Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlewoman very much. Thirty-seven years ago, I stepped off a plane here, and it was my first visit in my life to Washington, D.C. I had never been here before, and I was sworn in as a Congressman on my first visit to this city 37 years ago. I am so proud to have been a Congressman here in this Chamber along with all of you. For me, the House is democracy in action, all of us declaring our love of country and our desire for a better future for all of our constituents and for our Nation. I am honored to have served here. I am blessed to have made so many wonderful friends here. And I am humbled by the dedication of all of you to this great Nation. As I have represented Massachusetts, so too have each of you represented your States with your conscience. I now go to serve in the Senate, but there is a big part of me that will always be a man of the House after 37 years having served here in this great body. With that, for the last time, I say: Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for holding this Special Order. It is truly right and fitting that we honor this legislative giant, this man who represents everything that this institution is all about. I have served with Mr. Dingell for 37 years on the Energy and Commerce Committee. It has been an honor every day to serve with him. I want to tell you two stories about Mr. Dingell. A few years ago, the Energy and Commerce Committee was made a part of a conference committee that was going to create something called Farmer Mac, which was a new security that was going to be issued. Mr. Dingell and I were not happy that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had been exempted from the Securities and Exchange Commission jurisdiction. We were not happy. And so I arrived a little bit late to this conference, which was an Agriculture Committee conference with the Senate. I arrived and I sat next to Mr. Dingell. At the time, I was the chairman of the Securities Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Dingell had been doing all the negotiating. He turned to me about a half hour into the conference and just wrote out a note and passed it over to me. I read the note, and Mr. Dingell got up and left the room. So I continued to negotiate on behalf of Mr. Dingell and the Commerce Committee. At the end of the day, we won everything that we were looking for. Farmer Mac securities were going to be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It wasn't going to be like Freddie Mac. It wasn't going to be like Fannie Mae. And so at the end of the conference, I just took the piece of paper and crumbled it up and threw it into the wastepaper basket and I walked out of the conference room. About an hour later, we were out on the House floor and Kika de le Garza, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, came over to me and he had the piece of paper that was crumbled. He had actually gone into the wastepaper basket to see what was on the note that Mr. Dingell had passed to me. And here is what the note says, as Kika de le Garza is reading it to me. It said: Mr. Markey, we have just won the first two out of three issues with the Agriculture Committee. Do not give an inch to them on the third issue. And we did not. Chairman de le Garza looked at me and said, You Commerce Committee guys, you're not like the other people here in the House. And that was John Dingell. It was an important issue. It was ensuring that the Securities Exchange Commission would in fact monitor these securities. By the way, would we have not been better off all along than allowing these agencies to escape the scrutiny which they deserved? And so that then brings me to the second little story. The seven most feared words ever uttered in Congress are words uttered by John Dingell as a witness is sitting at the table waiting for questioning, and those seven feared words are, ``I am just a poor Polish lawyer.'' Because that's the beginning of a very bad day for a witness as Mr. Dingell asks for explanations on detailed questions without any mercy shown to an unprepared witness. For me, it's an honor to be here to honor John Dingell, who is still at the top of his game, still able to perform those same type of cross- examinations of witnesses as they tremble, knowing that this legislative giant is about to cross-examine. I thank him for his service. I thank the wonderful Debbie for giving him to us for his service here. I thank him for the honor of being able to serve on that committee for 37 years with a legislative legend who will go down in history. One of the first things he wants you to know when you got on that committee was that there was a map of the entire world--the globe--over his head; and he just wanted us to know, as we got on the committee, that that was the jurisdiction of the committee--the entire planet. And that is how he acted as that giant over all those years. It was an honor to have served with you.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill being considered today, H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act. Although couched as an innocuous bill to ensure that US banks have clarity about how swaps and derivatives trades are to be managed between U.S. and non-U.S. entities, in reality this bill will significantly impede efforts to apply strong regulations on Wall Street banks trading in these financial products. The size of the global swaps market is staggering. According to the Bank for International Settlements, at the end of last year, the total notional value of outstanding over-the-counter swaps was over 632 trillion dollars. Again, 632 trillion dollars. In comparison, the gross domestic product of the entire United States was just 15.1 trillion dollars at the end of last year. The swaps market is over 40 times larger than the entire U.S. economy; in fact, the swaps market is 10 times larger than the entire global economy. This market is also truly global in scope. Many of our major Wall Street banks, such as J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, have significant foreign subsidiaries. Bank of America alone has subsidiaries in approximately 40 countries. Given the massive size of this market, we need the strongest possible rules over swaps transactions in foreign subsidiaries that could adversely affect U.S. banks and bank holding companies. Unfortunately, this bill will prevent our primary regulator of the swaps market, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, from finalizing strong regulations. The CFTC has