[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8680-8684]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in a Chamber where the debate on 
climate

[[Page 8681]]

change has become woefully one-sided and in a Congress where House 
Republicans just voted unanimously to oppose the only climate solution 
Republicans have come to, I want to use my 140th climate speech to 
remind us of a time when global warming concerns came from both sides 
of the aisle.
  Nearly 30 years ago this week, a Republican chair of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, 
who also served twice as Governor of my State and as Secretary of the 
Navy, convened a 2-day, 5-panel hearing on ozone depletion, the 
greenhouse effect, and climate change. It was June, 1986, and Senator 
John Chafee, a Republican of Rhode Island, gave opening remarks warning 
of ``the buildup of greenhouse gases, which threaten to warm the Earth 
to unprecedented levels. Such a warming could, within the next 50 to 75 
years, produce enormous changes in a climate that has remained fairly 
stable for thousands of years.''
  ``[T]here is a very real possibility,'' Senator Chafee went on to 
say, ``that man--through ignorance or indifference, or both--is 
irreversibly altering the ability of our atmosphere to perform basic 
life support functions for the planet.''
  Last weekend, the Washington Post wrote an article recalling this 
historic hearing, entitled ``30 years ago scientists warned Congress on 
global warming. What they said sounds eerily familiar.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
that article at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Imagine, by the way, a Republican-controlled Senate that would even 
have a Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution. How things have 
changed. The present Republican Chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee is the author of ``The Greatest Hoax: How the Global 
Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.'' The contrast is stark 
between what Senate Republicans and their hearing witnesses were saying 
30 years ago and what the polluter-funded GOP is saying today.
  Thirty years ago, Senator Chafee declared:

       This is not a matter of Chicken Little telling us the sky 
     is falling. The scientific evidence . . . is telling us we 
     have a problem; a serious problem.

  According to our current EPW Committee chairman, ``Much of the debate 
over global warming is predicated on fear rather than science.''
  The depth and sophistication of climate science has done nothing but 
increase since the Chafee hearings, and the damage from climate change 
is not just a projection; it has started to occur. Scientists are now 
able to connect the dots. Australian researchers, for example, have 
determined that the ocean warming that led to widespread and 
devastating coral bleaching, killing off a significant chunk of the 
Great Barrier Reef in March, was made 175 times more likely by human-
caused climate change. As one researcher put it, ``this is the smoking 
gun.''
  Sadly, as the scientific consensus about the causes and consequences 
of human-driven climate change has strengthened over 30 years, the 
GOP's trust in science has eroded. They don't appear to even believe 
the science in their home State universities. All you have to do is go 
look at your own home State universities' positions on climate and how 
they are presented. It is right there.
  But when one looks at how that party is funded and how it has now 
become virtually the political wing of the fossil fuel industry, one 
can understand this sad state of affairs.
  Three decades ago, Republican Senator Chafee said:

       Scientists have characterized our treatment of the 
     greenhouse effect as a global experiment. It strikes me as a 
     form of planetary Russian roulette.

  He went on to say:

       By not making policy choices today, by sticking to a ``wait 
     and see'' approach, . . . [b]y allowing these gases to 
     continue to build in the atmosphere, this generation may be 
     committing all of us to severe economic and environmental 
     disruption without ever having decided that the value of 
     ``business as usual'' is worth the risks.
       Those who believe that these are problems to be dealt with 
     by future generations are misleading themselves. Man's 
     activities to date may have already committed us to some 
     level of temperature change.

