Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. So maybe the powerful special interests behind this repeal are really using this WTO ruling as an excuse to roll back basic right-to-know for American consumers. I don't think we should let them get away with it. I doubt there is a single consumer in America who says, ``I want to know less about the food I am eating.'' In fact, the opposite is true. Now more than ever, Americans want to know where their food comes from, and they want to buy local food when they can. Buying local has created huge new markets for American farmers, great economic growth in States like mine, like Maine. If this bill passes, it will be harder to know if the pork chop or hamburger you are buying came from around the corner or around the world. Country of origin labeling is good for consumers; it is good for our farmers and ranchers. Please don't gut these commonsense requirements.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time and for taking up this important issue and helping us to better understand the importance of it. In my opinion, we shouldn't even be here today debating a repeal of this important consumer protection law. I don't know if this bill is a huge overreaction to the WTO decision or it is just an excuse to gut these commonsense country of origin labeling requirements. For years, we have required labels on virtually everything imported into the United States. Every piece of clothing you wear has to have a label showing where it was made. Your smartphone has to have a label showing where it was manufactured. Even umbrellas and tablecloths have to list their country of origin. But for some reason we are here considering a bill that would make it impossible for parents to know whether the chicken they are serving their family came from the United States or China. Think about that. What consumer, what parent would tell you they don't care what country the food came from that they are about to serve their children? Let's just talk about the WTO ruling for a minute. First of all, the World Trade Organization ruling said that the labels for ground beef were acceptable but doesn't even consider any complaints from Canada or Mexico about chicken. So why are we voting on a repeal of the labeling requirement for those products? Secondly, the WTO has not even ruled about the extent to which country of origin labeling affects exports from Canada and Mexico. And it can't be much, since Mexico exports more beef into the United States than before this law went into effect. We do not have to give in to the WTO this easily. These kinds of disputes are frequently settled by negotiations with Canada and Mexico, not by giving up and throwing out an entire set of consumer protections. We don't back down this easily, and we shouldn't back down this easily.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and Chairman Culberson for chatting with us about this particular issue. Mr. Chairman, as has been already stated here by my colleague today, there is never a good time to ask our fishermen to take on a cost of this size that we are discussing here. But now is an even worse time than most because it will be asking those who make their living on the Gulf of Maine to pay for onboard monitors when the ground fishery is struggling. I understand the tough position that NOAA is in due to tight budgets, but times are even tougher on the men and women who make their living from groundfish right now. I hope NOAA can find a way to avoid making them pay for onboard monitors, and whatever the short-term solution is, I think NOAA should look at ways to conduct monitoring through the use of onboard cameras or other cost-effective electronic technologies. I hope the chairman will be willing to work with us on this and with NOAA on this issue that affects so many of our hard-working constituents.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. I thank Mr. Huffman for giving this opportunity and for caring so deeply about our coastal communities and our fisheries. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Huffman-Sablan amendment because it would update the process we use to manage our Nation's fisheries without throwing away core programs. In particular, the Huffman-Sablan amendment would modernize fishery data collection by using electronic monitoring and fisheries survey technologies. These are the technologies that our fishermen need to update the current program, and they are the wave of the future--no pun intended. I think it is helpful for all of us to recognize the fact that NOAA's budget for the so-called wetside programs has been facing devastating cuts as well as the sequester cuts over the past several years. As a result, now more than ever, we need to look at about how we can make our dollars do more with our fisheries. Electronic monitoring is a place where we can make an investment in the future that will help our fishermen today. Also, the substitute amendment will ensure that we leave intact conservation programs that have been helping us to address overfished stocks. In the Gulf of Maine, we have seen the crisis in our fisheries firsthand, and we want to make sure that we are not forgetting all the work that our men and women who make their livings on the water have done. We do not want to roll back important conservation and management guidelines. So again, Mr. Chairman, I support the Huffman-Sablan amendment. I appreciate my colleagues for working on this, and I urge all of my other colleagues to do the same.