spent years crafting strong rules governing cross-border swaps and derivatives and has received a large amount of industry input on these rules. The most recent draft was circulated on May 16, 2013. If this bill passes, that entire process will be stopped in its tracks, even as the rules are supposed to be finalized within the next 30 days. Enacting this bill now is tantamount to tripping the CFTC at the finish line. Even beyond the poor timing of this bill, the bill will substantially weaken the CFTC's ability to regulate the global swaps market. Under the text of H.R. 1256, the CFTC and the SEC are to jointly release rules governing cross-border swaps. Yet, as part of that rulemaking, the CFTC and SEC are required to assume that a foreign person in compliance with the regulations of any of the nine largest combined swap jurisdictions is also in compliance with all U.S. swaps rules. Given that the United States sets the global standard in financial matters, this provision effectively makes all global swaps rules only as strong as the rules of the weakest country among the nine largest jurisdictions. In other words, it will prompt a regulatory race to the bottom, which is a recipe for disaster. Have we learned nothing from the excesses of the Bush Administration, when financial deregulation allowed excessively risk derivatives driving a financial market collapse? Just five years after that experience, this is a bill that allows for increased deregulation of some of Wall Street's most dangerous financial products at a time when we need more regulation of swaps. It was only one year ago that J.P. Morgan experienced its ``London Whale'' fiasco, where bad decisions by J.P. Morgan personnel in London resulted in New York based J.P. Morgan taking a loss of $6.2 billion. No one in senior management, risk, legal, or compliance was aware of the risks or liabilities being assumed by people in the London office. Yet, if CFTC's cross-border swaps rules were in place, maybe that disaster would not have happened. U.S. based swaps dealers are increasingly fragmented, and we need strong central rules to minimize the risk of swaps trading causing another financial crisis. At a time when we are just four years removed from the worst recession since the Great Depression, a recession sparked by insufficient regulation of the swaps market, this bill is the wrong solution for the wrong problem at the wrong time. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1256.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to Representative King's amendment offered last week to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2014, H.R. 2217. This amendment would restrict the use of funds to finalize, implement, enforce or administer the Memo authorizing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or Dream Act-eligible youth. This amendment punishes young individuals who are Americans in every way but on a piece of paper. Brought to this country through no fault of their own, these students are striving to educate themselves and contribute to the country that they know as home. Targeting them with limited immigration enforcement funding is unwise, thoughtless and just plain wrong. Just two months after the Marathon bombings, we should have voted last week on a straightforward bill that funded the department of Homeland Security, a bill that assisted the agencies that performed so bravely on that tragic day. It is an important bill. It keeps us safe. The legislation also included my bipartisan amendment to prevent knives from being brought onto planes for the first time since September 11, 2001. However, by passing this amendment targeted at the DREAMers of our country, Republicans attacked everything our country stands for as a beacon of hope for a better life. That is why I voted against this amendment. This language should be stripped from the final version of the bill. We need to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. That is why I will keep up that fight for a better life for immigrants and for all Americans.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Protection from Rogue Oil Traders Engaging in Computerized Trading, or PROTECT, Act. I am introducing this bill because we need some common-sense rules and regulations on this growing element of trading. High speed traders are pursuing increasingly creative and potentially risky strategies, and if we've learned anything from the last decade, it's that Wall Street shouldn't be left to experiment without some regulatory supervision. High speed trading, better known as high frequency trading, is trading driven by computer algorithms that place buy and sell orders automatically. Once set in place, these algorithms run until they are taken offline, and they can be programmed to trigger trades by just about any event: by a commodity's price ticking up several trades in a row, by small differences in the price of a commodity between different exchanges, even by the appearance of certain key words in social media. These algorithms operate at terrifically fast speeds--they can trigger trades in milliseconds or even microseconds. As Futures Magazine reported back in 2011, ``the main activity of HFT is speed. While some such algorithms exist, the majority of high-frequency traders are making a bet like everyone else and attempting to gain an edge through speed.'' High frequency trading is becoming the dominant form of trading in our commodity futures markets. Prior to 2006, the New York Mercantile Exchange did not even allow electronic trading to occur while the markets were open. Yet, high frequency trading has exploded over the last seven years. According to one estimate by Sandler O'Neill and Partners L.P., high frequency trading was responsible for 47 percent of trade volume in futures markets in 2008 and now generates 61 percent of futures market volume. That's a torrid increase in only a few years, and it occurred despite commodity prices crashing during the 2008 financial crisis. High frequency trading is changing the composition of our markets, and it's imperative that regulators have the ability to keep up with that change. Twenty-three years ago, I authored and helped enact the Market Reform Act of 1990, which gave the Securities and Exchange Committee the power to regulate practices that caused excessive volatility in our equities markets. As I informed former SEC Chairman Elisse B. Walter in January via letter, I believe the Market Reform Act empowers the SEC to take steps to regulate high frequency trading in