By Gresham Barrett

Before serving in Congress, I owned and operated our family-run furniture store. What I knew about credit wasn't overly complicated. In Westminster your word is your bond. Integrity and reputation determine your success.

Since first arriving on Capitol Hill in 2003, I have been thrust into a world of finance and budget crunching that seems to defy logic. Spending and borrowing trillions of dollars is commonplace.

There have been difficult decisions along the way. Decisions about war are never easy. Decisions about the spending priorities of our nation are never easy. But I can honestly say the two votes I cast last week concerning the current economic crisis were the most difficult I have taken thus far.

Why? Because principles matter. And because so does policy. When the policy is not first grounded in the principles I hold dear, it is difficult for me to support, but this time it wasn't so cut-and-dried.

When the people of the 3rd District elected me, they entrusted me with the responsibility of representing their interest. They elected me to hear the things no one wants to hear. To weigh the facts no one wants to face. And then to make the difficult decisions, while keeping them at the forefront.

That's what I have always done, and last week was no different.

I listened when the experts came to Congress and described an economic crisis rivaling that of the Great Depression. Those experts created a panic in the streets before allowing viable solutions to be discussed. And, unfortunately, to a large degree tied the hands of Congress before we even started.

The plan the Bush administration put forth was a non-starter. It was equivalent to a blank check in the amount of $700 billion to the secretary of the Treasury to spend as he saw fit. Then H.R. 3997 was brought to the House floor on Monday, and while it was improved, I remained concerned about the lack of free-market solutions included in the legislation. My colleagues and I on the Financial Services Committee and in the Republican Study Committee had put forth viable solutions that helped bring stability back to the markets and liquidity back to the system by allowing the private sector to try to right the ship themselves. But to no avail.

Having served in Congress for six years, I understand the process. With 228 members voting against H.R. 3997, I knew there was an opportunity to include some of the free-market ideas that were previously left out. I again reached out to the Treasury Department, Senate and House leadership, and fellow Financial Service Committee members and pushed for the suspension of capital gains tax, the extension of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch and the child tax credit, a suspension of mark-to-market reporting, an increase of the FDIC insurance, and an auction of assets back to the private sector. After 72 hours of negotiation and discussion, it became apparent that several of the ideas would be included in a new bill, H.R. 1424. My vote against H.R. 3997 and subsequent work thereafter resulted in a new and better piece of legislation.

Looking back over the week, I realize these are the difficult decisions my constituents sent me here to make. I am grateful for the opportunity. I know putting more of the burden back on the financial sector was the right decision. And I know the government needed to give the financial sector some breathing room so it can begin to heal itself. We did not get into this mess overnight, and we will not get out of it overnight. Stabilizing and bringing liquidity back to the market so Americans can feel more secure about their money will take time.

There is no doubt the legislative process is not pretty and not perfect, but understanding how it works can result in a better solution for all. I appreciate the concern expressed by some of my constituents who would have preferred zero government involvement, because principle does matter. And in a vacuum, I agree. But in reality, we face extremely volatile markets and frozen credit with companies throughout my district and state -- large and small -- days or weeks away from not being able to make payroll. So, while the policy was not first grounded in the principles I support, and it is not exactly as I would have suggested, no policy would be disastrous for all.