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Dingell amendment. As many of us in Congress know, our Nation's fisheries do not work on artificial timelines. If we want to be sure that fishery plans are getting the critical National Environmental Policy Act analysis that conserve and preserve our resources, we can't force these NEPA studies to be fast-tracked. The underlying bill would force important environmental analyses to be rushed and, therefore, cut stakeholders out of the process due to rapid timelines. At a time when we are trying to make sure that we keep stakeholders engaged in the process, they would actually get less consideration under the bill that we have on the floor today. We need to ensure that our communities are given a chance to weigh in on these plans, and in that process that we take a thorough look at the environmental impacts of these plans. My colleague has said that her amendment would restore common sense and requires us to look before we leap. I couldn't agree more. I urge my colleagues to oppose artificial timelines for environmental reviews, and I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell amendment.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Grijalva for the time. I rise to support the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but not the bill we have before us today. Like many of my colleagues here in Congress who represent coastal States, I know the importance of a vibrant fishery and the importance of Federal policy in this area that keeps our Nation's fisheries moving forward. I live on a small offshore island, and many of my neighbors make their living as fishermen, as do many of my constituents. The most lucrative fishery in my area is for lobsters, and it is one of the most successful and sustainable fisheries in America because lobstermen and -women have taken the long-term view. It is so successful and so sustainable because it has been carefully regulated for decades. Strict rules have led to bigger and bigger catches and rising income for fishermen. This fishery is proof that building a strong fishery happens first by ensuring there is a resource for fishermen to harvest. Iconic species like haddock and pollock have been devastated by overfishing. They can still make a comeback, but not if we turn our backs on them and the fishermen who depend on them. The collapse of many of these fisheries has taken its toll on fishing families and fishing communities, but slowly rebuilding these species is rebuilding our hope for the future. Now is not the time to abandon these efforts. Now is not the time to give up on the progress we have already made. The only way to guarantee healthy fishing communities over the long term is to rebuild the fish stocks using science-based methods, and I would ask my colleagues to support more funding for science. The future of many coastal communities is based on sustainable fisheries, not rolling back management systems that give just a few fishermen a short-term boost. I urge my colleagues to support many of the amendments that will be on the floor this afternoon that will try to improve this legislation, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and thank you to our ranking member and the chair for the good work that they have done on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise to add my voice to those in support of water power and the Bonamici-Perry-Pingree amendment. This amendment provides a modest increase in funding for the Department of Energy's Water Power Program, but that modest increase will make a big difference in developing new sources of clean energy, tidal power, and hydropower from all across the country. I have seen this program work firsthand in the State of Maine. Ocean Renewable Power Company has taken advantage of this program and leveraged these modest investments into a company that has created or retained over a hundred jobs in every part of our State and directly pumped over $25 million into our economy. Tidal and river power projects create jobs in areas where they are needed most, in Eastport, Maine, for example, or in rural villages in Alaska. These projects lower energy prices and create jobs. For some remote communities, creating these new forms of clean energy is a matter of survival. These projects are examples of American technology and know-how at work. By creating homegrown solutions to our energy needs, we are investing in our communities and developing technology that the rest of the world wants to buy from us. Most importantly of all, this allows us to keep the money we spend on energy right here in America. This Department of Energy program supports private sector research and development and implementation of water power technology that creates these jobs and these new sources of clean energy. This modest increase in funding will translate directly into jobs and an increase in the supply of clean renewable energy across the country.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk today about a truly remarkable educator from my State of Maine. This week in Dubai, Nancie Atwell won the very first Global Teacher Prize. It is called the ``Nobel Prize for Education,'' and over 5,000 teachers worldwide were nominated for the award. Twenty-five years ago Nancie started the Center for Teaching and Learning in Edgecomb, Maine. Nancy and the staff at the school have educated thousands of students and hundreds of teachers, teachers who come every year to serve as interns at the school and learn about the cutting-edge teaching methods that have been developed there. Nancie has dedicated her heart and soul to the school, to the teachers, and to the students. Just one example of the selflessness is the $1 million prize that Nancie won with this award. She didn't hesitate for even a moment before announcing she is going to give every penny of it to the school she founded and loves. Nancie Atwell is a shining example of how teachers make the world a better place. Maine is lucky to have her, and she is an inspiration to us all.