equities. In response to my letter, the SEC confirmed that the Market Reform Act provides a ``valuable source of authority'' regarding excessive volatility and that the Commission is contemplating using it and other authorities to regulate high frequency trading in the equities markets. Unfortunately, the rising role of high frequency trading in futures has not been fully appreciated until recently, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission does not currently have explicit authorization to regulate high frequency trading in futures. As a result, the only protection we have at present is Wall Street's willingness to self-regulate. And as we all viscerally experienced during the last six years of a financial crisis and devastating recession prompted by risky Wall Street investments, when Wall Street's experiments blow up, Main Street catches on fire. The PROTECT Act will ensure that CFTC has the power to step in when necessary to protect Main Street companies and consumers from trading explosions caused by high frequency trading. This bill requires all futures traders making use of high frequency trading to register with the CFTC. It mandates that futures traders using high frequency trading technology establish reasonable safeguards on their systems. It prohibits simultaneous purchase and sell orders for the same commodity contract in significant quantities using high frequency trade technology. These so-called ``wash trades'' can be used to manipulate markets and generate an artificial appearance high levels of trading activity are occurring. It empowers the CFTC to establish rules and regulations on high frequency trading to address fraud, manipulation, or disruptive practices or that are otherwise ``in the public interest.'' And it raises penalties for market manipulation from $140,000 for companies to $10,000,000 or triple the total amount of proximate losses. Given that our futures markets involve trillions of dollars in trades, it's critical that the scale of the penalties match the size of the market. High frequency traders are racing to develop ever more sophisticated technology because a technological advantage in this field can be worth millions of dollars. Yet, the commodity markets do not exist just for a few firms dabbling in high frequency trading--they are important tools for hedging and price discovery, and we should not allow the market's proverbial tail to wag the dog. Moreover, the actions of a few Wall Street HFT firms do not just affect Wall Street. High frequency traders can exact a hidden tax on other market participants by inserting themselves between buyers and sellers, and portions of that tax are then passed along to consumers. And when our markets crash, retirement accounts can be depleted, businesses can go bankrupt, and people can lose their jobs. As the CFTC says on its website, ``The CFTC's mission is to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices and systemic risk related to derivatives that are subject to the Commodity Exchange Act, and to foster open, competitive, and financially sound markets.'' It is critical that the CFTC have the power to regulate high frequency trading so that rogue traders do not get in over their heads and damage the rest of the economy. The PROTECT Act will ensure that some common-sense rules can be set over high frequency trading in our futures markets, and I urge all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this critical legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 179, Final Passage of H.R. 3: Northern Route Approval Act (Keystone XL Pipeline), my vote is not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this bill, H.R. 1062, the so-called SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. This bill provides an extremely detailed list of factors that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will have to consider from now on in its rulemakings: every available alternative to a proposed regulation, market liquidity in the securities markets, and even whether the regulation ``is tailored to impose the least burden on society, including market participants, individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other entities (including State and local governmental entities).'' Yet, I notice that one phrase is missing from this list: investor protection. Back in 1937, then SEC Chairman, and later Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas noted that: We have got brokers' advocates; we have got Exchange advocates; we have got investment banker advocates; and WE are the investor's advocate. That historically always has been the role of the SEC--to serve as the investor's advocate in our nation's securities markets. That is why Congress established the SEC, and why Congress has expanded its duties and responsibilities over the years. The goal of investor protection was similarly an animating force behind Democrats' efforts in the 111th Congress to enact the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. Any bill that asks the SEC to look at myriad factors when developing regulations but not investor protection is off-course from the starting block. It's a bill whose compass is broken. Yet, this is not just a bad bill. It's an unnecessary bill. Back in 1996, during the first Congress under Republican control in forty years, Democrats and Republicans came together to enact the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. This bill was authored by a conservative Republican from Texas (Rep. Fields), and supported by the then Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Bliley of Virginia). It was also supported by the Ranking Democrat of the Committee (Mr. Dingell) and myself. As I said at the time, ``when the history of this Congress is written, there is no question that this securities overhaul and the telecommunications overhaul will be at the top of the list in terms of constructive, productive use of this Congress.'' Among the reforms in this bipartisan bill was a requirement that: ``Whenever pursuant to this title the Commission is engaged in rulemaking, or in the review of a rule of a self-regulatory organization, and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, the Commission shall also consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.'' The 1996 Act, which is current law, therefore makes sure that the SEC already is required to consider impacts on efficiency, competition and capital formation whenever it utilizes its inherent rulemaking powers to determine if an action is in the public interest. But