[Chamber] Bank Support Act

[Flamelord]

We concur with the others, and refuse to allow Brazil to suffer because of legislative deadlock. As we failed to do so before, the Federal Union Party (93) votes Yes on the amended bill

[Luc]

We concur with the others, and refuse to allow Brazil to suffer because of legislative deadlock. As we failed to do so before, the Federal Union Party (93) votes Yes on the amended bill

Sebastião do Rego Barros, President of the Chamber of Deputies

Delegate, voting is not yet in order! Have we reached a conlcusion with this bill?

[Red John]

To clarify, the representatives of the Workers and Peasants Bloc believe that the bill has bipartisan support such that we motion for a vote. We are willing to debate the bill further if the Liberal Democrats wish to present an argument for or against portions of the bill, but merely stating an objection without substantiating it in any way does not, in our opinion, constitute a debate, and the Liberal Democrats have not exactly shown interest in engaging in such.

Our apologies - esteemed colleague. We were sadly tied up in other matters, like reading the enticing arguments made in bills like the Ilhas Malvinas bill - and of course the Bill to legalize cannabis. You would forgive us, we hope, for not responding.

We oppose the addition of an audit in this bill because to us, it is completely unnecessary. This is a bill to support the banks first and foremost - there is absolutely nothing to suggest an audit is necessary, and the additional administrative strain it would place upon the state outweighs any potential benefits. To be clear, we are not opposed to an audit at a further date - but we are opposed to the addition of such a clause in this particular bill, and if we move to voting with this as it is, we shall be opposed.

[acecipher]

To clarify, the representatives of the Workers and Peasants Bloc believe that the bill has bipartisan support such that we motion for a vote. We are willing to debate the bill further if the Liberal Democrats wish to present an argument for or against portions of the bill, but merely stating an objection without substantiating it in any way does not, in our opinion, constitute a debate, and the Liberal Democrats have not exactly shown interest in engaging in such.

Our apologies - esteemed colleague. We were sadly tied up in other matters, like reading the enticing arguments made in bills like the Ilhas Malvinas bill - and of course the Bill to legalize cannabis. You would forgive us, we hope, for not responding.

We oppose the addition of an audit in this bill because to us, it is completely unnecessary. This is a bill to support the banks first and foremost - there is absolutely nothing to suggest an audit is necessary, and the additional administrative strain it would place upon the state outweighs any potential benefits. To be clear, we are not opposed to an audit at a further date - but we are opposed to the addition of such a clause in this particular bill, and if we move to voting with this as it is, we shall be opposed.

We find two exceptions to this criticism, and have one positive affirmation in its support.

The first is the undue strain on the Ministry of Finance, and based upon our textural interpretation of the bill. The relevant language in the bill as such is this:

The Ministry of Finance is authorized to undertake audits of financial institutions who accept funding, to be conducted after funds have been dispensed.

We read this passage as authorizing the Ministry to undertake audits at its discretion. It does not sound like it is obliged to undertake the audits to us. If the Ministry is under strain due to the audits it needs to undertake, that would be something you should direct not towards this Chamber but towards the President.

Furthermore, as to our second point, the Audits are to expose flaws in the financial institutions themselves. It is critical that our financial institutions be healthy--as those in our northerly neighbors were not prior to their collapse. While we may support them now, if they are deathly ill, then they will fail eventually, and that may be when we need them the most.

Finally, our affirmative support for our Liberal Democratic Colleagues is that the Audit is not punitive in its nature and will not interfere with the stabilization or the granting of funds--a measure we ourselves would like to see in place overall, but now is not the time, we feel, for political strife in response to the turmoil that now rocks the world economy. Now is when we must stand up and come together to solve the pressing issues facing our nation.

We urge you to support this bill; it is not a partisan grab for power but a critical legislative effort.

[Snacks]

We can very much sympathize with the many directions in which one's attention is pulled in this chamber. After some consideration, we believe can see the issue from the Liberal Democrats's point of view and, while we feel the audit can be of benefit to charting the future course of our nation's finances, we can concede that the clause may be more fitting for seperate legislation, less focused on immediate needs than the majority of this bill is.

