[House Report 112-343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress  }                                      {  Rept. 112-343
  2d Session    }        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES      {         Part 2
=======================================================================
 
      BUSINESS RISK MITIGATION AND PRICE STABILIZATION ACT OF 2012 

                                _______
                                

February 8, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Lucas, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2682]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R.2682) to provide end user exemptions from certain 
provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Business Risk Mitigation and Price 
Stabilization Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. MARGIN REQUIREMENTS.

  (a) Commodity Exchange Act Amendment.--Section 4s(e) of the Commodity 
Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6s(e)), as added by section 731 of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
          ``(4) Applicability with respect to counterparties.--The 
        requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) shall not 
        apply to a swap in which a counterparty qualifies for an 
        exception under section 2(h)(7)(A) or satisfies the criteria in 
        section 2(h)(7)(D).''.
  (b) Securities Exchange Act Amendment.--Section 15F(e) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-10(e)), as added by 
section 764(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
          ``(4) Applicability with respect to counterparties.--The 
        requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) shall not 
        apply to a security-based swap in which one of the 
        counterparties to the security-based swap is not a financial 
        entity as described in section 3C(g)(3), and such counterparty 
        is eligible for the exception under section 3C(g)(1).''.

SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION.

  The amendments made by this Act shall be implemented--
          (1) without regard to--
                  (A) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code; and
                  (B) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 
                of title 5, United States Code; and
          (2) through the promulgation of an interim final rule.

                           Brief Explanation

    The bill amends Section 4s(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act 
(CEA) as added by Section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) (the Dodd-
Frank Act) to provide an explicit exemption from margin 
requirements for swap transactions involving end-users that 
qualify for the clearing exception under 2(h)(7)(A). The bill 
includes mirroring provisions to Section 15F(e) of the 
Securities Exchange Act with respect to security-based swap 
transactions.