part of the deal that we reached back then on a bipartisan basis was that such an analysis could not be utilized to override the primary goal of the federal securities laws: investor protection. I see no reason why this House should throw out a good, bipartisan law for a clearly inferior update. Yet, it is worth asking: given the requirements of existing law, exactly what purpose does this bill before us today actually serve? I believe that this question has only one answer: to tie the SEC's hands and make it effectively impossible to release rules that help protect investors from depredations of rogue traders or dishonest Wall Street brokers. When Democrats in Congress enacted Dodd-Frank in 2010, we frequently included in that Act mandates that the SEC and other agencies issue various specific rules to regulate Wall Street. In many cases, Congress effectively gave the SEC a full, detailed directive for regulatory action and simply ordered the SEC to implement it. An example of this process can be found in Dodd-Frank Section 1504, which mandated in great detail how the SEC should promulgate a rule to require that companies disclose in their annual securities filings any payments they made to governments in connection with natural resource extraction projects. Notably, in many of those Dodd-Frank rules, Congress did not ask the SEC to consider the costs and benefits of a rule, because we in Congress already did so during the legislative process. This bill makes that kind of legislating impossible. If this bill becomes law, any rulemaking mandated by Congress must receive cost benefit analysis, and if the costs are deemed by the SEC to outweigh the benefits, the rulemaking cannot be released. And such outcomes--which should really be called agency vetoes, because they allow an agency to override a congressional mandate--are likely to happen because of the unfair playing field this bill sets up. Under this bill, the SEC will always have to consider the monetary costs to firms and liquidity, but the more amorphous dangers of not regulating--the risk of market crashes, the risk of bubbles, the risk of financial crises--are much harder to estimate. And even if the SEC does manage to get a good rule, by ordering the SEC to create an established record of why the options not taken might also be worthwhile, this bill forces the SEC to create a blueprint for Wall Street firms to fight the regulation in court. This bill will make what is already a difficult fight to protect Main Street from Wall Street even harder. One thing is certain--this bill strongly biases the SEC against any regulation to protect investors regardless of the issue, and at a time where the American People are crying out for more regulations on Wall Street, not less. We need to ensure that the SEC continues to be the ``Investors'' Advocate.'' I therefore strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of the victims of the terrorist bombings that struck the City of Boston during the 117th running of the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. I rise also in prayer for the recovery of all those who were injured in this horrific attack and to honor the heroism of the responders to this tragedy. Krystle Campbell, a resident of Arlington in my Congressional District and graduate of Medford High School, lost her life at the Boston Marathon finish line doing what she loved to do: support other people. She was 29 years old, just a few weeks from her 30th birthday, with a lifetime of helping more people ahead of her. Krystle's annual pilgrimage to the marathon represented who she was, says her family. When people needed support, Krystle was there. When her grandmother needed help following surgery, Krystle moved in with her for two years to help her recover. Krystle's smile, hard work, and constant happy demeanor is what her family and friends will miss. But most of all, they will miss what she was always known for: being there when you needed her, being a joyful, active participant in the lives of her family and friends. In our grief, we know that Krystle is still there, still cheering all of us on, still there in our hearts. Today we honor her memory and the joy she brought to so many lives. Martin Richard, an eight-year old boy from Dorchester, Massachusetts, had his entire life ahead of him. He loved to play sports, draw pictures, and was dearly loved by his family, friends, classmates, and community; Lu Lingzi came to the United States from China to study statistics at Boston University. She posted to her friends that morning of April 15th that she was enjoying her day. Lu Lingzi reminds us of our common humanity, and that these senseless acts of terrorism are crimes that have no borders. In the seconds, hours, and days following the bombings, Massachusetts and the nation witnessed the courage, dedication, and sacrifice of law enforcement officers and other first responders. Officer Sean Collier of Wilmington, Massachusetts, gave his life, the ultimate sacrifice, during this ordeal. Sean was an outstanding officer of the MIT police force on his way to a position on the Somerville police force. Yesterday the Somerville Board of Aldermen unanimously voted to posthumously name Sean Collier a Somerville police officer. Somerville's Mayor Joseph Curtatone said ``This person was exemplary as a public servant and a human being. He would have been an outstanding member of the Somerville Police Department.'' Officer Collier was on his regular shift, protecting the students at MIT, when he was assassinated by two twisted individuals as Officer Collier sat in his police cruiser. We mourn his loss, along with his family, the MIT community, Massachusetts, and Americans everywhere. Officer Collier was known by his family, friends, and co-workers as a generous, kind, and dedicated individual and officer. His friends say he was always armed with a sense of humor, and his roommate who trained with him at the academy said his only fault was that he was too brave. Officer Collier represents the best of Massachusetts and of law enforcement. We honor his memory and know that his life of service and sacrifice will never be forgotten by Massachusetts or the nation. In the early morning of Friday, April 19, 2013, after a week of searching for suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, and just hours after an MIT officer had been assassinated, Massachusetts law enforcement spotted and engaged the two brothers who were accused of committing the bombings. The officers who exchanged fire with the two brothers were met with heavy resistance by the suspects. 