  Even with 30 more years of solid science buttressing it, many in the 
present-day GOP deny that basic understanding and ignore even the home 
State mainstream climate science that underpins it. A few--a very few--
Republicans in Congress are now so bold as to accept mainstream, 
established science as it is taught in their home State universities, 
as is accepted by all our national science agencies and laboratories, 
and as it is warned of by our military and intelligence services, which 
is a nice step. But none will yet act on that understanding. Even that 
tiny cohort behaves in the face of this known risk--a risk the party 
recognized 30 years ago--as if it is enough to accept the science and 
do nothing. All 14 of the House Members who sponsored the House 
Resolution on climate change--all 14 of them--just voted with 
ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers against a carbon fee. When the whip 
comes down.
  Thirty years ago, the Chafee hearing witnesses included the long-time 
director of NASA's Goddard Center, Dr. James Hansen; Dr. Michael 
Oppenheimer of Princeton; Dr. Robert Watson; and then-Senator Al Gore 
of Tennessee.
  Dr. Hansen, now one of the leading advocates for immediate and 
decisive climate action within the science community, educated the 
subcommittee on the theory underpinning global climate models.
  Dr. Oppenheimer, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, talked about the need for immediate--30 years ago--climate 
action. Uncertainty, he told the Senators, was no excuse for inaction.
  Dr. Watson, who would go on to chair the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change between 1997 and 2002 said: ``It is not wise to 
experiment on the planet Earth by allowing the concentration of these 
trace gases to increase without full understanding the consequences.''
  Senator Gore agreed with these scientists, testifying that ``there is 
no longer any significant difference of opinion within the scientific 
community about the fact that the greenhouse effect is real and is 
already occurring.''
  The current GOP chair of our EPW Committee has mocked Dr. Hansen and 
the IPCC and Vice President Gore, reserving a particular disdain for 
Vice President Gore, who he says is ``drowning in a sea of his own 
global warming illusions,'' and ``desperately trying to keep global 
warming alarmism alive today.''
  Thirty years ago, the tone of the GOP was much different. Where 
Republicans today mock the prudential rule, Senator Chafee actually 
advocated for prudence in environmental policy. He said this:

       The path that society is following today is much like 
     driving a car toward the edge of a cliff. We have a choice. 
     We can go ahead, take no action and drive off the edge--
     figuring that, since the car will not hit the bottom of the 
     canyon until our generation is already long gone, the problem 
     of coping with what we have made inevitable, is for future 
     generations to deal with. We can hope that they will learn 
     how to adapt. On the other hand, we can put the brakes on 
     now, before the car gets any closer to the edge of the cliff 
     and before we reach a point where momentum will take us over 
     the edge, with or without application of the brakes.

  Present-day Republicans just want to turn up the radio to the tune of 
``Drill, Baby, Drill'' and jam the accelerator to the floor. Our 
current EPW chair has even said: ``CO2 does not cause 
catastrophic disasters--actually it would be beneficial to our 
environment and our economy.''
  Thirty years ago, Senator Chafee knew there was much yet to learn 
about climate change. Scientists will agree on the margins that there 
still is more to learn. But Senator Chafee said then that we have to 
face up to it anyway. I quote him again.

       We don't have all the perfect scientific evidence. There 
     may be gaps here and there. . . . Nonetheless, I think we 
     have got to face up to it. We can't wait for every shred of 
     evidence to come in and be absolutely perfect; I think we 
     ought to start . . . to try and do something about 
     [greenhouse gases], and certainly, to increase the public's 
     awareness of

[[Page 8682]]

     the problem and the feeling, as you say, that it is not 
     hopeless. . . . We can do something.''

  Six and one-half years ago, the United States was preparing to join 
the gathering of nations in Copenhagen for the 2009 U.N. Climate Change 
Conference. When that happened, business leaders took out a full-page 
ad in the New York Times calling for passage of U.S. climate 
legislation, for investment in the clean energy economy, and for 
leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against 
climate change. ``[W]e must embrace the challenge today to ensure that 
future generations are left with a safe planet and a strong economy.''
  ``Please don't postpone the earth. If we fail to act now, it is 
scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and 
irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.''
  Well, interestingly, one of the signatories of that advertisement was 
none other than Donald J. Trump, Chairman and President of The Trump 
Organization. It is also signed by Eric F. Trump and Ivanka Trump. Even 
the 2009 version of the man who is now the Republican Party's 
presumptive nominee understood and put his name to the need to act on 
climate change.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that 
advertisement be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  Mr. President, what does this individual, now the Republican Party's 
presumptive nominee, want to do? He is proposing to roll back President 
Obama's Clean Power Plan and cancel the landmark Paris climate 
agreement. The same guy who signed this advertisement has since labeled 
decades of research by thousands of honest and honorable climate 
scientists as a ``hoax,'' a ``con job,'' and ``BS,'' to use a more 
polite form of his expression, all the while on his business side he 
wants a seawall to protect his golf resort from ``global warming and 
its effects.''
  What do actual climate scientists think of the energy policies of the 
Republican nominee-to-be? Well, in reference to canceling the Paris 
Agreement and undoing the Clean Power Plan, Dr. Paul Higgins, who is 
the director of the American Meteorological Society's Policy Program 
remarked:

       Undoing these efforts would mean that future emissions of 
     carbon dioxide would be larger and future atmospheric 
     concentrations would be higher. Higher CO2 
     concentrations would mean larger changes in climate and 
     faster rates of change. Larger and faster changes in climate, 
     in turn, pose greater risk to society.

  Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research, said: ``[My] quick reaction is that [his] 
comments show incredible ignorance with regard to the science and 
global affairs.'' Incredible ignorance, that is the party standard.
  Dr. Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at 
Pennsylvania State University--a State that has a GOP Member in the 
Senate--put it bluntly when he said, ``[I]t is not an overstatement to 
say that [these] climate change views''--of this man--``and policy 
proposals constitute an existential threat to this planet.''
  Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas 
Tech University--that famous liberal, leftwing university, Texas Tech 
University--has spoken of the potential economic cost of inaction. She 
said:

       As the impacts grow ever more evident, severe, and costly, 
     what was obvious to the 195 nations who met in Paris will 
     become obvious to every human on this planet: doing something 
     about climate change is far cheaper than not.

  A quick aside on Dr. Hayhoe's comment, when this becomes ``obvious to 
every human on this planet,'' what will then be the legacy of the 
Republican Party? Not a proud one. Indeed, it will be a legacy to run 
from. The fossil fuel companies, their trade associations, front 
groups, and many in the GOP have spent the 30 years since the Chafee 
hearings obstructing responsible climate action despite better 
scientific understanding and growing public support for climate action. 
The fossil fuel industry has particular blame. They have erected a 
multi-tentacled, climate-denial apparatus that has deliberately caused 
that obstruction, and there are plenty of scientists looking at that 
now.
  Citizens United is what gave that industry the unprecedented 
political weaponry that it has used to accomplish that end. The GOP-
Citizens United-fossil fuel industry nexus will earn history's 
condemnation. Let's just hope it is not too late.
  The Washington Post article asked Dr. Oppenheimer to reflect on the 
intervening 30 years. Dr. Oppenheimer said: This hearing helped bring 
the concern together, and essentially painted a picture that things are 
kind of spinning out of control, that science is trying to tell us 
something, that the world seems to be changing even faster than our 
scientific understanding of the problem, and worst of all, our 
political leaders are way behind the eight ball.
  I knew Senator Chafee. He was a family friend. He may have been my 
father's best friend. He was an optimist and a pragmatist. He used to 
say: Given half a chance, nature will rebound and overcome tremendous 
setbacks, but we must--at the very least--give it that half a chance. 
He also knew nature's tolerance is not unlimited. At those 
groundbreaking hearings, Senator Chafee warned:

       It seems that the problems man creates for our planet are 
     never ending. But we have found solutions for prior 
     difficulties, and we will for these as well. What is required 
     is for all of us to do a better job of anticipating and 
     responding to today's new environmental warnings before they 
     become tomorrow's environmental tragedies.

  With those words, I close and yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 11, 2016]

 30 Years Ago Scientists Warned Congress on Global Warming. What They 
                      Said Sounds Eerily Familiar

                           (By Chris Mooney)