                            Purpose and Need

    End-users are the thousands of businesses across the 
country that use derivatives to hedge the risks associated with 
their day-to-day operations. Because end-users' swap 
transactions do not pose a systemic risk to the financial 
system, Congress provided an exemption for over-the-counter 
swap transactions from the margin requirements in Title VII of 
the Dodd-Frank Act.
    During floor debate on the conference report for the Dodd-
Frank Act, two colloquies among the then-chairmen of the four 
committees with primary jurisdiction over Title VII clarified 
Congressional intent that the Dodd-Frank Act did not grant 
regulators the authority to impose margin requirements on end-
user derivatives transactions. Subsequently, the principal 
authors of Title VII, Senators Blanche Lincoln and Senators 
Chris Dodd sent a letter to Reps. Barney Frank and Collin 
Peterson to set forth and clarify congressional intent. In the 
letter they state: ``The legislation does not authorize the 
regulators to impose margin on end users, those exempt entities 
that use swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk. If 
regulators raise the costs of end user transactions, they may 
create more risk. It is imperative that the regulators do not 
unnecessarily divert working capital from our economy into 
margin accounts, in a way that would discourage hedging by end 
users or impair economic growth.''
    Nevertheless, some regulators have interpreted Title VII as 
a grant of new authority to impose margin requirements on end-
users merely because they are counterparties to swaps with a 
regulated entity, such as a swap dealer or financial 
institution. The prudential regulators are responsible for 
setting margin requirements for transactions involving swap 
dealers that are banks. It is important to note that most end-
users enter into hedging transactions with bank swap dealers, 
so it is the prudential regulators that will be setting the 
margin requirements for most end-user transactions. In April of 
2011, the prudential regulators issued a joint proposal that 
would in fact require non-financial end-users to post margin to 
their bank counterparties.
    Although not a concern shared widely, some have argued that 
the prudential regulators have authority to impose margin on 
end-user transactions that is independent of any new authority 
in Dodd-Frank, and that these agencies will impose margin on 
end-users despite enactment of H.R. 2682.
    However, it is clear in the prudential regulators' joint 
rule proposal that their interpretation of Title VII of the 
Dodd-Frank Act requires that they impose margin on end-users, 
and that the requirement is the reason for proposing that non-
financial end-users post margin to their bank swap 
counterparties. As stated in the rule (http://www.fdic.gov/
regulations/laws/federal/2011/11proposed AD79.pdf):
    Following passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, various observers 
expressed concerns regarding whether sections 731 and 764 of 
the Dodd-Frank Act authorize or require the CFTC, SEC and 
Agencies to establish margin requirements with respect to 
transactions between a covered swap entity and a ``commercial 
end user'' (i.e. a nonfinancial counterparty that engages in 
derivatives activities to hedge commercial risk), and have 
argued that swap and security-based swap transactions with 
these types of counterparties should be excluded from the scope 
of margin requirements imposed under sections 731 and 764 
because commercial firms engaged in hedging activities pose a 
reduced risk to their counterparties and the stability of the 
U.S. financial system. In addition, statements in the 
legislative history of sections 731 and 764 suggest that 
Congress did not intend, in enacting these sections, to impose 
margin requirements on nonfinancial end users engaged in 
hedging activities, even in cases where they entered into swaps 
or security-based swaps with swap entities.
    In formulating the proposed rule, the Agencies have 
carefully considered these concerns and statements. The plain 
language of sections 731 and 764 provides that the Agencies 
adopt rules for covered swap entities imposing margin 
requirements on all non-cleared swaps. Those sections do not, 
by their terms, exclude a swap with a counterparty that is a 
commercial end-user.
    By the agencies' own terms, their proposal to require 
margin stems directly from what they view to be a legal 
obligation under Title VII. By providing an explicit exemption 
under Title VII through enactment of HR 2682, the agencies will 
no longer have a legal obligation, and congressional intent as 
they acknowledge in the proposed rule will be implemented.
    Several end-users that testified before the Committee in 
2011 spoke to the harmful economic impact a margin requirement 
would have for end-users and the need for Congress to clarify 
its intent.
    On February 10, 2011, Scott C. Morrison, Chief Financial 
Officer for the Ball Corporation, testifying on behalf of the 
Coalition for Derivatives End-Users stated: ``A requirement for 
end-users like Ball Corporation to post margin to its 
counterparties would have a serious impact on our ability to 
invest in and grown our business. For example, Ball Corporation 
is currently investing significant amounts of capital in plant 
expansions we are currently executing in Texas, Indiana, 
California and Colorado. Those expansions alone are investments 
totaling well in excess of $150 million and will add several 
hundred jobs when complete. Tying up capital for initial and 
variation margin could put those types of projects at risk at a 
time when our economy can ill afford it.''
    On July 21, 2011, Neil Schloss, Vice President and 
Treasurer of Ford Motor Company stated: ``Similar to other end-
user corporations and manufacturers, we are concerned that 
imposing margin requirements would significantly increase our 
cash requirements and costs, and provide a disincentive to 
hedge legitimate business risks, which would seemingly increase 
systemic risk.''
    On October 12, 2011, Scott Cordes, President of Country 
Hedging, on behalf of the National Council of Farmer 
Cooperatives stated: ``Under the proposed rule requiring end 
users to post margin, costs to businesses will increase as more 
cash is tied up to maintain those hedges. The additional 
capital requirements will be siphoned away from activities and 
investment in cooperatives' primary business ventures. 
Furthermore, cash for margin is often borrowed from lenders 
through the use of credit lines. As a result, we could see a 
situation where a commercial end-user would have to borrow cash 
from its lender, and pay interest on it, just to give it back 
to the same lender to hold as margin.''
    H.R. 2682 clarifies congressional intent to provide an 
explicit exemption for swap transactions involving non-
financial end-users from the margin requirements under Title 
VII of the Dodd-Frank Act.

                           Section-by-Section

    Section 1 is the short title of the bill, ``The Business 
Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2012.''
    Section 2(a) amends section 4s(e) the Commodity Exchange 
Act (as added by section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Act) to clarify 
that initial and variation margin requirements shall not apply 
to a swap in which one of the counterparties to the swap is not 
a financial entity, and qualifies for the end-user clearing 
exception in Section 2(h)(7)(A).
    Section 2(b) is a similar amendment to the Securities and 
Exchange Act.
    Section 3 excludes the amendments made by this bill from 
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and from notice 
and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

                        Committee Consideration


                              I. HEARINGS

    In the 112th Congress, the Committee has held seven 
hearings, four Full Committee and two General Farm Commodities 
and Risk Management Subcommittee hearings to examine the 
implementation of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act and one Full 
Committee hearing to examine legislative proposals related 
thereto, including H.R. 2682. The Committee took testimony from 
witnesses that represented a broad spectrum of participants in 
the derivatives markets.
    In the following hearings, witnesses testified to the 
importance of a clear, explicit margin exemption for end-users.

Public hearing to review implementation of title VII of the Dodd-Frank 
        Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: February 10, 
        2011

Defining the Market: Entity and Product Classifications Under Title VII 
        of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
        Act: March 31, 2011

Derivatives Reform: The View from Main Street: July 21, 2011

To review legislative proposals amending Title VII of the Dodd-Frank 
        Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: October 12, 
        2011

    On October 12, 2011, Mr. Scott Cordes, President of Country 
Hedging testified on behalf of the National Council of Farmer 
Cooperatives:

          ``Under the proposed rule requiring end-users to post 
        margin, costs to businesses will increase as more cash 
        is tied up to maintain those hedges. The additional 
        capital requirements will be siphoned away from 
        activities and investment in cooperatives' primary 
        business ventures. . . . Congressional intent was clear 
        on this point--end-users were not to be required to 
        post margin. We support legislation that would reaffirm 
        this intent.''