If the argument of the Social Democrats, with which we do agree, has not swayed the Liberal Democrats, then in the interest of getting the rest of this bill's provisions put to a vote, we are willing to support the removal of the sixth section from the bill, with the intent to submit it as a part of future legislation.

[Red John]

To clarify, the representatives of the Workers and Peasants Bloc believe that the bill has bipartisan support such that we motion for a vote. We are willing to debate the bill further if the Liberal Democrats wish to present an argument for or against portions of the bill, but merely stating an objection without substantiating it in any way does not, in our opinion, constitute a debate, and the Liberal Democrats have not exactly shown interest in engaging in such.

Our apologies - esteemed colleague. We were sadly tied up in other matters, like reading the enticing arguments made in bills like the Ilhas Malvinas bill - and of course the Bill to legalize cannabis. You would forgive us, we hope, for not responding.

We oppose the addition of an audit in this bill because to us, it is completely unnecessary. This is a bill to support the banks first and foremost - there is absolutely nothing to suggest an audit is necessary, and the additional administrative strain it would place upon the state outweighs any potential benefits. To be clear, we are not opposed to an audit at a further date - but we are opposed to the addition of such a clause in this particular bill, and if we move to voting with this as it is, we shall be opposed.

We find two exceptions to this criticism, and have one positive affirmation in its support.

The first is the undue strain on the Ministry of Finance, and based upon our textural interpretation of the bill. The relevant language in the bill as such is this:

The Ministry of Finance is authorized to undertake audits of financial institutions who accept funding, to be conducted after funds have been dispensed.

We read this passage as authorizing the Ministry to undertake audits at its discretion. It does not sound like it is obliged to undertake the audits to us. If the Ministry is under strain due to the audits it needs to undertake, that would be something you should direct not towards this Chamber but towards the President.

Furthermore, as to our second point, the Audits are to expose flaws in the financial institutions themselves. It is critical that our financial institutions be healthy--as those in our northerly neighbors were not prior to their collapse. While we may support them now, if they are deathly ill, then they will fail eventually, and that may be when we need them the most.

Finally, our affirmative support for our Liberal Democratic Colleagues is that the Audit is not punitive in its nature and will not interfere with the stabilization or the granting of funds--a measure we ourselves would like to see in place overall, but now is not the time, we feel, for political strife in response to the turmoil that now rocks the world economy. Now is when we must stand up and come together to solve the pressing issues facing our nation.

We urge you to support this bill; it is not a partisan grab for power but a critical legislative effort.

If the Ministry is under strain due to the audits it needs to undertake, that would be something you should direct not towards this Chamber but towards the President.

We very much oppose this line of thinking - if the Chamber puts forward projects that will greatly increase the stress placed upon the Ministries, then that is on the Chamber, not the president. Further, as you have astutely pointed out - we are in a time of great economic crisis. Extra strain due to this will already be put onto the ministries - across all sectors of Brazil - especially on the Ministry of Finance.

The stipulation for accepting the aid presented in this bill, is that the financial institutions who accept it be liable to a full audit. We fully understand the necessity of this - and again, we are not strictly opposed to an audit at a later time. Yet with this stipulation in place, would financial institutions - even those who run a tight ship - not be somewhat dissuaded to accept aid when they are liable to, in a time of financial crisis, receive a complete and thorough audit - which would drain valuable resources that could be spent elsewhere?

We would accept a minimum time period where financial institutions, who are recipients of such aid, are to be allowed to operate without worrying about an impending audit in perhaps the worst economic crisis in decades. A 3 or 6 month grace period would, in our eyes, be fully acceptable. (1 or 2 turns.)

[acecipher]

Again, we do not view this action as compelling the Ministry to do anything--merely empowering it to take action if it so wishes. However, we should settle this debate on legislative terminology outside of the context of this debate.

We find the suggestion for a grace period before major financial audits begin to be amenable, but feel that it should be done as per our interpretation of the wording of this bill: That it is done on a schedule set by the Ministry of Finance, only now to not be done more than one quarter after the receipt of funds.

[Luc]

Sebastião do Rego Barros, President of the Chamber of Deputies

Given that his Excellency, the President of the Republic, has exercised his executive authority and accomplished many of the parts of this bill,
it shall now be tabled by this house.