Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Senior Advisor Brian Deese en route Midway Atoll, 9/1/2016
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Midway Atoll
10:36 A.M. HAST
MR. EARNEST: Good morning, everybody. A little piece of news before we get started. This morning, aboard Air Force One, the President telephoned FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate to discuss efforts to prepare for the arrival of hurricanes in Florida and Hawaii. In both states, FEMA officials have been working extensively over the last several days to mobilize resources in support of local efforts. The President asked Administrator Fugate to keep him up to date on response efforts and to alert him if there are any significant unmet needs.
As always, it is critically important for people in potentially affected areas to follow weather reports and to follow the instructions from state and local officials. But in each case, communities can take some confidence in knowing that local, state and federal officials have been working diligently to prepare for these storms and have resources on hand to respond to them as necessary.
In addition to that, I'm joined today by Brian Deese, the President’s Senior Advisor who’s been leading a lot of our policy issues when it comes to climate change and conservation. I thought I'd give Brian an opportunity to talk just a little bit about the Marine Monument Papahānaumokuākea that we'll get a chance to see today. And then you guys can ask him questions about that or anything else that may be on your mind today.
So, Brian, why don't you get us started?
MR. DEESE: Good. Thanks. I'll be really brief, but just a little bit of context. By now you’ve all seen the announcement on the monument expansion and the basic details. But I wanted to put it in a little bit of a context in terms of the way the President approaches these types of conservation efforts.
I think there’s at least three things that are distinct about the President’s approach. The first is grounding these efforts in science. If you look back at the stakeholders that spoke up in favor of this monument expansion, it's notable that of the many stakeholders there was a letter signed by 1,500 of the top scientists -- ecologists, biologists -- making the science-based case for expansion of the monument. And the science has developed in the years since President Bush initially designated the monument to both reveal additional deep-sea assets but also identify the connections between the existing monument and the expanded area.
The second component of the President’s approach is seeking ways to elevate native voices in the management of conservation areas. And so, in this particular incident, it's significant that we will, and by now, committed going forward to entering into an agreement with the Hawaii Department of Natural Resources, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- they will be co-trustees in managing the monument going forward and so will have that more formal role in decision-making.
And then the third component is the President spoke quite strikingly yesterday about the connection between conservation and climate change. And I think in this monument in particular, the expansion both in geographical scope but also in the protections afforded to the entire sea column from the deep sea assets and the coral assets, but all the way up to the shallow waters where different predators and others operate is critical to actually maintaining the resilience of this area to climate impacts.
And so the two things we worry the most about are ocean acidification and temperature changes. We're already seeing extraordinary changes in this part of the world. We were just discussing that it's notable right now because of the hurricane activity that is facing Hawaii, but the fact of significant hurricane activity in Hawaii is unique and new; that several years ago there was less frequency of hurricanes in this region. And that is a function of changing climate, and that's a function of changing ocean patterns that fundamentally derive from the ocean. So we have focused this expansion on trying to enhance the climate resilience of this region.
Last, two fun facts. The first is, to follow up on Josh’s correct pronunciation of the monument. For those of you who are tracking this closely, the name Papahānaumokuākea is actually an important symbol of Hawaiian native tradition. It's actually two components. Papahānaumoku is a reflection of Mother Earth in Hawaiian culture; Wākea is Father Air and Sky. And Hawaiian legend is that those two came together and the union of the two actually created the Hawaiian Island chain. So the full name is for Hawaiian native culture a reflection of the birth of the entire Hawaiian Islands.
And on a less high-minded note, I will note that the Hawaiian name of Midway, where we are going, translates roughly into the Loud Din of Birds -- so that may also be a precursor for what we're about to experience. I'll leave it there.
MR. EARNEST: That's good. Why don't we go to questions on climate or any of other topics that may be on your mind?
Q Can you explain a little bit what you mean by the connection between climate change and conservation? What evidence -- what does the scientific record say about the resilience of conserved ecosystems versus --
MR. EARNEST: Well, I think there’s a couple things. The first is that climate consideration affects the way you go about conservation. So if you are focused on enhancing climate resilience you want to look at conserving both land and water in a way that will actually optimize for that.
So, for example, in the ocean environment, one of the things that the science is increasingly pointing to is the fact -- is the need for scope and scale in conservation in order to actually enhance against the potential impacts of climate.