    On October 12, 2011, Ms. Brenda Boultwood, of Constellation 
Energy on behalf of the Coalition for Derivatives End-Users 
testified:

        ``  A survey conducted by the Coalition found that 
        companies would have to hold aside an average of $269 
        million of cash or immediately available bank credit to 
        meet a 3% margin requirement. . . . the . . . study 
        extrapolated the effects across the S&P 500 to predict 
        the consequent loss of 100,000 to 130,000 direct and 
        indirect jobs. . . . We need Congress to step in and 
        clarify the ability of end-users and banks to continue 
        to manage counterparty risk without unnecessary initial 
        and variation margin requirements.''

                           II. FULL COMMITTEE

    The Committee on Agriculture met, pursuant to notice, with 
a quorum present, on January 25, 2012, to consider H.R. 2682, 
to provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the 
Commodity Exchange Act of 1934, and other pending business. 
Chairman Lucas offered an opening statement, as did Ranking 
Member Peterson.
    By unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on General Farm 
Commodities and Risk Management was discharged from further 
consideration and the bill, H.R. 2682 was placed before the 
Committee for consideration and without objection a first 
reading of the bill was waived and it was opened for amendment 
at any point. The Chairman offered an Amendment in the Nature 
of a Substitute to the bill, and counsel provided a brief 
explanation of the amendment.
    Mr. Peterson was recognized to offer and explain an 
amendment to expedite implementation by excluding the 
amendments made by the bill from the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act and from notice and comment 
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. By a voice 
vote the Peterson amendment was adopted.
    There being no further amendments, the Peterson motion to 
approve the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
2682, as amended was adopted by a voice vote.
    By a voice vote, the Peterson motion to report the bill 
favorably to the House with the recommendation that it do pass 
was adopted.
    The Committee then moved onto other pending business, where 
at the conclusion of the meeting, Chairman Lucas advised 
Members that pursuant to the rules of the House of 
Representatives that Members have 2 calendar days to file such 
views with the Committee.
    Without objection, staff was given permission to make any 
necessary clerical, technical or conforming changes to reflect 
the intent of the Committee.
    Chairman Lucas thanked all the Members and adjourned the 
meeting.

                  Reporting the Bill--Roll Call Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, H.R. 2682 was reported by voice vote with a 
majority quorum present. There was no request for a recorded 
vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture's 
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 
body of this report.

           Budget Act Compliance (Sections 308, 402, and 423)

    The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new 
budget authority, new spending authority, new credit authority, 
or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not 
considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to 
be prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 submitted to the Committee prior to the 
filing of this report are as follows:

                                                  February 7, 2012.
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2682, the Business 
Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2011.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2682--Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2012

    H.R. 2682 would allow certain nonfinancial entities that 
are counterparties in a swap or a security-based swap 
transaction to be exempted from provisions in current law that 
require such entities to meet certain margin requirements. (A 
swap is a contract that calls for an exchange of cash between 
two participants, based on an underlying rate or index or on 
the performance of an asset.) Both the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC) are developing regulations relating to margin 
requirements in swap transactions as the result of the 
enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act (Public Law 111-203); however, neither agency 
has finalized such regulations. (Margin requirements are 
minimum amounts of collateral that must be deposited, often 
with a broker or exchange, to cover some or all of the risk of 
a counter-party.)
    Based on information from the two agencies, CBO expects 
that incorporating the provisions of H.R. 2682 at this point in 
the regulatory process would not require a significant increase 
in the workload of either agency. Therefore, CBO estimates that 
any change in net discretionary spending to implement the 
legislation, which would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds, would not be significant. Further, under 
current law, the SEC is authorized to collect fees sufficient 
to offset its appropriation each year; CBO expects that the 
agency would set fee rates each year to offset amounts provided 
in appropriation acts. Enacting H.R. 2682 would not affect 
direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 2586 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    On December 14, 2011, CBO transmitted an estimate for H.R. 
2682, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act 
of 2011, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 
Financial Services on November 30, 2011. The Financial Services 
Committee version of the bill would make similar changes in 
margin requirements for certain counterparties in swap 
transactions. CBO estimates that the cost to implement either 
version of the legislation would be insignificant.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susan Willie. 
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objections of this legislation are to 
provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the 
Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 
and for other purposes.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    The Committee finds the Constitutional authority for this 
legislation in Article I, section 8, clause 18, that grants 
Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper for 
carrying out the powers vested by Congress in the Constitution 
of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee report incorporates the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopted as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

  Earmark Statement Required by Clause 9 of Rule XXI of the Rules of 
                        House of Representatives

