Melissa Bean

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Village of Third Lake, a town in my district celebrating a milestone anniversary this year. This community has made a unique contribution to the district I represent, and to the State of Illinois. The Village of Third Lake is celebrating its 50-year anniversary. The area of Third Lake first saw growth with the development of Sunshine Subdivision in the late 1920s. In 1959, residents of the subdivision incorporated to control the pollution of the lake. Development emerged once again in the 1980s and continues today as Third Lake has grown into a suburban community. Uniquely, Third Lake is also home to the North American headquarters for the Free Serbian Orthodox Church. Madam Speaker, the Village of Third Lake is unique in its history and adds greatly to the vibrant community of the Eighth District of Illinois. I thank all the past leaders of the Village of Third Lake for their dedication to public service; their community would not have reached this milestone without their hard work and commitment. I congratulate Third Lake for reaching their 50th anniversary and I wish them continued success in the future.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Village of South Barrington, a town in my district celebrating a milestone anniversary this year. This community has made a unique contribution to the district I represent, and to the State of Illinois. The Village of South Barrington is celebrating its 50-year anniversary. Into the late 1950s, the area was still largely agricultural. In 1959, a group of property owners saw the need for a local government and came together to form a village. Following incorporation, South Barrington continued to build and develop. A parcel of land was donated to the Audubon Society of Chicago by Alex Stillman in 1976, creating the 80-acre Stillman Nature Center. Madam Speaker, the Village of South Barrington is unique in its history and adds greatly to the vibrant community of the Eighth District of Illinois. I thank all the past leaders of the Village of South Barrington for their dedication to public service; their community would not have reached this milestone without their hard work and commitment. I congratulate South Barrington for reaching their 50th anniversary and I wish them continued success in the future.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Waukegan, a city in my district that is celebrating a milestone anniversary this year. This community has made a unique contribution to the district I represent, and to the State of Illinois. The City of Waukegan is celebrating its 150 year anniversary. Located 36 miles north of Chicago, Waukegan was first established in 1725 as a trading post known as Little Fort. In 1849, residents approved the name of Waukegan, the Potawatomi equivalent of Little Fort and incorporated in 1859. Waukegan continued to grow through the 19th century as a center of industry--Waukegan harbor was one of the busiest on the Great Lakes and several major railroads traveled through the city. These railroads became indispensable to the larger industries which appeared in Waukegan in the later part of the century. Today, Waukegan is largely a residential community, though has continued its tradition of industry with companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Baxter International, and National Gypsum. Madam Speaker, this city is unique in its history and adds to the vibrant community of the Eighth District of Illinois. I thank all the past leaders of the City of Waukegan for their dedication to public service; their community would not have reached this milestone without their hard work and commitment. I congratulate Waukegan for reaching their 150th anniversary and I wish them continued success in the future.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the underlying bill. While I am opposed to the gentleman from Idaho's amendment, I want to commend him on his leadership on comprehensive financial regulatory reform. We have worked closely on many issues in committee, and I appreciate the expertise he brings to these complicated issues before us. Reforming our financial system is vitally important to creating a functional, sustainable financial system that American families and businesses can count on. We must not fail to enact adequate safeguards so that the mistakes of the past do not reoccur. Topping our to-do list should be the enactment of strong consumer financial protections that will keep our constituents safe as they rehabilitate their trust in our ability to effectively monitor America's financial health. In order to accomplish this goal, we need an independent agency whose sole purpose is to protect and empower consumers to make informed financial decisions. The new CFPA, or Consumer Financial Protection Agency, would go a long way towards that end, restoring vital protections that were absent and duly needed during the buildup to America's recent financial fallout. Since CFPA was introduced in July, the committee has made significant improvements to this bill. One of the initial concerns we heard was that companies who do not engage in consumer financial business would be regulated by the CFPA. We fixed that. Merchants, retailers, doctors, Realtors, and others--some suggested the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker--let's be clear, they're exempt from CFPA as was intended and as they should be. We address concerns we heard from banks and credit unions. Small and mid-size banks and credit unions under $10 billion in assets will not be subject to direct CFPA examination. Instead, there is a requirement now for coordination with the CFPA and the prudential regulator for those who are subject to direct CFPA examination. After the manager's agreement reached this week, the ability of national banks and Federal savings associations to operate under a uniform national standard of rules, where appropriate, is preserved. But functional regulators failed to prioritize consumer protections and protect our constituents.

