Congressman Burgess responded to my last letter.

Dear Mr. Henry:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the emergency financial package that continues to be debated in the House of Representatives. I appreciate hearing from you on this very important matter.

Congress was only given a small window of time to consider a very expensive program with long term financial implications. It was not right, it was heavy handed, and we were correct to question the bill before the House. We must determine the government's ability to intervene and the taxpayer's right to object to payment. Congress must shape this compromise to focus on taxpayer protections without losing sight of this opportunity to reorganize and upgrade our regulatory barriers. In doing so, we will encourage a system more adaptable to 21st century financial markets and more protective of tax payer exposure.

This will require major surgery to excise this financial cancer from our system. Just as importantly, we need to provide the preventive medicine to stop any future occurrence of this dire situation.

Legislative time must be spent shoring up systems designed to protect American consumers. First and foremost, modifications to ensure fair value accounting within banking institutions such that mortgage backed securities that continue to have value are not arbitrarily deemed to be without worth. Additional provisions should included an increase in FDIC protection; an end to "naked" short selling (short selling stock without actually possessing it); and modifications to ensure "fair value accounting" within banking institutions; and finally by telling Wall Street to pick up the tab that resulted from reckless speculative investments tied to the housing market.

Let us remember some of the lessons from prior economic difficulties and consider reinstituting flexibility within the FDIC that help provide troubled banks additional backing if they do appear to be ultimately viable. Congress should approve a "net worth certificate" similar to what was enacted in the 1980s for the savings and loan industry. This action resolved $100 billion insolvency in the saving banks for a total cost of less than $2 billion. The FDIC should purchase net worth certificates in troubled banks that the FDIC determines can be viable if give more time.
Although I disagreed with the emergency package in its current form, I do believe Congress has a responsibility to act and act swiftly. Regulations can only be effective if the regulators do their job. Unfortunately the government entities responsible for regulatory authority over financial markets never exercised the proper oversight. These are complex 21st century financial instruments that require compulsive adherence to existing regulation. Since they were not up to the task, taxpayers are faced with the moral hazard of bailing out a well paid, sophisticated group of institutional investors who were well aware of the risks and benefits of investing.

This process is far from concluded. Once a legitimate compromise is offered that limits the expense, fixes the problem, and restores accountability to the system, I will be ready to offer my support. "Too big to fail" is a phrase our government should use only once and only when looking in the mirror.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. House of Representatives. Please feel free to visit my website (www.house.gov/burgess) or contact me with any future concerns.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Member of Congress
I think I need to call b***s*** on this one Congressman because I see where the bail out bill passed.
I have seen several calls for the entire Congress to be overhauled if this bill passes. I think that is an excellent idea. Our current Congress is mired in scratching the backs of one another and Washington establishment instead of taking care of us, the American citizen.