200 or more rounds of ammunition are reported to have been fired on the corner of Dexter and Laurel Streets in Watertown, Massachusetts, in my congressional district. The bombers also hurled explosives at the officers, turning a city street into a battlefield. One officer of the MBTA police force, Richard Donohue, Jr., was struck in the leg during the firefight. He likely did not know then, but his academy classmate and friend, Sean Collier of the MIT police force, was the officer felled by the bombing suspects hours earlier. Officer Donohue of Woburn in my congressional district raced to help his fellow officers--not a surprise for an officer known as an avid runner and a dedicated public servant. His family notes that his great- great-grandfather even won the Boston Marathon, where Officer Donohue started his week working a shift at this iconic race. Officer Donohue is being cared for in the hospital, with his family by his side. An entire Massachusetts family of citizens remains forever in his debt for putting his life on the line to keep us safe. We mourn the innocent victims who lost their lives on Patriots Day at the Boston Marathon: Krystle Campbell, Martin Richard and Lu Lingzi. We grieve for Office Sean Collier, who was killed by the bombers as he protected the students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). We pray for the recovery of MBTA Police Officer Richard Donohue, Jr. and all those injured in the blasts. We honor the heroism of all of our police officers, fire fighters, medical staff and other emergency responders. We will never forget. We will always remain ``Boston Strong''.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, parev, pari yegak (Hello, welcome!). I am very proud to represent Watertown, Massachusetts in Congress. Watertown has the third highest percentage of Armenian-Americans of any community in the Nation. I am also a proud member of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues led by Representatives Pallone and Grimm. The Armenian-American community is one of the greatest success stories in this Nation's history. I was meeting recently with a group of my Armenian-American constituents to discuss some of the current issues affecting US-Armenian relations and I commented that in my experience, I have never met an unsuccessful Armenian! As an Irish-American, I know what it is like to come from a troubled land. My grandfather and grandmother came to Boston from Ireland in 1902. Just as the core of the Irish-American community was formed out of the refugees of the Potato famine and the Irish Civil War, the core of the Armenian-American community was formed from those who fled the Genocide and their descendants. Today, we remember and commemorate the Armenian Genocide, the first of many genocides we saw in the 20th Century. The Armenian Genocide that began in 1915 is sometimes called the ``forgotten genocide,'' but we must never forget! I was proud to be present at the opening of the Armenian Heritage Park in Boston in May of last year. This beautiful park and its haunting monument are a lasting testament to the 1.5 million Armenians who were slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire. This monument reminds us that we must be ever vigilant and not allow such horrors to occur again. In order to prevent future genocides, however, we must recognize those of the past. For many years the U.S. House of Representatives has had before it a resolution which clearly affirmed that the Armenian Genocide did occur. I have been a strong supporter and vocal cosponsor of this resolution in every Congress, and I remain so today. Almost one-hundred years have passed since the Armenian Genocide, yet the suffering will continue for Armenians and non-Armenians alike as long as the world allows denial to prevail. Already, 43 states and 22 nations have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide, and it is long overdue for the United States to do the same. Unfortunately, the Republic of Armenia's challenges have continued even after it gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In the face of ongoing blockades from Turkey and Azerbaijan, the United States must provide assistance to Armenia while working to reestablish the Turkish government's commitment to normalized relations in order to ensure peace and stability in the Caucasus region. I strongly support these efforts. The Armenian people are true survivors. Despite the reappearing themes of invasions and land loss that the Armenians have dealt with for over 3,000 years, coupled with the loss of between one-half and three-quarters of their population in the early 20th century, the people of Armenia have prevailed. The journey of the Armenian people continues today, with our shared responsibility to ensure that the Armenian people are able to build their own, independent and prosperous future. I look forward to continuing to work with the Armenian-American community to address the issues facing this longtime friend and important ally of the United States. Together we can continue to build something positive, something hopeful, something good for the future-- an Armenia that is respected and honored by its allies and neighbors. And this cannot come without universal acknowledgement of the horror that was the Armenian Genocide. Shnorhagal em (Thank you).

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in the early morning of Friday, April 19, 2013, after a week of searching for suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, and just hours after an MIT officer had been assassinated, Massachusetts law enforcement spotted and engaged the two brothers who were accused of committing the bombings. The officers who exchanged fire with the two brothers were met with heavy resistance by the suspects. 200 or more rounds of ammunition are reported to have been fired on the corner of Dexter and Laurel Streets in Watertown, Massachusetts, in my district. The bombers also hurled explosives at the officers, turning a city street into a battlefield. One officer of the MBTA police force, Richard Donohue, Jr., was struck in the leg during the firefight. He likely did not know then, but his academy classmate and friend, Sean Collier of the MIT police force, was the officer felled by the bombing suspects hours earlier. Officer Donohue of Woburn in my congressional district raced to help his fellow officers--not a surprise for an officer known as an avid runner and a dedicated public servant. His family notes that his great- great-grandfather even won the Boston Marathon, where Officer Donohue started his week working a shift at this iconic race. Officer Donohue is currently still in critical condition at Mount Auburn Hospital. His family has been at his side, and a Massachusetts family of citizens remains forever in his debt for putting his life on the line to keep us safe.