       It was such a different time--and yet, the message was so 
     similar.
       Thirty years ago, on June 10 and 11 of 1986, the U.S. 
     Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works 
     commenced two days of hearings, convened by Sen. John H. 
     Chafee (R-R.I.), on the subject of ``Ozone Depletion, the 
     Greenhouse Effect, and Climate Change.''
       ``This is not a matter of Chicken Little telling us the sky 
     is falling,'' Chafee said at the hearing. ``The scientific 
     evidence . . . is telling us we have a problem, a serious 
     problem.''
       The hearings garnered considerable media coverage, 
     including on the front page of The Washington Post (see 
     below).
       ``There is no longer any significant difference of opinion 
     within the scientific community about the fact that the 
     greenhouse effect is real and already occurring,'' said newly 
     elected Sen. Al Gore, who, as a congressman, had already held 
     several House hearings on the matter. Gore cited the Villach 
     Conference, a scientific meeting held in Austria the previous 
     year (1985), which concluded that ``as a result of the 
     increasing greenhouse gases it is now believed that in the 
     first half of the next century (21st century) a rise of 
     global mean temperature could occur which is greater than in 
     any man's history.''
       ``They were the breakthrough hearings,'' remembers Rafe 
     Pomerance, then a staffer with the World Resources Institute, 
     who helped suggest witnesses. ``You never saw front-page 
     coverage of this stuff.''
       The scientists assembled included some of the voices that 
     would be unmistakable and constant in coming decades. They 
     included NASA's James Hansen, who would go on to become the 
     most visible scientist in the world on the topic, and Robert 
     Watson, who would go on to chair the soon-to-be formed United 
     Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
       And what they said was clear: Human greenhouse gas 
     emissions would cause a major warming trend, and sea level 
     rise to boot.
       Here's how the hearings were covered on the front page of 
     The Post:
       The New York Times also covered the hearings, writing that 
     ``The rise in carbon dioxide and other gases in the earth's 
     atmosphere will have an earlier and more pronounced impact on 
     global temperature and climate than previously expected, 
     according to evidence presented to a Senate subcommittee 
     today.''
       Two years later, still more famously, Hansen would testify 
     in another series of hearings that had an even greater public 
     impact when it came to consciousness-raising--in part because 
     at that point, he said that the warming of the globe caused 
     by humans was already detectable. ``It is time to stop 
     waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong 
     that the greenhouse effect is here,'' he said then. In 1986, 
     by contrast, scientists were still mostly predicting the 
     future, rather than saying they had measured

[[Page 8683]]