Ms. BEAN. The CFPA will create a centralized and independent framework, reducing inefficiencies and bureaucracy across multiple agencies. They will have the expertise, resources, and mission to update consumer financial protection laws and protect our constituents from abusive and unfair financial products and services. Mr. Minnick's amendment takes a different approach. What our consumers need is best- in-class protections for investors, and Americans deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support this historic underlying legislation and the CFPA it creates.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. I thank Chairman Frank for yielding. I want to commend him and the committee for their hard work on this Financial Services regulatory reform bill we are considering today. Madam Chair, Chairman Frank's leadership and determination is the reason we are here on the verge of passing the most historic and comprehensive regulatory modernization of our financial system since the Great Depression. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment and in support for H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Included in the manager's amendment is compromise language I negotiated with the majority leader and with the administration to preserve the century-old precedent of national banks and Federal savings associations, which are chartered nationally, to operate, in some cases, under a uniform national set of rules. The manager's amendment addresses key concerns many of my colleagues and I had with the underlying text, which included changes to existing law in preemption standard and judicial deference. The compromise allows for the national bank regulator to make case-by-case preemption determinations on an individual State's consumer financial laws and then apply that determination to categories of State consumer financial laws that have equivalent terms. In addition, the amendment allows States to formally petition the CFPA to improve the Federal consumer protection standards. If a majority of States petition the CFPA by passing resolutions in their respective legislatures, they can require the CFPA to conduct rulemaking. In regard to the underlying bill before us, I want to express my strong support. Reforming our financial system is vitally important to creating a functional and sustainable system that American families and businesses can count on. Last September when we were at the precipice of financial collapse, we promised the American people that we would enact just such comprehensive reforms. This bill lives up to that promise. Passing it will reduce the severity of future downturns or the likelihood of the type of crisis and subsequent bailout that we experienced last year from everything happening again. While there is much to be proud of, I want to emphasize the dissolution authority, which removes any implicit government guarantee or bailout.

Ms. BEAN. This is the antibailout. That means when your company fails, you are fired. There will be consequences for your executives and your shareholders. I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and the underlying bill.

Ms. BEAN. I want to thank Chairmen Frank and Peterson of both committees and the committees for their diligent efforts on derivatives reform and appreciate the conciliatory and open nature in which we have worked on this piece of legislation. I have the honor to serve as the vice Chair of the New Dem Coalition and co-Chair of the New Dem Financial Services Task Force, and derivatives reform is an area where New Dems have worked diligently with both committees of jurisdiction. I want to specifically recognize the hard work of Mike McMahon, who drafted the New Dem derivatives bill in July, and recognize Jim Himes and Scott Murphy, whose private sector experience and perspective was so constructive. The New Dems, our caucus and our country, have benefited greatly from their thoughtful and knowledgeable insights. Lacking and lagging regulation of OTC derivatives was a major contributing factor to last year's crisis, including the highly leveraged credit default swaps at AIG that prompted government intervention. For the first time, we are going to regulate the over- the-counter derivatives market, which is a multitrillion dollar unregulated market. This amendment brings necessary transparency by requiring that all derivatives will be exchanged, traded, cleared, or reported, and it gives regulators the tools they need to effectively oversee this industry. This amendment and underlying bill attempts to strike the right balance that will bring transparency and accountability to the derivatives market while preserving the ability of end user businesses to legitimately hedge their risk in order to protect their businesses. We are taking an important step today in moving forward with strong regulatory reform legislation that will better protect our financial system, our economy, and the American taxpayers. To my colleague across the aisle who suggested that the underlying bill would create a loss of credit or jobs, I would question whether he's been paying attention to the loss of jobs and credit following the financial crisis last year. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and the underlying bill.