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in the seconds, hours, and days following the Boston Marathon bombings, Massachusetts and the nation witnessed the courage, dedication, and sacrifice of law enforcement officers and other first responders. One officer, Sean Collier of Wilmington, Massachusetts, gave his life, the ultimate sacrifice, during this ordeal. Sean was an outstanding officer of the MIT police force on his way to a position on the Somerville police force. Officer Collier was on his regular shift, protecting the students at MIT, when he was assassinated by two twisted individuals as Officer Collier sat in his police cruiser. We mourn his loss, along with his family, the MIT community, Massachusetts, and Americans everywhere. Officer Collier was known by his family, friends, and co-workers as a generous, kind, and dedicated individual and officer. His friends say he was always armed with a sense of humor, and his roommate who trained with him at the academy said his only fault was that he was too brave. Officer Collier represents the best of Massachusetts and of law enforcement. We honor his memory and know that his life of service and sacrifice will never be forgotten by Massachusetts or the nation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Krystle Campbell, a resident of Arlington and graduate of Medford High School, lost her life at the Boston Marathon finish line doing what she loved to do: support other people. She was 29 years old, just a few weeks from her 30th birthday, with a lifetime of helping more people ahead of her. Krystle's annual pilgrimage to the marathon finish represented who she was, says her family. When people needed support, Krystle was there. When her grandmother needed help following surgery, Krystle moved in with her for two years to help her recover. Krystle's smile, hard work, and constant happy demeanor is what her family and friends will miss. But most of all, they will miss what she was always known for: being there when you needed her, being a joyful, active participant in the lives of her family and friends. In our grief, we know that Krystle is still there, still cheering all of us on, still there in our hearts. Today we honor her memory and the joy she brought to so many lives.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 47, the Senate's bipartisan, comprehensive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that passed 78-22. I look forward to the House passing this crucial bill later today and sending it to the President. The House Republicans delay in bringing this bill forward is inexcusable. It should have been the law of the land last year. Why did they delay it? In no small part because of their concern over recognizing tribal authority to protect Native American victims of domestic violence, even though Native women are victimized at a rate that is more than twice the national average. I stand with the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest tribal organization in the country, in opposing the Republican substitute amendment and supporting the Senate version. It is well past time that Congress recognizes the inherent power of tribal nations to protect their own and hold criminal offenders, regardless of race, accountable. Indeed, I stand with all women of this country to say ``no more.'' No more delay in reauthorizing this bill. No more escape for those who attack women. No more violence against women.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Halt Index Trading of Energy Commodities, or HITEC, Act. I am reintroducing this bill, which was H.R. 5186 in the previous Congress, with Representative DeLauro because urgent action is still needed to protect our nation's oil and refined product commodities markets from artificial and excessive levels of volatility caused by the trading practices of certain Wall Street traders. Since 1991, Wall Street investment banks such as Goldman Sachs have created and marketed a new financial product known as commodity index funds, which are really energy speculation funds, gasoline gambles. These energy speculation funds track the financial performance of one or more commodities. If a speculation fund has an investment in oil and the value of oil goes up, then the value of the fund goes up; if the value of oil goes down, the value of the speculation fund goes down. These investments have had an adverse effect on the operation of the markets for the commodities that comprise the funds. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in various energy speculation funds, artificially inflating the prices of our commodities. While these energy speculation funds may be driving up prices for many different commodities, they are having an especially pernicious effect on energy commodities. According to testimony submitted to the House Natural Resources Committee, excessive speculation added nearly $1.00 to the per gallon price of gasoline last spring, and energy speculation funds appear to have been largely responsible. Due to the activities of these energy speculation funds, Wall Street investment banks have profited by introducing new and unprecedented levels of volatility and speculation into oil and refined product markets. Energy speculation funds have changed the very nature of our commodities markets. Traditionally, the commodities market was dominated by companies who actually used the commodities to hedge the business risk associated with oil or refined products prices. Large oil, gasoline, diesel or jet fuel consumers such as airlines, trucking firms, and shipping services were the largest participants in these markets. Indeed, in 1996, companies who actually bought oil on the commodities market so they could use it owned 93% of the oil futures or derivatives in that market. Now, however, these companies only own 37% of the oil futures or derivatives in that market. The bulk of the remaining 63% is owned by speculators who have invested in these energy speculation funds, none of whom will actually use any of the oil or natural gas in which they have invested. Given how much these energy speculation funds have hurt consumers and business, one might at least think that these