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I think just about every one of us in Congress went through security at an airport in our home State this week, and like millions of Americans who fly every day, we are protected by 40,000 TSA officers that we depend on to keep us safe. But now, we are on the verge of stopping paychecks to all of those officers and 50,000 Border Patrol agents and 40,000 Active-Duty Coast Guard members who are needed to protect our shores. In my State and many others this winter, they are being called upon to break up the ice and keep our harbors open. It is not just the people who keep us safe. It is FEMA. Just like much of the country, we have suffered from one of the hardest winters in memory in Maine, but if the Department of Homeland Security is shut down, then FEMA will not be able to process any new disaster relief applications from our States. This winter has created a crisis for my State and for many local governments. Let's not add to that with a manufactured crisis of our own by forcing the Department of Homeland Security to shut down, just because some people don't like President Obama's immigration policies. We have the votes right here in the House to pass a bill to fund DHS. Just let's take a vote on it.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the long and distinguished service to the country of one of my constituents, Margaret ``Peggy'' Theresa Gierie, who is turning 90 and is, I believe, among our nation's oldest federal employees. Ms. Gierie comes from a long line of military service. She had a great grandfather who fought in the Battle of Gettysburg, her father survived gas attacks in World War I, and her husband was a U.S. Army Air Corps navigator in World War II. Ms. Gierie added to that legacy in 1945 by enlisting in the WAVES, a women's division of the U.S. Navy in which she served as a telegrapher at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Her service earned her a World War II Victory Medal. Ms. Gierie went on to attend college and work at several different jobs while raising three children with her husband. At this point in her story, no one would have faulted her for taking a well-earned rest in retirement. She has done no such thing. Ms. Gierie re-entered the workforce after her husband of 50 years passed away. And since 2007, she has found a new way to serve the country--as a receptionist at the Sanford Vet Center, which offers a range of services to Maine veterans and their families. In her time there, she has become a familiar and welcome face to the clients who often come to appointments early just to chat with her. At the same time, she handles demanding duties with a positive attitude, professionalism, dedication, and, above all, a never-ending supply of energy. She goes above and beyond for every veteran who calls or comes through the door. Mr. Speaker, I truly admire Ms. Gierie for her incredible service, and would like to thank her for the difference she has made in the lives of Maine veterans and wish her a very happy 90th birthday.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent with a story that should be heard. At 95 years old, James Watson of South Portland, Maine, is our state's oldest living veteran who was present during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The morning of December 7, 1941, began like many others for Mr. Watson. At the time, he was a gunner's mate first class aboard the U.S.S. Phoenix, which was anchored across the harbor from Battleship Row. He was reading the Sunday paper below deck when he felt a vibration rock the ship, then heard a call over the loudspeaker to report to battle stations. Once topside, he saw anti-aircraft explosions in the air and smelled thick clouds of burning fuel. He knew instantly that the country was at war. What followed after was a blur. ``You're too busy to be scared. You're just mad. You're angry,'' Mr. Watson recently recounted to a local newspaper. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called December 7, 1941, ``a date which will live in infamy.'' And, indeed, from books, films, and photos, we can still get a sense of that day's incredible devastation and terrible loss of the life. But as the days go by, there are fewer and fewer living veterans who saw it through their own eyes and can recall what it was like to go through such an experience. Their stories are critical to ensuring that we never forget what happened there. I appreciate that Mr. Watson has shared his memories so we can better understand and remember one of the most pivotal moments in our nation's history. And I thank him for his brave service that day, and the rest that followed.

Ms. PINGREE