     and documented a clear warming trend--one that could be 
     clearly distinguished from natural climate variability--and 
     that it was already having demonstrable consequences.
       ``The 1986 testimony is interesting because it was so 
     similar to my 1988 testimony,'' Hansen recalls. ``I already 
     had, and showed, some of the climate modeling results that 
     formed the basis for my 1988 testimony.''
       Granted, in some cases the future temperature projections 
     made in the 1986 hearings--based on assumptions about the 
     rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions and a high 
     sensitivity of the climate to them--suggested temperatures 
     might rise even more, or even faster, than scientists now 
     believe they will. By email, Hansen clarified that we now 
     know the world is closer to one scenario he presented in 
     1986--called Scenario B--than to Scenario A, which assumed a 
     much more rapid rate of greenhouse gas growth, and 
     accordingly, much faster warming.
       Still, the theoretical understanding was in place for why 
     temperatures would rise as greenhouse gases filled the 
     atmosphere--simply because scientists knew enough physics to 
     know that that's what greenhouse gases do.
       ``We knew in the '70s what the problem was,'' said George 
     Woodwell, founding director of the Woods Hole Research 
     Center, who also testified in 1986. ``We knew there was a 
     problem with sea level rise, all disruptions of climate. And 
     the disruptions of climate are fundamental in that they 
     undermine all the life on the Earth.''
       Much of the formal understanding had been affirmed by a 
     1979 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, led by 
     the celebrated atmospheric physicist Jule Charney of the 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That group famously 
     assessed that if carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were 
     to double, the ``most probable global warming'' would amount 
     to 3 degrees Celsius, with a range between 1.5 degrees and 
     4.5 degrees, a number quite similar to modern estimates.
       ``We have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked 
     or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the 
     currently estimated global warmings due to a doubling of 
     atmospheric CO2 to negligible proportions or 
     reverse them altogether,'' the scientists behind the report 
     wrote.
       Indeed, the fundamental understanding of the greenhouse 
     effect, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas because 
     of its particular properties, dates back to the 19th century, 
     when the Irish scientist John Tyndall conducted experiments 
     to determine the radiative properties of gases.
       No wonder, then, that there was so much that scientists 
     could say about it in 1986. And indeed, if you look at global 
     temperature trends, it turns out they were speaking at a time 
     when the planet's temperatures were beginning a steady 
     upswing, one that, despite various yearly deviations, would 
     continue inexorably to the present:
       ``This hearing helped bring the concern together, and 
     essentially painted a picture that things are kind of 
     spinning out of control, that science is trying to tell us 
     something, that the world seems to be changing even faster 
     than our scientific understanding of the problem, and worst 
     of all, our political leaders are way behind the eight 
     ball,'' said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton climate 
     scientist who testified that day, and argued that action was 
     warranted on climate change even though not everything was 
     known about its consequences.
       ``I have to say, reading my own testimony . . . you know, 
     I'd stick by everything in that today, even though it's 30 
     years later,'' Oppenheimer said.
       There was an additional context, though, that we're now 
     less conversant with: The hearings were also about the issue 
     of the depletion of the Earth's protective ozone layer by 
     chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. Scientists had recently 
     discovered an ``ozone hole'' over Antarctica that frightened 
     the public, and seemed a definitive indicator of just how 
     much human activities could change the atmosphere.
       Even today, some still confuse the issue of climate change 
     with that of the depletion of the ozone layer. They are not 
     the same, but they are closely related in that both showed 
     how seemingly small actions by individual humans, or by human 
     industry, could add up to planetary consequences.
       However, the ozone problem would prove far easier to fix. 
     In 1987, just a year later, the nations of the world adopted 
     the Montreal Protocol, which is today regarded as a major 
     success in environmental protection. Under the treaty, a 
     flexible and adaptable approach was taken to reductions--and 
     regular scientific assessments allowed for course adaptation 
     based on the latest information about how well progress was 
     proceeding. Thus, by 2007, the U.N. Environment Program could 
     declare of the treaty that ``to date, the results of this 
     effort have been nothing less than spectacular.''
       The contrast with climate change is stark Despite having 
     been alerted by scientists not only in 1986, but also in 1979 
     and, frankly, even earlier, what happened was not policy 
     action, but rather the beginnings of a long political battle.
       Even as the formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel 
     on Climate Change in 1988, and the global adoption of the 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, signaled 
     steps toward action in the scientific and diplomatic 
     communities, skeptical scientists emerged to challenges the 
     views expressed by Hansen and others, supported by 
     conservative think tanks and sometimes linked to fossil fuel 
     interests. Meanwhile, U.S. politics shifted, as over the 
     1990s and especially the 2000s the climate change issue 
     became polarized and it became rarer to see Republicans, such 
     as Chafee, who were also strong environmentalists and 
     advocates for climate action.
       ``Thirty years ago we had a Republican senator who was 
     leading the charge on addressing what he said then was a real 
     and serious threat of climate change from the emission of 
     gases from fossil fuel burning,'' says Sen. Sheldon 
     Whitehouse (D-R.I.), recalling the 1986 hearings. ``You can 
     read through all the things that Senator Chafee said back 
     then, and it has all been proven true. It's very 
     disappointing that thirty years later, there is no such voice 
     anywhere in the Republican Senate, and if you look for a 
     micron of daylight between what the fossil fuel industry 
     wants, and what the Republican Party in the Senate does, you 
     won't find it.''
       It was only in late 2015, in Paris, that the United States 
     helped to negotiate a global agreement to address climate 
     change, one in which each country sets its own pace on 
     reducing emissions. But scientists widely agree that this 
     accord isn't strong enough, on its own terms, to ensure that 
     warming remains below a 2-degree Celsius danger zone.
       Thirty years after the 1986 hearings, meanwhile, 
     presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said 
     that if elected, he would attempt ``renegotiating'' that 
     agreement.
       ``Those agreements are one-sided agreements, and they are 
     bad for the United States,'' Trump said.
                                  ____


                  [From New York Times advertisement,
                             Dec. 6, 2009]