    H.R. 2682 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House Representatives.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 4S. REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF SWAP DEALERS AND MAJOR SWAP 
                    PARTICIPANTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Capital and Margin Requirements.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Applicability with respect to counterparties.--
        The requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and 
        (2)(B)(ii) shall not apply to a swap in which a 
        counterparty qualifies for an exception under section 
        2(h)(7)(A) or satisfies the criteria in section 
        2(h)(7)(D).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                    SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

TITLE I--REGULATION OF SECURITIES EXCHANGES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 15F. REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF SECURITY-BASED SWAP DEALERS 
                    AND MAJOR SECURITY-BASED SWAP PARTICIPANTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Capital and Margin Requirements.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Applicability with respect to counterparties.--
        The requirements of paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and 
        (2)(B)(ii) shall not apply to a security-based swap in 
        which one of the counterparties to the security-based 
        swap is not a financial entity as described in section 
        3C(g)(3), and such counterparty is eligible for the 
        exception under section 3C(g)(1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    For the past year, our Committee has held several hearings 
and listened to a host of stakeholders who are concerned about 
how the Dodd-Frank Act is being implemented with regard to 
improving oversight and accountability in derivative markets. I 
recommended patience and caution for those seeking to change 
the law. It is premature to move on legislation until we see 
the final rules. Looking at the Dodd-Frank rules that have 
already been finalized by the CFTC, it is safe to say that, so 
far, the CFTC has done a pretty good job.
    When we crafted the derivatives title in this Committee and 
on the House floor, we wanted those responsible for the 
financial collapse of 2008, or those who could cause another 
collapse, to back their swap trades with more of their own 
money so the American taxpayer would not have to bail them out 
again. For those not responsible, we wanted them to be able to 
continue to use swaps to hedge the risk associated with their 
commercial businesses.
    Despite our legislative drafting, despite our colloquies, 
despite the letters written back and forth, the Prudential 
Regulators--i.e. the banking regulators--have chosen to ignore 
the intent of Congress. They are instead proposing that end-
users post margin with regard to their swaps with swap dealers 
and major swap participants who are regulated by the Prudential 
Regulators. The CFTC, correctly understanding Congress' intent, 
did not impose any such obligation.
    For some reason, despite repeated requests to the Majority, 
the Prudential Regulators have not appeared before our 
Committee to answer why they have ignored Congress' intent. 
Why? What possible reason do we have to fear from bringing them 
here? Maybe it is to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Despite this 
legislation, the Prudential Regulators--through their other 
statutory power to ensure the safety and soundness of the banks 
under their jurisdiction--have the authority to require those 
they oversee to collect margin on the swaps they enter into, 
even from end users.
    Attached to these additional views are three letters from 
the Prudential Regulators--i.e. the Federal Reserve, the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency--outlining their authorities. While 
these authorities were not previously utilized to require end 
users to post cash margin for their swaps with banking 
institutions, the fact that the Prudential Regulators have 
blatantly disregarded Congressional intent indicates a change 
in thinking among the Prudential Regulators that perhaps such 
margin is necessary. Given the criticism they faced in the 
aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, it is possible they do not want 
fingers pointing at them again should another meltdown occur.
    If such thinking holds, enacting H.R. 2682 into law does 
not guarantee that Prudential Regulators will not utilize their 
other authorities to achieve a similar outcome as suggested in 
their proposed rule concerning margin. I support the intent of 
H.R. 2682 to protect end users from having to meet crippling 
margin requirements for their swap activity. The question 
remains, will it work?
    When crafting financial reform legislation, some of us did 
not want the Prudential Regulators involved in any part of the 
swap regulation, much less setting margin standards; we can all 
see why. If the Prudential Regulators fail to correct their 
error on their own, there is little doubt that the swap market 
will very quickly adjust. We'll see fewer banks in the swap 
dealing business as end users look to non-bank swap dealers to 
meet their risk management needs without having to post margin. 
That would not necessarily be a bad outcome.
    Finally, the Committee approved the Peterson amendment, 
which includes language that should look very familiar to Farm 
Bill veterans. It is the exact same provisions that we 
incorporate in each Farm Bill for implementation of the Title I 
commodity programs. It that context, it exempts USDA from 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and notice and 
comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act.
    With this change, comments can still be sent to the CFTC. 
Anyone would still be able to meet with CFTC officials to share 
their thoughts on how these bills should be implemented. Farm 
groups certainly did not have any trouble sharing their views 
on Farm Bill implementation. Given the openness the CFTC has 
already demonstrated, this provision will not hurt anyone's 
ability to provide input to the CFTC.
                                   Collin C. Peterson.
                                   Joe Courtney.
                                   James P. McGovern.
                                   Chellie Pingree.
                                   Jim Costa.
                                   Peter Welch.
                                   
                                   