energy speculation funds are good investment vehicles. Yet, all evidence is that they have provided mediocre returns in recent years. According to the Wall Street Journal, Standard and Poor's popular GSCI index provided just .08% in annual returns in 2012, far below the returns of the S&P 500. Worse, in 2011, the returns from the GSCI were actually negative. Unsurprisingly, institutional investors like pension funds are moving away from investing in energy speculation funds: Not only do they hurt average Americans and business, but they do not even provide excellent returns for their investors. In truth, the only group of people who seem to be benefiting from the existence of these funds is Wall Street. Despite only being 22 years old, energy speculation funds have already had a profound impact on our country. They have increased the size of our commodities market. They have increased the volatility of our commodities prices. They have hurt consumers' wallets and small businesses by making them pay more at the pump. They have slowed the growth of our economy by requiring that we devote even more money to energy instead of creating new jobs. They do all these things, and they do not even provide much benefit to their own investors. These energy speculation funds are a danger to our economy, our financial system, and the average American's wallet. The HITEC Act will restore order to our energy commodity markets and end this experiment. The bill will ban all new investment in energy commodities like light sweet crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, and gasoline by these commodity index funds from the date of enactment. The day the President signs this bill, energy speculation funds will not be allowed to grow any more if they count speculators among their investors. Existing energy speculation funds that continue to count speculators among their investors will then have two years to wind down their investments. As the average length of a ``spot'' commodity contract is one year, this should allow energy speculation funds that continue to house speculators more than enough time to wind down their investments in a fair and orderly fashion. This bill does not prohibit energy speculation funds from investing in agricultural commodities like wheat or corn, nor does it prohibit those funds from investing in metals such as gold. The bill also does not implicate trading of electricity in any way, shape, or form. Instead, this bill just prohibits energy speculation funds from interfering with our energy commodities, a market that determines the prices for the fuels that power our economy. This bill will end an unnecessary and harmful source of excessive price volatility that has only served to benefit Wall Street traders and has harmed our economy by pumping up oil, gasoline, and other refined product prices. Enactment of this legislation will address one major source of the pain American consumers have recently been feeling at the pump, and I once again urge all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this critical legislation.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. I rise in opposition to the rule. From Cape Cod to Cape Ann, New Bedford to Newburyport, Massachusetts' fishing families are hurting. I, along with the gentlemen from Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney and Congressman Keating, offered three amendments to this bill to restore disaster funding for fishermen in Massachusetts and around the country. And to those three amendments, the House Republicans said no, no, no. The House Republicans have cut a lifeline to our struggling Massachusetts fishermen. The Republicans in Congress are telling Massachusetts fishermen to take a long walk off a short pier. The economic disaster declared for parts of the New England fishery industry last year was in large part a result of the same forces that made Superstorm Sandy so damaging--the forces of climate change. It hit New York, it hit New Jersey, it hit Massachusetts. Climate change is increasing temperatures; it's raising sea levels; it's strengthening storms. That means more stress on New England's iconic cod and other species. I support getting help to the people of New Jersey and New York and Connecticut, but we cannot forget the other Americans who suffered last year. The fishermen of Massachusetts, the fishermen of our country cannot be forgotten. This bill says no to them, no to their needs. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady. I yield myself such time as may remain in the hour. Since my time is about to expire, I would ask if it were possible for the gentleman from Indiana to be able to yield 5 minutes to me as the opening part of his Special Order.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor two great Members of the Massachusetts delegation who are departing. The first, John Olver. John Olver is a public service powerhouse, a transportation titan inside of this institution. He has a Ph.D. in science; but as he came to this institution, he became a scientist who became a statesman, and we were honored to have him in our delegation and in this Chamber. He was an avid outdoorsman, but he was ahead of his time in bringing attention to this Chamber for our consideration of the impacts of climate change, the need to protect our natural environment, the need to raise science as it affected the planet. He arrived in Congress in 1991. His service on the Appropriations Committee helped rebuild our country's infrastructure and resulted in critical investments in transportation. At the same time, he was always an incredible advocate for his constituents, for their industries, and for the way of life of western Massachusetts. He was a very special Member of this institution. He began his career in the Massachusetts State Legislature. He has dedicated the largest portion of his life to serving the public, to serving ordinary citizens; and he is going to be sorely missed. He made a huge difference in the lives of the people of Massachusetts and our country. And I just want to say that from our entire delegation and from the entire Congress, he is definitely going to be someone who is irreplaceable in this institution. At this point, I would like to reserve the balance of my time and to recognize the gentleman from western Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman so much. I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mike Capuano.