And so, one of the maps that the Fish and Wildlife Service will have up on the wall, we anticipate, for the briefing today will be to actually show the scale of this monument. And this is a version of it. You guys may have seen this, but the expansion is roughly twice the size of the state of Texas.
The question gets asked, why protect such a large area? And one of the answers to that is the emerging climate science, that you actually need to create scale in order to create the ecosystem. I think that in the future, people will look at this and actually see it as a climate refuge because you have a protected space of sufficient scale to actually allow the natural features to become more resilient.
And in the second piece -- and this is both about the marine environment but also land environment -- is that conservation areas can themselves become contributors in the fight against climate change. And that’s true in the land sector in terms of carbon sinks. It’s also true in the marine environment as well, in terms of helping to avoid an acceleration of ocean acidification or acceleration of temperature increase.
So these connections, we’re increasingly learning more and more about them, but I think part of what the President was trying reinforce yesterday was that, going forward, we need to understand these two as linked, and we also need to understand the two efforts as going together -- that you can’t be an ardent conservationist and stay quiet when it comes to the need for greater actions on climate change, and vice versa.
Q Brian, we’re often advised not to -- by the administration or by others -- that it’s risky to attribute any particular weather event to climate change. So then what is it that’s different about these hurricanes where you’re able to draw that connection a little bit more directly?
MR. DEESE: Well, I think I just want to be really clear about what I said, was that we always do make that disclaimer, and it’s important, but it’s also important to look a trends. And what I was pointing to was that if you look in the Pacific, and you look at Hawaii, in general, the trend over time has been that they are now facing a longer and more frequent hurricane season than they have in the past. And that is something that you can connect back to changing weather patterns that is connected to climate.
So we always are very careful about that, but I think it’s also important to be able to look at and highlight trends as we identify them.
Q Do you see this area as one that has already been measurably impacted by climate change? Have there been changes within either the original monument or the expanded area of the monument that you can see, where you can see changes that indicate that without protection this areas would deteriorate?
MR. DEESE: Well, I think one of the things that the scientists that I mentioned at the top identified in their letter that they wrote in support of the expansion itself was the risk to the deep sea coral of increased ocean acidification if the boundaries of the monument were not expanded, and that there is a better case now than there was a decade ago that, in order to protect those assets that are on the bottom of the ocean you need to protect a broader area around them. And so that was one of the factors that went into the decision-making process, was that, again, scope is important in trying to avoid some these negative impacts
Q -- but there hasn’t been any finding that they’re actually already deteriorating?
MR. DEESE: I think at risk is that best way of characterizing it
Q Can you explain in very simple terms that the average person might be able to understand the concept of a climate refuge and how that would work in this case?
And, secondly, I understand that the island has been closed to visitors since 2012. I’m wondering whether the President feels that he would like to see more people be able to visit this space, or whether he would rather keep it -- keep tourists and kind of visitors away for the most part.
MR. DEESE: So to your first question, as the oceans change and as temperatures increase and acidification increases, the risk is of increasing areas of the oceans that become uninhabitable, or less habitable, for all manner of species -- from endangered species like certain forms of turtles to sharks and whales and otherwise. And protecting large areas of the ocean in the way that the President has now done helps to ensure that there will be a large undisturbed area where those species will be able to occupy their current habitat. And that is -- when I say climate refuge, I think that that's what I mean in very practical terms.
Q And on people --
MR. DEESE: I think that that's a decision -- those types of decisions are decisions that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the other agencies that manage this area principally look at based on impacts to the environment. And so I haven’t spoken to the President about his personal view on the issue, but I think that we’ll be guided by their recommendations going forward.
Q Brian, a broader question regarding national monuments. One thing that's come up with some of these recent designations, including the one in the North Woods of Maine, is the idea of private individuals making pretty substantial contributions to put these protected areas into a new status. And obviously there, you had $100 million gift from Roxanne Quimby and her family foundation. Some people have questioned the idea of specific individuals giving such large gifts because in some ways that might end up dictating some of the decisions that the President makes about what areas to safeguard or not. Can you talk about why that is becoming more common and how you navigate this new area?
MR. DEESE: Sure. Of course, the idea itself is not new. The idea is as old as the concept of the National Parks System where lands held by private individuals have been a part of an effort to contribute to the National Parks System itself and monument designations.