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, from my District Office in Portland, Maine, I am fortunate to have a beautiful view of Portland Harbor and Casco Bay. On a typical day, one might see cruise ships carrying thousands of visitors to our city, lobster boats setting and pulling their traps, kayakers paddling to Fort Gorges, and harbor seals popping their heads out of the water. What's remarkable about this scene is that the bay's many uses--as a place for recreation, a source of jobs and economic activity, and habitat for marine life--coexist in a way that is not possible in many other places in the country. The bay is healthy enough to balance the needs of our community with the needs of the environment. I rise today to recognize and celebrate a man who has worked tirelessly to strike that careful balance and maintain it. Joe Payne is the Casco Baykeeper, placing him in the very difficult job of improving and safeguarding the health of our bay. After nearly 25 years of doing that job remarkably well--as a scientist, advocate, and relationship builder--he is retiring. Joe's accomplishments during his tenure as Baykeeper are too many to list in full, but here are some highlights. During a 1996 oil tanker spill, he pushed successfully for a quicker and more thorough response than what was initially given, preventing what could have been a disastrous impact on the bay. He launched a groundbreaking water- quality monitoring program that has mobilized 650 volunteers. He helped move 35,000 lobsters that would have been harmed or displaced by a harbor dredge. And he fought for state legislation that has kept cruise ships from dumping their wastewater into the bay. I have had the pleasure of working with Joe over the years. Most recently, I appeared with him at a press conference where he used dye, a bowl of seawater, and a chunk of dry ice to demonstrate how climate change is making our ocean more acidic and less habitable for shellfish. The dramatic reaction was a great example of Joe's ability to draw attention to critical issues in ways that make people understand and care. I wish my very best to Joe in retirement, though I will miss him in the role of Baykeeper. If I need any reminder of his leadership and legacy, however, all I have to do is look out the window.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I voted ``yes'' on H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. I would like to express that I intended to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4012.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 was established to assist federal, state and local governments in their efforts to create and sustain public outdoor recreation facilities. LWCF success stories have taken place in every state in the Nation. My home state of Maine alone has received $40 million in grants for federal grant program projects since 1965. The program has helped preserve some of Maine's most treasured spaces--including the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, Acadia National Park, the Saint Croix Island International Historic Site, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail--as well as many more nationwide. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fight for the full funding of the LWCF so that it can continue the great work it has been doing for the past 50 years. And I raise my voice along with those of others who are calling for a reauthorization of this important legislation. Again, my sincere thanks go to the thousands of people across the country who work to make the LWCF a success. It is my honor to congratulate them and the LWCF program on this important milestone.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, at a time when we are finally increasing access to health coverage for millions of Americans, those who need it the most are left without. Nearly every day, I hear from constituents in my State of Maine who are suffering because they are caught in a political battle over the expansion of Medicaid. These people are our friends and neighbors, and many of them have chronic conditions, injuries, or mental illnesses that prevent them from working. But because they live in States that have chosen not to expand the program, they have been left without any affordable options. Instead, people are putting off getting health care until their needs are critical. Hospitals and health centers end up picking up the tab, and our economy continues to be strained. In Maine, almost 70,000 people are struggling without health care because Medicaid hasn't been expanded. I call on Governors across the country, including my own, to think about these people rather than politics when they make decisions about health care in their States and expand Medicaid now.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize an honorable World War II veteran in my state whose bravery saved the lives of many during combat on Okinawa. In 1945, Roland Glenn helped to lead the men of his company to capture key Japanese positions by scaling an escarpment in the face of intense resistance. The unit needed the element of surprise, and for the enemy to believe that they were facing a large group of American soldiers (instead of the 35 that made it up the escarpment). The unit's success in this dangerous situation is due, in large part, to Mr. Glenn's leadership and bravery. The plan to overtake the enemy position was difficult and had little room for error. Many of these soldiers were young men, afraid and far from home. It was not only Mr. Glenn's ingenious plan of attack that saved many lives; he also encouraged them to keep going, empowering them and boosting their morale. Together, these brave men were able to beat the odds and win the battle. Since his time in the Army, Mr. Glenn has worked as a peace activist, continuing his service to our country. He was then, and continues to be, a great leader and patriot. I wish Mr. Glenn all the best and thank him wholeheartedly for his service to our nation.