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I turn to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman, and I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. MARKEY. We thank the gentleman from Salem. I recognize the gentlewoman from Lowell, Ms. Tsongas.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady, and I yield to the gentleman from Worcester, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. I yield such time as she may consume to the leader of the Democratic Party, the gentlelady from San Francisco, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. MARKEY. If Barney Frank were down here, none of this would have happened in terms of the understanding of the parliamentary procedure. He was up there trying to grab the imaginary microphone so he could clarify the parliamentary situation. I will conclude this part just by saying, again, that John Olver has been for us just an invaluable colleague. He taught all of us so much about our own districts. The other Members have mentioned it, but when he sat down with us talking about transportation, he explained our own districts to us in terms of what was possible and what was needed. On climate change, I've talked to him over 20 years about the issue. He was on this issue in the early 1990s and probably understood it even before then. He is that smart. He is that visionary in terms of the issues that are central not just to Massachusetts but to our planet. And it has been my great honor to have served with you, John, and to have called you my friend and my colleague over all of these years. We all thank you so much for what you have done for us and done for the country. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much. Now, on Barney Frank, Barney Frank is at the same time the smartest Member and the wittiest Member of the United States Congress. That is quite a double to be able to pull off. He has a nuclear power plant for a brain. There is absolutely nothing that he cannot recall when he needs it here in this legislative process. Now, over his career, he is usually right, but too soon for many people to be able to accept. That is how far ahead he was on so many of the issues which we worked on here in the House of Representatives. His political philosophy is, if you want to negotiate, he wants peace. He would love to negotiate with you. He knows that he will out-negotiate you. But if you want political war, he enjoys that, too, because he does not see it as a sprint but as a marathon heading towards that day when the truth will ultimately prevail. When he was in the State legislature, when I served with him, when we had monumental battles on whether or not to reinstitute the death penalty in Massachusetts, whether or not we were going to have a black senate seat in Massachusetts, it was Barney Frank who led the efforts to sustain the veto that would make sure that our State would still be the leader in progressive causes. Here in Congress, the debate on NATO burden sharing, the way Barney would frame it for people is, we helped these people, it's now late into the last century and into this century, and we can't any longer take from the poor people's programs in this country in order to, in fact, pay for the defense of Europe. It was time for Europe to pick up their own fair share of the burden. The same thing was true with fighting for fishermen. The same thing was true with issue after issue out here on the House floor. Dodd-Frank, which was debated right here on the House floor, the same place where Abe Lincoln was trying to get the votes to abolish slavery, same seats, Barney Frank led the effort to create the new financial services constitution for the 21st century in not just the United States but on the whole planet. And there were some provisions that were so important, that is, creating a Consumer Protection Bureau, that they would rather have Elizabeth Warren as a Senator than have her be the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau inside of Dodd-Frank, and that's just a small part of the totality of that bill. Barney's message always was to stand up and have courage. Stand up for what's right, even if you don't win early. He has been a parliamentary and a substantive cop on the beat walking around here on the House floor, using the microphone as his nightstick in order to make sure that nothing happened here that was wrong would go uncommented upon so that people would know what should have been happening. Back in the Massachusetts legislature in the early seventies, the mid-1970s, Barney decided to make amendments on gay rights. Discrimination was rampant, but no one was raising the issue across the country. And so we started to have votes in the Massachusetts legislature. Barney was on the losing side. He knew he would lose early on. But, ultimately, those defeats led to the victories which we talk about today. Out here on the House floor, Barney was the lead opponent of the Defense of Marriage Act. He knew that even if he was on the wrong side, he was going to stand up and make sure that everyone else knew ultimately what the right side would look like. There was one day I was standing right here at this microphone, and I was talking about oil subsidies that I felt were unjustified, and I said: Giving a subsidy to an oil company recording record profits would be like subsidizing a fish to swim or a bird to fly. You just don't have to do it. I was feeling quite good about myself. I finished, and I just walked over here, and Barney stood up and came over to me, and he said, you know, you didn't finish that. And I said, finish what? Well, the whole stanza: Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly. I'm gonna love that man till the day I die. That man is Jim Ready, and Barney is now married to him. It's because of his efforts in making it possible to change the culture in our country that Barney is going to love that man until the day he dies. But it took a lot of courage, and it took a lot of foresight to know that that day would arrive. So, yeah, and Nancy Pelosi said it--the Mount Rushmore of Massachusetts: Congressmen Tip O'Neill, Joe Moakley, and Barney Frank. He's going down in history. And we all know it. On so many different fronts, he changed the way America thinks. And it's quite a gift that he had and that he gave to the country. So for both of them, it has been just an enormous privilege for all of us to serve with you, and I think everyone on both sides of the aisle knows that there was greatness in our delegation and that it was an honor, John and Barney, to have been able to serve with you for all of these years. Thank you all so much.