I think that the most important question I think for the purposes of the National Parks System is do we have smart, science-based management of these monuments going forward? And I think if you look at the type of arrangement that was worked out in the context of Maine and in other areas, the decision-making structures in place should give people confidence that the areas will be managed to the best interest of their public purpose.
Look, I think that these models actually present real opportunities, because one of the arguments that was powerful in the Maine context was local chambers of commerce arguing that this could be an economic driver for local communities because you're going to increase tourist activity and otherwise. And having resources immediately available to try to invest in the types of assets that help make a place attractive for people who visit helps to make sure that that actually comes to pass.
And so I think that these models are real opportunities, but we just need to keep an eye on making sure that they're managed effectively. And I think that if you look at the details of the way we've done this, I feel confident that that's the case.
Q A question about the impact assessment that you have on local fisheries in Hawaii. Where we've just come from, there are a lot of people very concerned that this could negatively affect their income and so on. How can you mitigate that? And do you have a kind of dollar figure for what will be lost in terms of fisheries?
MR. DEESE: So, again, this one -- it’s important to make sure we’ve got the context right, which is there’s an area for small boat operators that is on the Southeastern side that is actually not included in the monument designation, so their activities will not be affected. And the monument designation does not affect recreational fishing or native fishing practices.
The key issues is the commercial longline industry, and the best estimate suggests that, currently, somewhere on the order of 6 percent of their catch comes from the area. So a question that gets raised is how is that going to actually affect their bottom line. I think if you look, historically, the best evidence suggests that they are well-positioned to make up that catch in other areas. Remember this is mostly swordfish and tuna. These are species that cover extraordinarily large areas.
And if you look, for example, in 2014, we expanded the Remote Pacific Islands Monument. It was suggested at the time that roughly 5 percent of the longliners’ catch came from that. The subsequent year, 2015, the industry had one of their best years ever, which suggests that they are well-positioned to make up their catch in other areas.
But, we certainly have heard those concerns and we’ve taken very seriously. In the pretty long process here of working to engage on the design of the monument, we’ve definitely heard that. And we are going to continue to work collaboratively on other issue because, for example, they raise, rightly, the concerns that illegal fishing by foreign vessels in a monument area could undermine their economic position but also --
Q -- which goes to the question about mechanisms of protection for such a vast area.
MR. EARNEST: Right -- which is why we have -- in conjunction with this designation, we have a very aggressive interagency approach to try to use new tools to identify, detect, and deter, illegal fishing. And the good news in that case is that the detection technology is improving quite substantially. So we have tools that we didn’t have before to actually detect at port and otherwise be -- the location of the catch.
So we’re going to continue to work really hard on those issues. The interagency effort that’s underway is pretty robust and we’ll continue to work with the Hawaii longliners on that going forward as well.
Q Can we look forward to China a little bit, just to go through the three points that you’ve mentioned? The first, if you have any update on whether the ratification is going to happen when we get on the ground?
The second on the airline emission market -- if you could talk about if, in your discussions and conversations, it seems like there will be an opt-out for developing countries, including China and India, for the first five years of the voluntary period. Does that threaten to undermine the whole goals and is it going to make it harder to get Europe and Northern American allies on board with this agreement?
And then, finally, on Montreal, any update on where China is with you guys on the amendment and whether they’re going to be a partner in trying to get that passed -- or what your impressions were?
MR. DEESE: So, on the first one, I don’t have any update. I’ll do your third one second -- on HFCs, this is a place where the U.S. and China have collaborated now for a number of years, and the President and Xi have discussed this issue at their level. The difference now is we’re really in the final innings of this negotiation, and whereas last year, we were able to get agreement around a framework to bring this resolution in 2016, now we’re at the point where the rubber hits the road.
So I anticipate that this will be a focus area for the conversation between the two Presidents, and it’s an issue, as I said, that they’re familiar with and have talked about before. And I think the conversation will about how our two countries can help constructively move toward what is a shared commitment of a successful outcome. We both have committed publicly to a successful outcome, but this is the time for us to get a little bit more concrete. So I anticipate that that will be part of the conversation.