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, due to an illness in my immediate family, I was unable to cast votes October 20 thru 23, 2009. If I had been present I would have cast the following votes: Rollcall 790--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3763: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 791--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 3319: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 792--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 558: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 793--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to S. 1793: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 794--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 811: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 795--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 837: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 796--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 660: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 797--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to S. Con. Res 43: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 798--H. Res. 846: On ordering the previous question Agreed to: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 799--H. Res. 846: Providing for consideration of H.R. 3585: On agreeing to the resolution: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 800--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 797: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 801--On Broun Amendment to H.R. 3585: ``No.'' Rollcall 802--On Kaptur Amendment to H.R. 3585: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 803--On Klein Amendment to H.R. 3585: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 804--On Titus-Teague-Cohen Amendment to H.R. 3585: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 805--On Heinrich Amendment to H.R. 3585: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 806--On Himes Amendment to H.R. 3585: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 807--On Passage of H.R. 3585: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 808--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 175: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 809--H. Res. 853: On ordering the previous question: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 810--H. Res. 853: Providing Consideration for H.R. 3619: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 811--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and agree to H. Res. 836: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 812--On Kratovil Amendment to H.R. 3619: ``Yes.'' Rollcall 813--On Passage of H.R. 3619: ``Yes.''

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. I thank the Chair for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment and the Small Business Financing and Investment Act of 2009. I want to commend Chairwoman Velazquez and the subcommittee Chair, Mr. Schrader, for their hard work on behalf of small businesses across the country. As a former small business owner, I appreciate the challenges entrepreneurs and small business owners face in gaining access to the capital that they need to grow their businesses. This summer, I held a roundtable with Illinois businesses and the SBA to discuss these challenges. That's why I have long supported measures to improve and expand SBA loan programs, which offer low interest, long-term loans to creditworthy community business owners. In the last Congress, I authored similar legislation, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act, which passed the House in 2007. The expedited consideration of H.R. 3854 underscores both the importance and urgency of assuring access to capital for our small business community. Simply put, the U.S. cannot promote economic recovery without small businesses, as they are the engine of job creation and innovation in our Nation. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did a great deal to provide lending and investment. Since the bill's enactment in February, the SBA has supported $13.4 billion in small business lending, and weekly loan approvals have increased by 75 percent. That said, the SBA's capital access programs aren't equipped to meet current needs. H.R. 3854 brings long-awaited updates and improvements to SBA's lending initiatives, most importantly, preserving the original intent of these programs to help make affordable sources of financing accessible. This legislation raises the cap on 7(a), 504 and ARC loans. It directs the SBA to target capital towards communities hard-hit by the recession and towards industries that hold the most promise for American innovation and competitiveness. The measure also streamlines the loan application process and makes it easier for small and community lenders to participate in the programs. I am particularly pleased that a provision that I authored enabling staffing company franchises to qualify for SBA programs was included in the manager's amendment. Supporting the temporary staffing industry is important now more than ever as temporary positions provide a lifeline to many workers in a constrained job market. Their market growth also serves as an early indicator of emerging job markets towards broader recovery. My provision directs the SBA to continue applying its historically considered affiliation factors when determining a business' independence so that franchisees are not penalized. I would like to thank Chairwoman Velazquez for including this provision in the manager's amendment. H.R. 3854 provides the tools to help small businesses access capital, create jobs and fuel our economy as we move forward. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act and encourage its passage. Earlier this Congress I introduced H.R. 1267, ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Act of 2009, which provides legislative authority to the Navy and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to jointly operate the new ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center.'' In the other body, Senator Dick Durbin has been working to include similar language in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act. After completion, the Lovell Federal Health Care Center will be the first health care facility in the nation to be operated jointly between the VA and the Navy saving taxpayers millions of dollars that would otherwise have been needed to rebuild or renovate the Navy's nearby hospital. Without this legislation, the Center will not be able to provide essential services to thousands of military beneficiaries in the region. Beneficiaries who had previously received care at the Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes would either be ineligible for care or would charged a significant co- pay for certain care, including emergency, hospitalization, outpatient, and behavioral health services. The facility is scheduled to begin joint operations on October 1, 2010. While my legislation was not included in the underlying bill, it is my understanding that Senator Durbin will be able to include similar language in the Senate NDAA. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate on its inclusion, and encourage passage of the underlying bill.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, I submit the following in recognition for their service as past municipal mayors and presidents in the 8th District of Illinois: Bill Gentes, Round Lake Scott Gifford, Deer Park Keith Hunt, Hawthorn Woods Dick Hyde, Waukegan Tom Hyde, Island Lake Cindy Irwin, Fox Lake Dorothy Larson, Antioch Catherine Mechert, Bartlett Ted Mueller, Hainsville Rita Mullins, Paltine Timothy Perry, Grayslake Virginia Povidas, Lakemoor Salvatore Saccomanno, Wauconda John Tolomei, Lake Zurich.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding contributions of the outgoing village presidents and mayors from the Eighth District of Illinois. In April, following municipal elections and retirements, many of our local leaders left office, including Bill Gentes from Round Lake, Scott Gifford from Deer Park, Keith Hunt from Hawthorn Woods, Dick Hyde from Waukegan, Tom Hyde from Island Lake, Cindy Irwin from Fox Lake, Dorothy Larson from Antioch, Catherine Mechert from Bartlett, Ted Mueller from Hainesville, Rita Mullins from Palatine, Tim Perry from Grayslake, Virginia Povidas from Lakemoor, Salvatore Saccomanno from Wauconda, and John Tolomei from Lake Zurich. Their long-standing service embodies what leadership is all about. Our mayors often serve as the voice of our local communities and are the closest contact for many residents on government issues. I thank them all for actively representing their cities and in their dealings with my office on Federal issues. I have enjoyed working with each and every one of them and wish them the best of success. They have assisted our office in better serving our communities and all Illinois families.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 345, H. Res. 545, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1728. As an original cosponsor, I want to commend Chairman Frank for his leadership and also thank Mr. Watt for working with Congressman Castle and me to refine the qualified mortgage safe harbor to ensure that traditionally safe, stable loans are included. Today's bill follows up on the important work this House did early last Congress. Unfortunately, despite the strong bipartisan support of that bill, the Senate failed to act. I am hopeful that this year's bill will more swiftly move through the Senate and to the President's desk for signing into law. H.R. 1728 brings mortgage lending back to reality. It will ensure that mortgages are fully underwritten, income is properly documented, and borrowers have the ability to make their payments. The subprime mortgage crisis that we continue to deal with today wouldn't have happened if we had not relaxed bedrock principles of sound lending and underwriting. The bill requires lenders to keep some skin in the game for the loans they originate by requiring them to retain 5 percent of the loan value when they seek to securitize a mortgage in the secondary market. This concept of risk retention was endorsed by the New Dem Coalition as part of our Reg Reform Principles in February of this year, and we're pleased to see it included in the bill. I'm also pleased that it maintains a provision I wrote last Congress regarding the disclosure of negative amortization loans. Negative amortization occurs when unpaid interest gets added to the principal balance of a loan. Some borrowers enter into products with negative amortization not realizing that they're adding to the cost of their mortgage each month instead of paying principal down. The underlying bill requires lenders to disclose to borrowers if their loans allow the practice and requires credit counseling from a HUD-certified credit counseling agency for first-time borrowers considering such a loan. All of our constituents want better consumer protections and simpler disclosure of mortgage terms. They want homeownership to mean qualified borrowers make their payments, build equity, and keep their homes. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank to you my colleague, Congressman Capuano for leading this Special Order tonight. I wanted to just kind of go back and share with those who are listening tonight that when I came to Congress, I was elected in 2004, I came in 2005. I asked to serve on the Financial Services Committee. I had no idea at that time that it would be the busiest committee in 2009 as we've worked to address the economic downturn, the likes of which we certainly haven't seen in my lifetime. But to reflect back on that history, what I was so pleased to discover, because we talk a lot about partisanship in the media and there's a feeling that there's never any working together in Washington, is I came to the committee in 2005 under the chairmanship of Republican Mike Oxley and Ranking Member Barney Frank, and they demonstrated what work together really means. It was a committee that put partisanship aside. Both leaders of both parties recognized hard work and good ideas; it didn't matter which side of the aisle it came from. They worked hard to find common ground. And I was very happy to be there and learned a lot from Chairman Oxley and respect him, as I've also come to see that Chairman Frank, as he took the gavel in 2007, has continued in that tradition. It's exciting to see what's possible in committees when ideas prevail over ideology. As I mentioned, it's been a busy committee, and we haven't slowed down. And we have a chairman that's very deliberative and consensus- driven. Unfortunately, when Chairman Frank took the gavel in 2007, he was faced with some serious challenges. The subprime mortgage crisis, the issue of bringing proper oversight to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he really stepped up to those challenges. In fact, prior to that, we'd already been working. In fact, prior to the recent problems with the mortgage crisis, in 2007, we immediately passed legislation to address the subprime crisis and, in fact, Chairman Frank made sure that we passed robust oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That did pass and become law. Unfortunately, the mortgage reform went to the Senate, where it did not move and get to the President for signature and did not become law. And we are now, just this week in committee, and, in fact, today, we were marking up another mortgage reform bill that we'll be bringing forward, and we're more hopeful that the Senate and the President will act on that and it will become law so that we can eliminate the lending practices of the past that introduce too much risk to the system and set up people to fail. It's not home ownership if you're only there for a little while and ultimately can't make your payments. We have to move beyond the lack of due diligence and proper underwriting standards that allowed no doc, low doc loans, drive-by appraisals, triple A rated securities that really weren't triple A that contributed to an economic downturn of not just systemic proportions domestically, but international ramifications. And we're continuing to work hard on those issues. We've worked to address foreclosure avoidance. We've worked to address the credit crisis. And all of this has been led by a chairman who continues to respect good ideas, regardless of which party they come from. I find it interesting that many have chosen to demonize particular individuals in the Congress, or suggest that one Member, particularly when he served in the minority, somehow could bring the downfall of Fannie or Freddie or our system in general, when, in fact, well, for over a decade, many on both sides of the aisle talked about the need for proper oversight to these large institutions, Fannie and Freddie. And yet, it wasn't until Chairman Frank had the gavel that we actually moved from rhetoric to resolution and passed that resolution in the House so we could bring that oversight. Unfortunately, by the time it did pass, it was too late to preclude government takeover of these institutions. Let me move on to a couple of other areas that we've been working on in committee and, again, where there's been effort to work together. Let's talk about the TARP funding. One of the things that I was impressed with was that when past President Bush came and Secretary Paulson at the time came to Congress requesting funds to support greater stabilization of our financial institutions, Chairman Frank didn't hesitate to bring some sincere bipartisan effort to the equation. He didn't accept the request as it was, which was, essentially, a blank check. He demanded greater accountability and more specific definition of the purpose of those funds, and has continued to fight to improve that ever since. But what he also didn't do is he didn't lay blame. He didn't step back and say, that's another party's problem. He brought constructive solutions forward. And that's what we all need to do in this body if we're to address the