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, this amendment blocks funding for the Department of Energy's Climate Model Development and Validation program. This is climate science denial at its worst. The world's top scientific institutions are all telling us that we have a rapidly closing window to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change cannot be avoided. So far, the world has already warmed by 0.8 degrees Celsius, and we are already seeing the effects of climate change. Most scientists agree that 2 degrees Celsius is the maximum amount we can warm without really dangerous effects, although many scientists now believe that even 2 degrees is far too much, given the effects we are already seeing. But absent dramatic action, we are on track to warm 4 to 6 degrees Celsius by mid-century. That is more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit. The International Energy Agency has concluded that if the world does not take action to reduce carbon pollution by 2017--just 3 years from now--then it will be virtually impossible to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius. How do we know all this? There are multiple lines of evidence, including direct measurements. But scientists also use sophisticated computer models of how the atmosphere and oceans work and how they respond to different atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases. For projection of future emissions and their impacts, scientists have made numerous advances by collaborating across academic fields, including climatology, chemistry, biology, economics, energy dynamics, agriculture, scenario building, and risk management. These projections are critical as they provide guideposts to understanding how quickly and how steeply the world needs to cut carbon pollution in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The goal of the DOE's climate model development and validation program is to further improve the reliability of climate models and equip policymakers and citizens with tools to predict the current and future effects of climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather events, and drought. Mr. Gosar's amendment scraps this program. It says no to enhancing the reliability of our climate models. It says no to improving our understanding of how the climate is changing. It says no to informing policymakers about the consequences of unmitigated climate change. I think that is absolutely irresponsible. The amazing thing is that the base bill already zeros out the funding for this program; but, apparently, that isn't enough to satisfy the Republicans' climate denial. So Mr. Gosar has offered this amendment to just reiterate the point that the House Republicans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence about climate change. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his articulate thoughts and for reinforcing what those of us in coastal communities truly believe. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one more time that this is critically important policy for our country. I am fortunate to represent a State that has some of the highest level of shoreline of any State in the Nation. We have fishermen. We have economic interests on the shore. Everyday, I hear from my constituents who are deeply concerned about the changes that we are facing, whether it is the sea level rising, changing in the fisheries, loss of species, economic issues involving our coastlines, working waterfront--these are serious issues. This represents people's livelihoods. Coastal communities, businesses, our economic interests are here at stake. I can't imagine the idea that we would move backward in National Ocean Policy and that we would lose the opportunity to coordinate on these critical interests, that we would do anything that would endanger the economic development and the economic and cultural future of our communities, our fisheries, and so many businesses that States like mine are completely dependent on. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and recognize that we have severe issues ahead of us and we have a lot of work to do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment that is offered here today, which would block funding for the implementation of National Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy seeks to improve the coordinated management of our oceans and coasts and to address the most pressing issues facing our oceans, resources, and coastal communities. In fact, just 2 weeks ago, there were over 100 different ocean users meeting in Massachusetts to help develop New England's ocean plan. This included lobstermen from Maine, my home State; science educators from New Hampshire, fishermen from Massachusetts, clean energy representatives from Rhode Island, and recreational fishermen from Connecticut, all meeting with Federal and State agencies to talk about how to improve their options for their local businesses, build resiliency for coastal communities in the face of extreme weather events, and maintain the health of the ocean that provides us with goods and services we need and enjoy. The National Ocean Policy does not call for ``zoning'' the ocean. Rather, it is a strategy to increase efficiency by bringing stakeholders together and giving citizens and businesses a voice in the decisionmaking process. This policy provides a way for the Federal Government to hear from and to coordinate activities with States, communities, and business owners. Many State and local interests are eager to coordinate with the Federal Government, and this policy is