And then on the aircraft emissions front, the ICAO Assembly -- for those of you not following the ICAO Assembly breathlessly -- did report out an approach coming out of their last meetings which included a voluntary phase on the front end. And obviously when you’re talking about a global industry, and you’re talking about carriers, not countries, that are competing on similar routes, then you are going to need to have a mechanism where everybody is participating in and in the vote.
The voluntary mechanism has the potential to help move you into that position, but I think it is going to be important that, between now and when we get to the end, countries indicate their intention with respect to that voluntary approach. So I also expect that that’s an issue that will be something that we’ll be discussing as well.
Q Can you talk a little bit about the President’s decision to visit Midway? Obviously, he wanted to do the monument designation, but is this a bucket list thing for him? And how did the idea of actually going and interacting with the wildlife, as you put it, come about?
MR. DEESE: Sure, I’ll go first. I think part of the President’s broader approach on the question of climate change over the last couple of years has been to try to ask how he can use all the tools that he has at his disposal to try to raise the profile of this issue, and try to help more people both in the United States or around the world understand and appreciate and connect with the importance of doing more.
And so that was a lot of the impetus that went into the President’s Alaska trip last year, where he had raised the idea of wanting to do something like that in order to shine a spotlight on the fact that in America today, in clear and present terms, there are communities and there are areas and regions that are having to make really consequential decisions about their future based on a changing climate. And because the President has a spotlight, him actually going and visiting these places raises the profile in a way that might not happen otherwise.
And so, as we thought about the ways of trying to elevate this question of conservation and the link between conservation and climate change, this monument expansion, what it means substantively -- as we were talking about earlier -- is obviously significant.
And so I think in a similar vein, the President was interested in whether he could use a sensitive opportunity to shine a spotlight on an extraordinary place, an extraordinary part of America, and a case why these types of special and unique places deserve protection, and try to help more Americans and more people across the world see that in real terms.
MR. EARNEST: I think the only thing that I would add, and as much as the President enjoyed his trip to Alaska last summer, this trip is more personal. This is the President’s home state. The President has written extensively and beautifully about his connection to this land and these waters. And I think that’s another reason -- Brian has walked through the scientific and historical context for this marine monument designation, but again, it’s not a stretch to say that the President feels this personally. He has his own personal connection to this area of the world and this region of our country. And the opportunity to visit a different part of it and to enjoy the land and the waters is something that he’s really, really looking forward to.
What else?
Q -- what he’ll do on the island? We’ll see him, we’ll be with him, we’ll see part of what he does, but when we’re not with him, can you tell us a little bit about you think he might be up to?
MR. EARNEST: I think what I’ll do is, on the flight back I’ll just come back and tell you what he was -- I’ll try to provide a readout of his activities where you’re not around him on the way back. That way we can just give you a little more detail about what happens.
Q -- for filing purposes because we’re not going to be filing -- we’re going to be filing on the ground -- is it possible to say, in general terms, what you might be doing?
MR. EARNEST: I think in general terms, it’s fair to say the President’s looking forward to spending a little time in the water. And hopefully the weather, when we get there, will cooperate and will allow that to happen.
But those of you who have traveled to Hawaii with the President over the holidays know that he really enjoys snorkeling, and there are some unique opportunities to do that out here. So, hopefully, he’ll get that opportunity.
Q Josh, there’s a report out this morning that suggests that the U.S. and world powers agreed to let Iran exceed some thresholds in the nuclear deal because it looked like they weren’t going to be able to come into compliance by the date originally laid out in the nuclear agreement. Can you confirm that? And given the deep concerns that critics of this deal, both Democrats and Republicans, had about secret side deals and a lack of transparency about it, why would the U.S. have gone forward with this without disclosing it in a real public way?
MR. EARNEST: Josh, you won't be surprised to hear me say that we obviously take significant exception to some of the details that are included in the report. It's a rather long report, so there are a couple of details that I can describe to you.
The first is with regard to implementation of the agreement, you’ll recall that the agreement was reached in July, and the agreement was not implemented until January. The implementation date was not codified in that July agreement. The implementation date was driven by the ability of the IAEA to verify that Iran had completed the steps that they promised to take. The steps they promised to take were very clearly laid out and there were independent, international experts who were given unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear facilities to verify that they had lived up to their commitments.