       Dear President Obama and the United States Congress: 
     Tomorrow leaders from 192 countries will gather at The UN 
     Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to determine the fate 
     of our planet.
       As business leaders we are optimistic that President Obama 
     is attending Copenhagen with emissions targets. Additionally, 
     we urge you, our government, to strengthen and pass United 
     States legislation, and lead the world by example. We support 
     your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to 
     control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the 
     United States and the world today. Please don't postpone the 
     earth. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically 
     irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible 
     consequences for humanity and our planet.
       We recognize the key role that American innovation and 
     leadership play in stimulating the worldwide economy. 
     Investing in a Clean Energy Economy will drive state-of-the-
     art technologies that will spur economic growth, create new 
     energy jobs, and increase our energy security all while 
     reducing the harmful emissions that are putting our planet at 
     risk. We have the ability and the know-how to lead the world 
     in clean energy technology to thrive in a global market and 
     economy. But we must embrace the challenge today to ensure 
     that future generations are left with a safe planet and a 
     strong economy.
       Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in 
     modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our 
     planet.
           In partnership,
       Chris Anderson, Curator, TED; Richard Baker, Chairman, Lord 
     & Taylor; Dan, David & Laureen Barber, Blue Hill; Chris 
     Blackwell, Founder, Island Records, Island Outpost; Graydon 
     Carter, Editor, Vanity Fair; Deepak Chopra, Adjunct 
     Professor, Kellogg School of Business and Management; Yvon 
     Chouinard, Founder, Patagonia; Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield, 
     Co-founders, Ben &Jerry's; Gregory Colbert, Creator, Ashes & 
     Snow; Kenneth Cole, Chairman, Kenneth Cole; Paulette Cole, 
     CEO & Creative Director, ABC Home, ABC Carpet & Home; Tom 
     Collicchio, Chef & Owner, Craft Restaurants; Kit Crawford, 
     Gary Erickson, Co-Owners and Co-CEOs, Clif Bar & Company; 
     Steve Ells, Founder, Chairman & Co-CEO, Chipotle Mexican 
     Grill, Inc.; Eileen Fisher, CEO, Eileen Fisher; Walt Freese, 
     CEO, Ben & Jerry's Homemade; Mitchell Gold, Chairman, Bob 
     Williams, President, Co-Founders, Mitchell Gold + Bob 
     Williams; Matt Goldman, Co-Founder & CEO, Blue Man Group; 
     Seth Goldman, CEO, Honest Tea; Robert Grebler, Founder, 
     Pokonobe Associates, Jenga Licensor; Adrian Grenier, Reckless 
     Productions; Alan Hassenfeld, former Chairman, Hasbro, Inc.; 
     Don Hazen, Executive Editor, AlterNet; Gary Hirshberg, CEO, 
     Stonyfield Yogurt.
       Jeffrey Hollender, CEO, Seventh Generation, Kate Hudson, 
     David Babali, Co-Founders, David Babali for WildAid; Mike 
     Kaplan, CEO, Aspen Skiing Company; Michael Kieschnick, 
     President, Credo Mobile; Sheryl Leach, Creator & Founder of 
     Barney; Sven-Olof Lindblad, Founder, Lindblad Expeditions; 
     Danny Meyer, CEO, Union Square Hospitality Group; Laura 
     Michalchyshyn, President & GM, Planet Green, Discovery 
     Communications; Will Raap, Chairman & Founder,

[[Page 8684]]

     Gardeners's Supply Company; Horst Rechelbacher, Founder, 
     Aveda, Founder & CEO, Intelligent Nutrients; David Rockwell, 
     Founder & Owner, Rockwell Group; Maury Rubin, Founder, Chef & 
     CEO, City Bakery, Birdbath Green Bakery; Michael Rupp, CEO & 
     President, The Rockport Company; Gordon Segal, Chairman, 
     Crate & Barrel; Jeff Skoll, Founder, Participant Media and 
     Skoll foundation; Harvey Spevak, CEO, Equinox; Greg 
     Steltenpohl, Founder, Odwalla; Michelle Stein, President, 
     Aeffe USA; Martha Stewart, Founder, Martha Stewart Living 
     Omnimedia, Inc.; Jeffrey Swartz, CEO, Timberland; Tom Szaky, 
     CEO, TerraCycle; Donald J. Trump, Chairman and President, 
     Donald J. Trump Jr., EVP, Eric F. Trump, EVP, Ivanka M. 
     Trump, EVP, The Trump Organization; Jean-Georges 
     Vongerichten, Executive Chef & Owner, Jean-Georges Management 
     LLC.
       If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, 
     go together. [African Proverb]

                          ____________________