Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

Legal Research

: New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

Following Bailout Legislation

By David Badertscher, PLL

<p><font size="2">The following e-mail received this morning from Gallerywatch.com includes the following comments from their operations about following the bailout legislation:</font></p><span lang="EN"> <p><font size="2">I'm sure you all have clients who are pretty anxious about the bailout bill so to preempt some of your questions here is how the vote in the House is gonna go down.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The House is taking an old tax bill (the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act, H.R. 3997) striking the bill and inserting an amendment(</font><a target="_blank"><font size="2">http://us.gallerywatch.com/pipefile.asp?type=pdf&sid=AGDOC:35170:docs%2Fnew s%2FUS%2Fagdocs%2F35170%5F110%5Fhr3997%5Famnd%5Fsamnd%2Epdf </font></a><font size="2">) which is identical to the bill we had up labeled as the final version of the bailout bill with the only difference being that one was set up as a new bill whereas the link above is set up as an amendment. The House will "move to agree to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with and amendment (which is above) pass it and send it over to the Senate. The Senate will then vote on that amendment either Monday (possible, but doubtful) or Wednesday (most likely). That will clear the bill for the president to sign.</font></p> <p><font size="2">So, bascially, if you have people following the bailout, they'll want to watch H.R. 3997.</font></p> <p><strong><font size="2">More Recent Information from the CongressNow Staff:</font></strong></p> <p><font size="2">Financial Services<br/>Rules Rejects Democratic, GOP Amendment Requests in Teeing Up Monday Bailout Vote<br/>By: Charlene Carter<br/>CongressNow Staff<br/></font><font size="2"><font><b>Sep 29, 2008 1:27 AM<br/></b><br/>In preparation for a House vote Monday on a massive financial markets bailout bill, the House Rules Committee on Sunday night approved by voice vote a closed rule that would provide three hours of debate on the measure. The committee rejected proposed amendments made by members of both parties at the Rules hearing.<br/><br/>A closed rule prohibits lawmakers from offering amendments to the bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted that the bill was frozen and would not have any further changes made to it.<br/> <br/>Three hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, is scheduled for later this morning. The rule waives all points of order against the bill.<br/><br/>The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (H.R. 3997) would provide the proposed $700 billion in rescue funds in increments. The Treasury secretary would first receive $250 billion to begin purchasing bad mortgage-backed assets. Another $100 billion would be available on the president s authority. Congress would review the program after the first $350 billion is disbursed. The Treasury secretary must account for all purchases of assets for every $50 billion spent.<br/><br/>The final $350 billion would be provided to the Treasury Department if the president submits in writing a request for the funds. Lawmakers would have 15 days to deny the request.<br/><br/>The bill also includes accountability and oversight provisions, taxpayer protections, mortgage foreclosure relief, as well as limits on executive compensation.<br/><br/>During the late-night Rules Committee hearing, lawmakers wary of the consequences of the measure voiced concerns about certain components of the bill and offered amendments that were ultimately rejected.<br/><br/>Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) sought to include in the rule an amendment that would bar the Treasury secretary from purchasing assets from a financial firm unless it was owned by a U.S. entity as of Sept. 20. Sherman wants to bar foreign nations from trying to sell off their bad debt to the federal government.<br/><br/>Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) sought permission to offer an amendment that would increase the amounts the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. insures on deposit and retirement accounts. Currently, deposit accounts are insured up to $100,000 and retirement accounts are insured up to $250,000. Shays said that those limits have not been raised since 1980, and he wants to increase the insured amount on both types of accounts to $300,000. <br/><br/>Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) asked the Rules Committee to approve an open rule to provide open debate on the measure.<br/><br/> If we had more time to devote we would have another piece of legislation, Kucinich said.<br/><br/>Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) offered a motion to provide an open rule for the bill, but it was rejected by voice vote. Dreier offered a second motion that would have amended the rule to allow the Minority Leader or his designee to offer an amendment, but it was also defeated by voice vote.<br/><br/>Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) voiced concerns about not including language in the bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a primary residence mortgage loan as a way of preventing foreclosures. She wanted offer an amendment to add language to the bill stating that it is the sense of Congress that they should review the bankruptcy code. She also wanted to offer an amendment that would have mandated that the Treasury secretary use $125 million of the $250 billion toward foreclosure mitigation efforts.<br/><br/>Jackson-Lee also wanted to offer an amendment that would have removed language in the bill that bars judicial intervention of the Treasury secretary s asset purchases. Jackson-Lee also wanted to include in the rule an amendment that would make those convicted of a crime or malicious malfeasance ineligible for the asset purchase program. Another amendment would have established a commission modeled on the one created to study the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to investigate the causes of the economic crisis. </font><br/><br/></font></p></span> <p><font size="2"> </font> </p>

Full post as published by New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library on September 30, 2008 (boomark / email).