U.S. Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL-13)
H.R. 3997, the Financial Industry Bailout Bill
As Prepared for Delivery
September 29, 2008
Mr. 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 compelling. Our economy faces great risks, and I agree wholeheartedly that the government must intervene in a big way to restore stability. But the plan 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 could be entirely funded by risk-based premiums levied 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 mistakes.
In addition, we outlined a tax proposal that would have injected billions into the private market, restoring liquidity and credit availability 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. And there are other, equally good ideas that we have yet to explore. For example, the former Chair of the FDIC presented us this morning with new options to reform our banking regulations in a way that will have an immediate positive impact on the financial industry. But instead, Democrat leaders have only agreed to attach a watered-down version of the insurance proposal to the same 700 billion dollar 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 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’m just not convinced that we have taken the time to really come up with a strategy that truly protects the taxpayers. This plan says that in five years, if we are seeing losses, the President has to submit a plan to Congress to recoup those losses from Wall Street. But how many times have we seen a concerted lobbying effort stop such proposals in their legislative tracks. In 2005, Fannie and Freddie killed a proposal that I supported to increase regulation on those entities. And look where we are today.
Mr. Speaker, we can and should do better. Main Street Americans deserve no less. |