That is what precipitated Implementation Day. Since then, Iran has been in compliance with the agreement. Right now, as we speak, Iran is in compliance with the agreement. That's not my opinion. That's not rhetoric. That's not conjecture. That is a fact that is verified by independent, international experts who, because of the agreement, no have the kind of access that's required to verify it.
So before this agreement even went in to effect, our critics said that Iran would never go along with the deal. They were wrong. Iran did sign onto an agreement July of last year. Critics then shifted to saying that Iran would never live up to the commitments that they made in the context of the deal. They were wrong about that. The IAEA has been able to verify their compliance with the agreement.
Those steps include reducing their nuclear stockpile, their stockpile of nuclear material by 98 percent. They did that. We verified that they did that. The agreement required them to disconnect thousands of centrifuges, about two-thirds of the ones that they were operating. They did that. And those unplugged centrifuges are now under electronic seal so we can monitor their continued compliance with the agreement.
Our critics said that they would never give up their capacity to use of a plutonium reactor. In fact, Iran followed through by filling the core of their plutonium reactor with concrete. Our critics also suggested that Iran would reap a significant windfall from this agreement. And we’ve discussed in some length in past about why that hasn’t been true either.
So the truth is, time and time again, our critics have tried to tear down this agreement, but the facts are simply not on their side when they make this argument. And the report that we’ve seen and the rhetoric that it has prompted is entirely consistent with the failure of critics of the deal to tear it down.
Sorry for the long answer.
Q Just to button that up -- so on the substance of what they’re saying, though, is it fair to read the way what you just said is it’s not that the U.S. agreed that thresholds could be exceeded but simply allowed implementation to take place later than perhaps had previously been anticipated?
MR. EARNEST: I do take issue with the implementation thing. Josh we said from the beginning -- and we talked about this a lot last July -- implementation was not going to start until we had verified that Iran had taken all the steps that they’d committed to take as part of the deal. And so there was never a date that we had identified -- there was never a deadline in terms of the calendar. The deadline was driven by Iran’s compliance with the agreement, and the ability of the IAEA to verify their compliance with the agreement.
The built-in incentive that Iran had to try to live up to these commitments -- disconnect their centrifuges, ship out the nuclear material, render harmless their plutonium reactor -- was driven by their desire to get the benefits of sanctions relief. And we were resolute. The President was resolute in saying that Iran was not going to get any sanctions relief until we had verified that they had taken the necessary steps.
That's what Implementation Day was all about. Implementation Day was predicated on the verification of Iran living up to these commitments and the international community initiating steps to offer sanctions relief in exchange. That was Implementation Day. And that Implementation Day was not going to happen any sooner than the IAEA had been able to verify that Iran had complied with the agreement.
So I will acknowledge I haven’t read the precise report, but the argument that somehow this agreement was implemented before Iran came into compliance is just not true. What we have indicated is that as Iran continues to comply with the agreement, we did establish an international body made up of signatories to the agreement to verify Iran’s continued commitments, and as issues arose there would be an opportunity for the international community to sit around the table and work through them.
But as I stand here today, somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, I can tell you that Iran continues to be in compliance with the agreement. And there are regular meetings of the Joint Committee. We regularly notify all of you when those kinds of meetings are occurring. And there is a regular mechanism for the IAEA submitting reports to update the international community on the status of the implementation of the agreement.
But, look, Josh, this is consistent with the failed effort that we've seen time and time again of critics to try to tear down the deal. Are they doing that for politically motivated reasons? Are they doing that for ideological reasons? Are they doing that to try to explain why they were so wrong from the beginning? I don't know exactly what their motivation is. But when it comes to the core facts of Iran’s compliance with this agreement, of Iran’s cooperation with a set of historically intrusive international inspections, those facts are irrefutable.
Q -- the Russians are de facto rejecting the findings of the U.N. with regard to chemical weapons use in Syria. Given that they’re stonewalling, what steps can the administration take to hold the regime accountable for the use of chlorine gas against civilians?
MR. EARNEST: Andrew, we've expressed concerns for quite some time now about the Assad regime’s weaponization of the industrial compound chlorine. In some cases, we've seen the Assad regime fill barrel bombs with chlorine, only making this indiscriminate violence more indiscriminate and more deadly. So we're deeply concerned about that. It is certainly the kind of tactic that has caused the Assad regime to lose legitimacy to lead that country. It has deepened divisions and deepened chaos inside of Syria and it has fueled extremism. And it is immoral for the Russians to provide international cover to the Assad regime as they engage in these kinds of disgusting tactics.