challenges we continue to face. We've had countless hearings, not only in the past Congress, but in this Congress, to address issues about agency abilities and lack of abilities; if you look, for instance, at the Madoff scandal and the SEC's inability to have addressed that long before they finally did and when it was too late. We've had hearings about the AIG fallout and does that bring about the need for a greater Federal role in insurance regulation. We've had hearings about systemic risk and how we can bring a greater authority to have an umbrella oversight beyond the functional regulator so we can determine where there might be risks in the system that, in a future downturn, could do what happened recently, affecting all of our businesses, our families' savings for retirement and for college, reducing the values of our homes. And we need to avoid that type of systemic fallout when we have future downturns, which we're always likely to have in normal cycles. We've talked about providing resolution authority so that, as the FDIC has been able to wind down failing banks in a way that has not been disruptive to businesses and families who are depositors of those banks, but to reorganize those institutions in a way that doesn't bring further panic to the system, we don't have, and our Federal Government doesn't have, clear authority relative to someone like an AIG or other institutions that don't fall under FDIC's ability to do that. So as we continue through these hearings and continue our hard work, I think it's important that we focus on solutions and not playing the blame game. This is my fifth year in Congress, and I've never come to this floor to attack an individual or a party, and I don't ever intend to do that. But I thought it was important to come, at least call it as I see it and lay the record more clearly where there have been those who have cast blame clearly in the wrong direction. Many economists are telling us this is the worst crisis we have seen since the Great Depression. We have been forced to make hard choices, and we are going to continue to make hard choices. And we are going to make some mistakes along the way, but our intent needs to be, on a bipartisan basis, that we roll up our sleeves, we work together, and we find the best solutions possible. I am glad that on the Financial Services Committee we have a chairman and a ranking member who both step up to bring that kind of leadership in the continued tradition that was here when I came in 2005 under Chairman Oxley and then Ranking Member Frank. I am glad to be on that committee and will continue to do my part. I will mention one other thing. I happen to vice chair a coalition that's called the New Dem Coalition, which is a pro-growth caucus. And we have been very focused on pro-growth, pro-innovation solutions to some of the challenges that we are facing. I also happen to chair the task force for the NDC on Financial Services regulatory reform. And I have also appreciated the chairman's deliberative approach and feedback to some of the suggestions we have made to him for committee consideration relative to regulatory reform. We are focusing on regulatory performance. Clearly, the SEC's inability to determine that there was a problem that ultimately resulted in the Madoff Ponzi scheme suggests that we don't need more regulation, but better regulation, and a greater degree of best practices in the agencies who should be accountable for it. We are also working on addressing issues of market stability and transparency, making sure that we bring to the table some counters, or countercyclical mechanisms to offset the pro-cyclical nature of our system as it occurs currently, which has contributed to repeat cycles of booms and busts and booms and busts. And we need to be more prescriptive in working with our regulators to ensure that they consider and have the flexibility to weigh in on things relative to capital requirements. So as we see a bubble in formation, maybe increasing some of those requirements so as to encourage some deleveraging where clearly we were overleveraged. Conversely, when we are in a precipitous downfall, as we have all experienced recently, that is probably the time that the regulator should have the ability to consider easing up on those capital requirements so it doesn't require forced selloff of other equities as it did when we had the mortgage crisis, which created a more systemic-wide problem. We have to improve consumer and investor protections. And so we look at things like the credit default swap market, which has been roughly a $62 trillion unregulated market that left many counterparties out there and ultimately required Federal intervention to assist AIG in their downturn. Those are the kinds of things that we are working on. And we don't have all the answers, but we are working together on a bipartisan basis to find those solutions--and had a late night dinner this week. Those are the kinds of things that we are going to have to continue to do to bring real solutions to the table and help create an environment so that our businesses and our families are on a solid foundation that supports sustained growth as we turn our economy around. Thank you. And I yield back.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that I have authored with my colleague from New York, Congressman McMahon.

Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, like many of our colleagues and constituents, we were outraged by bonuses paid to those who brought down AIG and the economy along with it. Today's bill allows the Secretary of the Treasury to disallow unreasonable bonuses to employees of TARP recipients. Our amendment recognizes, as did Ranking Member Bachus's just a few minutes ago, that some financial institutions who did participate in the TARP program did so because they were asked to by the Treasury or wanted to provide additional loans, not because they needed it or had failed in their businesses. While they expected compensation limits for top executives, they did not expect to be disallowed from providing bonuses company- wide. The underlying bill allows for an institution to be free from the bonuses and compensation restrictions once it returns the entire direct Federal investment back to the government. This carries the risk of unintended consequences that could harm the very taxpayers we seek to protect. First, if major financial institutions seek to exempt themselves from these restrictions by returning all of the Federal Government's TARP investment at once, they may need to raise capital through a major sell-off of equities or other assets. This kind of pressure on the market was a big contributor to the market crash last fall, and we should seek to avoid turning back the clock. Second, if they were to pay back too quickly, their financial well- being could be jeopardized and could add instability to our credit markets. This amendment is a commonsense approach, excepting companies who adhere to a repayment program as defined by the Treasury. Over 500 financial institutions have received a direct capital investment up to this point. Four major institutions have begun to pay back their TARP investments, and many hope to do so making taxpayers whole again. Forcing institutions to return the money at once could decrease lending significantly and could further destabilize our economy. At the same time, those companies that do not agree to a repayment plan would be subject to bonus limits on unreasonable bonus payments. I now would like to yield 2 minutes to Congressman McMahon from New York.

Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I have left?

Ms. BEAN. I will reserve.

Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, in response I would say that it's the Treasury that gets to decide what type of repayment plan, whether that's a long repayment or a short repayment. We had considered putting a monthly or quarterly limit on it, maybe six quarters on it, but I would trust the Treasury's judgement to make sure that it would be done in a way that doesn't destabilize our markets. And with that, I will yield back.

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 50, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Ms. BEAN

Ms. BEAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 3, which would eliminate an essential tool for our government to maintain stability in our financial markets during this time of economic strain. Last fall, this Congress faced a difficult decision. We were asked to provide the Treasury with $700 billion to stabilize the financial markets. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the U.S. economy was on the verge of collapse if we did not act. Fortunately, Congress wisely put stipulations in place to protect taxpayer dollars. We also instructed the Treasury to provide foreclosure avoidance resources. Most important, we withheld half of the TARP money to allow Congress to review the use of the first half before releasing further funds. While it was vitally necessary to stave off the collapse of our Nation's financial system and remains so today, I appreciate the frustration many of my colleagues and Americans have with the execution thus far of the TARP program. Of particular concern, the past administration did not follow congressional instruction to utilize a portion of funds to address rising foreclosures. There have been many changes in strategy taken by Treasury and the Federal Reserve in response to evolving economic challenges that are not well understood. These actions have lead to a perceived ineffectiveness that stems from confusion in both the process and purpose of these funds. The TARP was intended to provide tools to stabilize our financial system to prevent collapse. It was not intended to be used as an economic stimulus. However, without it, the congressional stimulus package that is pending would have diminished effectiveness. And our Nation continues to face unprecedented crisis that requires quick and decisive action. We can and should provide the new administration with the resources to both stabilize our financial system and reduce the foreclosures that continue to undermine it. Yesterday, we passed H.R. 384, which directs the Obama administration to act with greater transparency and accountability on how our funds are being used to stabilize markets and provide multitiered options to foreclosure avoidance for creditworthy families.

Ms. BEAN. In 2008, 8,200 homeowners filed for foreclosure each day. One in six homeowners are currently upside down, meaning that their mortgage debt exceeds current home value. Currently, 45 percent of real estate on the market is foreclosed properties, which continues to depress home values and adversely impact average Americans who want to refinance or sell their homes. In addition, slumping consumer spending is driving many retailers and small businesses under. And as they vacate their properties, commercial foreclosures will likely increase. That means even more toxic assets on the books of our financial institutions, further limiting credit. And U.S. banks continue to write off enormous losses, and several are reporting severe fourth quarter losses. Given this data, it would be irresponsible for this Congress to deny the new administration the tools needed to prevent a further collapse of our markets and credit availability. Without these tools, the upcoming stimulus will have a reduced effect in igniting economic growth. I urge my colleagues to oppose today's resolution to disapprove the release of these funds so American families and businesses can count on our financial system in the future.