Click the above picture to watch the floor speech.

 

          Before coming to Congress, I owned a small furniture store – the best and only furniture retailer in all of Westminster, SC.  We only sold furniture; we did one thing, and we did it well.  And before I ran Barrett’s Furniture, I was a Captain in the US Army – a clear job title.  In both organizations, I was taught to keep operations focused and not to expand our mission beyond its initial goals.

 

            So, what does this have to do with the legislation that we’re discussing today?  Unfortunately, this bill is a perfect example of Congress’ bad habit of expanding its initial missions – a habit that brought us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Alternative Minimum Tax.

 

            I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to restore liquidity and stability to America’s financial system – allowing American businesses access to credit so that they could obtain inventory, purchase needed supplies, and make payroll.  I supported this Act to prevent what many experts called “an economic tsunami,”  and I am glad that we have not seen the widespread financial mayhem that was certain had the government not taken extraordinary measures during those extraordinary times. But I think it’s common sense to closely examine how the first $350 billion was used before we even discuss how to spend the next $350 billion.

 

            I agree with my colleagues that the first $350 billion was spent too hastily and haphazardly, and I believe that there was not enough oversight or planning by the Treasury Department for how this money would be used.  I fully support efforts in this bill to improve transparency, oversight, and disclosure of how taxpayer money is being used.

 

But I am extremely concerned, however, that this legislation expands the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program and brings us even further from its original mission - which did not include providing a slush fund to prop up failing corporations or putting politically motivated mandates on private businesses in exchange for government funds.   Unfortunately, this legislation will expand government interference in the private markets even more, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 384.