Beyond that, beyond the questions of morality -- which are not insignificant -- but beyond questions of morality, there are also questions about the Russian strategy. The Russians themselves -- President Putin himself has told all of you that a political transition inside of Syria is necessary to address the many root causes of the situation there, and to provide cover to the Assad regime -- even in the face of the irrefutable evidence about their use of weaponized chlorine. It serves to shore up his ability, Assad’s ability, to remain in power. And so there is a fundamental contradiction in their strategy. They say that a political transition is necessary, but yet they are taking steps in Syria and at the U.N. to allow him to cling to power.
So until Russia resolves that internal contradiction, it’s going to raise questions about their integrity, about the Russian regime’s -- the Russian government’s integrity. It’s going to raise questions about Russia’s ability to use their influence with the Assad regime. And it’s going to call into question their ability to effectively contribute to the situation in Syria. And we’ve expressed concerns in the past, and pointed out in the past, that Russia’s deepening involvement in the situation is contrary to their own national security and homeland security interests.
Q Are the Russians (inaudible) war crimes?
MR. EARNEST: Well, what is true is that Russia has been involved in aiding and abetting that Assad regime’s ability to carry out attacks against innocent civilians. The Iranians have been involved in those efforts as well. And that’s deeply troubling. It raises questions about the Russian government’s ability to wield influence with the Assad regime. It raises questions about the Russian government’s integrity, because they make all sorts of claims that are inconsistent with those kinds of actions. And it certainly does raise questions about what kind of impact this is likely to have to Russian interests around the world, but also back at home.
Q Yesterday I asked about the concerns that you had gone over on the EU tax issue, and you had talked about maybe looking into it. I’m wondering if you have any information about what the next step might be for the United States t, sort of emphasize these concerns. Is it something that the President or his officials are going to bring up at the G20? And what more can be done to sort of make those points or do something about the issues that you’ve outlined?
MR. EARNEST: Roberta, I was very focused in listening to your question, but I thought of one other thing I want to say in response to Andrew’s question, which is that -- I do have an answer for you.
But, Andrew, I think the other thing to remember is there has been international interest in investigating questions about whether the Assad regime has committed war crimes at the ICC. The Russians have been part of the effort to block those kinds of investigations. So it certainly would raise legitimate questions about Russian complicity in those kinds of heinous acts when Russia is acting unilaterally to prevent an investigation of those acts.
Back to Roberta’s question. I do anticipate that the President will have a discussion -- in fact, lead the discussion -- at the G20 about combatting tax avoidance strategies that are implemented by some multinational corporations. There was a robust discussion at the last G20 meeting in Antalya about what’s known as BEPS. This is base erosion and profit shifting, and it goes to the argument that I’ve made over the last several days which is that there is shared interest in the international community to prevent the erosion of tax bases in countries around the world.
We need to find a way to make the global system of taxation more fair -- more fair to countries around the world, particularly countries like the United States, of course. That also means more fairness for U.S. taxpayers.
But, look, we also need to find a system that is fairer to companies who are looking to do business around the world. And the U.S. government is not going to hesitate to speak out in support of U.S. companies that are looking to do business around the world. That’s good for the U.S. economy, that’s good for U.S. workers, but also benefits the international economy.
But we need to make sure that there aren’t entities or countries acting unilaterally in ways that exacerbate inequities in the global tax structure. And again, the kind of unilateral approach that we have criticized stands in stark contrast to the multilateral approach that the President hopes to advance at the G20 in China.
Q Are you hopeful or are you expecting some kind of breakthrough on this at the G20?
MR. EARNEST: I would be the first to acknowledge that discussions about these kinds of issues are a little esoteric and technical. So even though I know this is an issue that Reuters covers quite closely, and we’re glad that you do, I don’t know that there going to be any headlines out of the G20 conference in terms of progress that we’ve made on this issue. But I would anticipate that this is an issue that the President will engage in in the context of discussions at the G20.
And we certainly will look for greater engagement and a greater commitment from countries around the world to engage in a BEPS discussion that could lead to a more fair and more efficient global tax structure.
All right? Thank you.
END
11:23 A.M. HAST