Last week, the House passed on a strong bi-partisan vote a stimulus package to help Main Street America.

But Senate Republicans said no; they were willing to help Wall Street but look the other way for Main Street.

One caller said they were stunned that the Senate included a call for the Securities and Exchange Commission to alter a fundamental way assets are valued.

It is called mark-to-market accounting and let me quote an NPR report.

The Council of Institutional Investors and the CFA Institute oppose a suspension of mark-to-market - also known as "fair value" - accounting because, in their opinion, the rule offers investors transparency.

In other words, suspending the rule is like letting the fox into the henhouse.
The other day I said I voted in favor of the House bailout bill because I trusted Democratic leaders who worked tirelessly to represent Main Street.

I still do, but Senate Republicans changed all that.

When Republicans force a bill that ignores the plight of Americans, but includes so-called sweeteners, that is not worthy of support.

When Republicans force a bill that slips in more earmark spending, that is not worthy of support.

When Republicans force a bill through that includes an accounting gimmick, that is not worthy of support.

The Senate dug an enormous ditch alongside Main Street, and they want the House to drive into it.

That is exactly where the President has driven this economy over seven years.

When Senate Republicans set the agenda, that's just another way of saying they are following the orders of a President who long ago lost the trust of the American people.

That is not how we are going to restore the trust with the American people. And that is why I voted against the Senate Republican bailout.

There is no question that we need a rescue plan, but the Senate has just made matters worse - and that is pretty hard to do in this economy.

Government has a role to play in calming the markets and addressing the economic crisis, but the more we learn, the more convinced I am the latest Senate plan is taking us in the wrong direction.

There are two models that have worked and which should serve as foundation blocks that we can build upon in a short period of time to produce a plan the American people trust and believe in.

During the Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt developed a Home Loan Housing Corporation that stabilized the housing market and helped homeowners work through the crisis.

More recently, in the 90s, Sweden stepped in and assumed temporary control of the financial system, cleaned up the mess and got out.

There are models available that we can use to quickly produce a solution that the American people will actually believe in.

There is a credit crisis in America to be sure, but there is no question today that there is also a trust crisis in America, every bit as damaging and debilitating. We cannot solve the first crisis before we address the second crisis.

Since the current Administration precipitated this, we should be focused on building a foundation for a new Administration to restore the faith and trust of the American people as we work to restore the trust and credit of our financial system.

UPDATE: Here are statements released today by other members of the state delegation.

From Republican Dave Reichert, of Auburn:

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) opposed the Senate-tweaked economic bail-out legislation when it came before the House of Representatives today. The measure, nearly identical to the original version Reichert opposed on Monday, passed by a vote of 263 to 171.

"It is imperative that we act to ensure that middle class families and entrepreneurs have access to credit, so that they can buy homes, put children through college, grow businesses, and create jobs," said Reichert. "There's a better way to get this done than to rush to authorize an unprecedented sum of taxpayer dollars for which we have little assurance that it addresses the real illness in our financial system, and not just a symptom of it. This proposed remedy could be more harmful than the illness.

"In an effort to secure new votes for the bailout, the Senate also added many provisions that other Members and I have long championed, like extensions of the state sales tax deduction, child tax credit, and funding for rural schools. They even tacked on legislation I helped author to aid victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill secure their retirements. But at the end of the day, this remained a vote on a virtually unchanged bailout package that I opposed earlier in the week, and which did not include many of the improvements I advocated for to better protect taxpayer dollars, utilize private capital, and improve oversight of the funds.

Furthermore, to get our economy back on track, we must address our nation's lack of a comprehensive energy policy, skyrocketing health care costs, needs for improvement in education for a strong workforce, stalled trade agreements, and keeping taxes low."

Reichert was pleased that the Senate package included an increase in FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000 that he sought and helped introduce even before consideration of the first bailout bill. He continued to advocate for alternative proposals throughout the week, communicating with House Leadership and other policymakers to call for greater restrictions on the Treasury authority and solutions that employed private capital, not taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, House Leadership did not permit any alternative measures to be considered on the floor prior to the vote.

Reichert spent the week gathering information, evaluating dozens of proposals, and carefully deliberating the package. He met with and solicited input from Republican and Democratic lawmakers, leading economists and financial experts, Treasury Secretary Paulson and senior Administration officials, members of his 8th District Economic Advisory Committee, and heard from thousands of constituents.

From Republican Doc Hastings, of Pasco:

Washington, D.C. - The House of Representatives today approved a $700 billion economic bailout plan. The final vote was 263 to 171. Congressman Doc Hastings voted against the bill.

"The bailout provisions I voted against on Monday didn't change, so my vote against it didn't change.

I reserved judgment on the bailout until last Sunday night when the final package was done and the actual text was made public. After reading the bill late that night, I concluded that it was not a plan I could support. It lacked hard and fast protections to ensure taxpayers don't foot the $700 billion bill, when options for having Wall Street pay were available. It also granted far broader powers over the markets to the Treasury Secretary than had first been discussed and that many are not aware of even today. And I am deeply concerned that this action sends a message to Wall Street and others that if they make poor decisions or take risky gambles that fail, that the taxpayers will be there to foot the bill and bail them out.

I recognize the economic difficulties that businesses and institutions are facing, and like Americans across our country, I'm mad as hell that the reckless actions of Wall Street created this situation. I believe Congress does need to respond and to act to ensure that credit doesn't freeze-up so commerce can continue to flow. Yet, in the stampede to pass a bill, there's never been consideration of, or a willingness to consider, any other options or approaches other than giving $700 billion from the taxpayers to the Treasury Secretary to purchase whatever bad debt he deems necessary. I believe this rush to act has made addressing the economic problem at hand more difficult.

Lastly, my vote today was squarely on the bailout provisions and not the Senate's tax relief additions. If the House were to allow a straight-up vote on the Senate's tax relief extenders bill, I'm certain it would pass and it would have my support. The House could have held such a vote last week, they could hold it today, or even tomorrow. It isn't relevant to the bailout bill and its fate shouldn't be tied to the bailout bill."

U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island:

Washington, DC - Today, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) voted no to a second financial rescue package in the US House of Representatives. Inslee released the following statement after bill passed by a vote of 263-171:

"Our credit challenge is real, but this plan was both inadequate and inequitable."

"It protected neither the taxpayer nor the need to address the underlying reason for this credit crisis -- the collapse of the housing market.

"We are now reaping the bitter wind of the great irresponsibility of Wall Street. It's not enough to have a provision asking for some unidentified President to present some unidentified plan to take back taxpayer money from Wall Street. It was an illusion of protection. We also must do more to help people stay in their homes by addressing the root of this financial crisis, the collapse in the housing markets. We should work for a plan to require that taxpayers get what Warren Buffet gets --- equity."

"I repeat that I am willing to stay here and keep working for a bill that works for taxpayers and addresses the real problem. The fundamental problem is the housing crisis and the effect is it having on American families and homeowners."

"I realize the need to find consensus and I hope this plan works to firm up credit, but this plan is far short of what the American people need."