common to four or more of our major programs are shown here. I realize this is a lot of text, and I think one of the things we can do is perhaps email these slides to you after I'm finished, if that's feasible to do. Yeah. So I didn't want to send them in advance because I wanted you to listen to me rather than surfing the webpage, but at any rate. So objectives that were common across almost all of the programs included improving genomic diagnostic methods, integrating genomic data into patient care that really, as Eric described, are fourth and fifth realms of our strategic plan, incorporate actionable variants into the electronic medical records and really integrate them with that. Educate clinicians and patients, assess outcomes, translate implementation outside specialized centers, define and share processes of implementation, assess actionability, identify and address barriers, and promote interaction and collaboration. So those are things that all of our programs do. Then when it comes to things that are really, you know, more focused in individual programs, obviously the UDN is facilitating research in undiagnosed diseases and Mendelian diseases, but NSITE and CSER also do a good bit of that. Looking at L.C. research issues related to genomic sequencing, these three programs heavily involved in that. The two pluses mean that it's a special emphasis of a program interpreting sequence data in a variety of contexts. Those investigators felt that was really quite an emphasis of NSITE, also a CSER and EMERGE, but obviously using genomic data in newborn care is important or a focus of NSITE. And you can see other goals here. And CSER really a very broad-ranging program similar to EMERGE that really covers a wide range of these goals. We also asked them to identify barriers that were facing multiple programs. A lack of evidence base was one of the key ones, need for common data elements and a variety of other things, limited usefulness and interoperability of clinical decision support, need for cloud computing, reimbursement policies and regulations. What follows is a list of a lot of recommendations that we tried to pull out and just identify those that are relevant to sequencing. I won't read through them all, but these numbers shown here are actually a survey that was done by Duke University, which was partnered with us in developing the meeting. And those that had the highest or the lowest number sorry had received sort of the most votes as being important. And again, these will be sent out to you, but there were recommendations related to payers. There were a series of individual studies that we should consider doing. Adding a family history tool was one that actually was quite well received by a number of groups. A series of recommendations in clinical care and I'm out of time, so I won't go through them all and then expanding our reach in interactions with clinical labs, patients and basic scientists. Again, we'll send these around so that you have them available, because something we'd like to ask you to do is to consider these recommendations in your deliberations. We will email them to you now and consider the appropriate role for clinical sequencing in NHGRI's Genomic Medicine programs, as Eric outlined. Recognize, though, that NHGRI's primary emphasis is on genome-wide sort of disease- on-wide efforts, but there are times when it's appropriate for us to use a specific disease as a paradigm. And I will identify thanks there, including all of you, and be happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Teri. Are there any questions for Teri? We have a few minutes. Hi, group today. Hopefully everyone's just warming up. I'd like to introduce... I had a quick question, yeah. Can we get the list of the participants in the GM8 meeting? Yeah, they are on the website. We can see if we can email them to you, but yeah, if you go to the GM8 website in the meeting summary at the very end, they're listed there. Actually, before I introduce Carolyn, I wanted to re-emphasize. If people would press the mic before asking their questions or come up to the floor mics, we have two of them there. That would be great. And I have a note that the audio in the back is not quite loud enough to overcome. There's some vent noise back there, so we could turn up the mic a little bit. That'd be great. Okay, if there are no further questions, I'd like to introduce Carolyn Hudder, a program director in the Division of Genomic Medicine, who will be talking to us about the future opportunities for genome sequencing and beyond workshop from last July. Carolyn?