already helping to make that happen. Let's be clear. The policy is really about helping agencies like NOAA fisheries work more closely with fishermen and the Navy to coordinate with port communities. Why should we consider prohibiting these critically important relationships between businesses, States, and Federal interests? The National Ocean Policy helps to ensure that our resources, our culture, our history, and the economic vitality of our communities are fully considered in the decisions concerning our oceans. I urge my colleagues to join me, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Chair, I support this amendment offered by my colleague from California, which would strike the anti-National Ocean Policy language contained in H.R. 4899. The National Ocean Policy seeks to improve the coordinated management of our oceans and coasts, and to address the most pressing issues facing our oceans, resources, and coastal communities. In fact, right now, there are over a hundred different ocean users meeting in Massachusetts to help develop New England's ocean plan. Lobstermen from Maine, science educators from New Hampshire, fishermen from Massachusetts, clean energy company representatives from Rhode Island, and recreational fishermen from Connecticut are meeting with federal and state agencies to talk about how to improve their options for their local businesses, build resiliency for coastal communities in the face of extreme weather events, and maintain the health of the ocean that provides us with the goods and services we need and enjoy. The work and research conducted under the National Ocean Policy supports tens of millions of jobs, which in turn generate billions of dollars for our coastal communities. The National Ocean Policy improves government efficiency and decision outcomes by bringing a variety of government agencies together at a single table. The planning and coordination done according to this policy involves stakeholders in the policy-making process, helping to produce relevant policies supported across sectors. This policy also balances the needs of a variety of interests, ensuring that the fishing industry and working waterfronts are preserved while new energy businesses and other economic sectors are developed. The National Ocean Policy helps to ensure that our resources, our culture, our history, and the economic vitality of our communities are fully considered in decisions concerning our oceans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the wise stewardship of the oceans and our ocean economy by supporting the Lowenthal amendment.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch. Mr. Chair, I am very proud to sponsor this amendment, along with my colleagues from Vermont, New Hampshire, and my fellow Mainer, to exempt pipeline reversals from the provisions of this bill. In my opinion, the way this bill is currently written, it is extremely irresponsible because it basically exempts cross-border pipeline projects from the National Environmental Policy Act and would reduce not only critical Federal reviews, but also limit the vital public input that NEPA brings. That would raise great concerns for the constituents in my district who have a lot that they want to say in the public input process. The amendment scope is limited to pipeline reversals and would at least make it clear that the underlying bill's waivers do not apply to the so-called Portland Montreal Pipe Line and other pipeline reversals. The Portland Montreal Pipe Line proposal threatens the entire southern Maine watershed, where 15 percent of my State's population gets its drinking water. Oversight by NEPA is essential for this pipeline and any other, and I strongly oppose any attempts to waive NEPA or other reviews for this project. That is why I am here, to urge all my colleagues who care about ensuring that there is strong oversight and environmental review to support this amendment.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a wife- and-husband team in my District for being selected as the Small Business Administration's Maine Small Business Person of the Year for 2014. Mary Allen Lindemann and Alan Spear founded Coffee by Design (CBD) in Portland, Maine, 20 years ago with one part-time employee. From its humble beginnings, CBD has become a Maine institution. Today it employs 55 people, sells its coffee wholesale to numerous clients across Maine and the country, and has five locations, including a beautiful new 45,000-square-foot roastery, office, cafe, and training facility. All this growth has not detracted one bit from the company's commitment to locally roasting, blending, and brewing a superior cup of coffee. As much as for the taste of its coffee, though, people in Maine love CBD for its community mindedness--locally and internationally. Giving herself the title of ``Community Builder,'' Mary Allen has made sure that CBD takes great care of its employees, supports and leads many community causes, and creates a welcoming and compassionate feel for all who come into the company's coffee houses. As ``Chief Bean,'' Alan travels the world seeking coffee sources that use sustainable practices and treat farmers fairly. Under their leadership, CBD has shown that businesses can have a heart without sacrificing success. I appreciate the SBA for recognizing CBD and other small businesses for their leadership, as well as supporting their growth with the help of local banks and other partners. My sincere congratulations to Alan and Mary Allen as well as all the other Maine businesses being recognized this year.