Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Floor Speech

EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008 -- (House of Representatives - September 29, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to this massive bailout of Wall Street. I understand why many of my colleagues are inclined to support it; the urge to act now and do something--anything--to restore investor confidence is very compelling.

Our economy faces great risks, and I agree wholeheartedly that the government must intervene in some way to restore stability. But the plan that we are considering today is not what my constituents want, it's not what's best for the average American taxpayer, and it's not what's best for this economy.

As a member of the working group assigned by GOP Leader BOEHNER to explore alternatives to a massive taxpayer-funded bailout, I was very pleased this weekend when we were able to develop a very realistic, workable alternative option to shore up these mortgage-backed securities. We took a long, hard look at the market and saw that a government-backed insurance plan could go a long way toward returning market value to many of these assets. It would address the market's aversion to these investments, and it would be entirely funded by risk-based premiums leveled on the holders of the assets, not taxpayers.

Our premise for this plan was and remains that Wall Street should pay for Wall Street's mistake.

In addition, we outlined a tax proposal that would have injected billions into the private market, restoring liquidity and credit available on Main Street America. By temporarily removing the disincentive to repatriate, or bring back to America, profits made by American companies overseas, we could open the floodgates of capital into our marketplace.

These are ideas that can work. But instead leaders have only agreed to attach a watered-down version of the insurance proposal to the same $700 billion bailout that the administration originally proposed. It creates an insurance purchase option for financial firms but then offers them the alternative of free taxpayer money. I wonder which one they will take?

I'm very pleased that this plan has been improved over the past few days, especially the provisions limiting golden parachutes and allowing the public to share in the profits that may be made. But I am not convinced that we have taken the time to really come up with a strategy that truly protects the taxpayers.

Let's take another look. Maybe we should start over. We discussed looking at the S and L crisis. The administration discounted that. Let's go back and look at the FDIC and doing away with mark to marketing. Instead of banks using fair value accounting, the SEC should use true value, giving immediate positive impact on the financial industry.

Madam Speaker, we can and should do better. Main Street Americans deserve no less.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source