This is Senator Leahy’s explanation.  He encouraged the vote on this bill to
commemorate President Calvin Coolidge who was a notary public!  He’s a fan of
Coolidge and therefore thought this would be a cool way to honor him.

I don’t buy it.  And if it’s true, it’s a dopey reason to make a law.

the bill was introduced by Robert Aderholt R Ala, it passed the Judiciary committee on
unanimous consent, Patrick Leahy D VT., the same one who is trying to outlaw
supplements. If it is true then it’s a good example of how the Dims are asleep at the
wheel. This bill should have had strong opposition.

If you go to a site like gov tracks you can research any bill in Congress.  Here is
a link to HR3808

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808

This bill failed in the senate twice, before recently passing UNANIMOUSLY;
every senator voted for it. 

I’d like to know why they voted for it, too, especially having failed it twice
before. Senator Leahy says he got some call asking that it be passed, although
he was explicit about his not having anything to do with its sponsorship.  The
bill then went to the president once it passed for his signature, which would
have made it law. He declined—thus a pocket veto. Now that the spotlight is
on this bill, the democratic senators will probably do their work and read it or
back away from it entirely, especially before midterm elections. The bill, after
all, would have made it easier for the banks to escape fraud charges in the
foreclosure mess.  Does Bank of America’s decision to half foreclosures have
anything to do with this bill being vetoed?  Hard to say.  But timing of events is
quite interesting in this story.

I’d like to know who wrote this bill.  Was it someone from the banking industry? 
It’s common that industry officials write bills and find a congressional member
to then sponsor it.  That’s why corporations pay congressional members so
much money—oops, excuse me, contribute to their campaigns.

There is a story here and I’d like to know the details myself.

G.Anderson, October 7 at 10:36 pm

Have you considered the makeup of the Legislature? The bill could not have passed without widespread support from the democratic majority.

If you are as curious as you claim go to the .gov website wherein you can easily find the actual vote count. Take you about five minutes.

Alright,I wonder who voted for this bill, and if it included any Democrats, and who they
were.

As a rather vocal critic of the Obama administration I offer my support for his action in this particular case.

But,sadly, there is so much more he has failed to step up to that I have no doubt the criticisms will continue.

This is H.R. Bill 3080, which failed twice in the Senate before passing unaninimously a little while ago. Leahy claims he never received any negative reports about it and was asked to pass it.  Clearly, there’s a lot of vagueness about why the senate voted for it after having flunked it twice.  Probably another piece of legislation written by the banks (sponsored by Republican Aderholt of Alabama) and finessed through.  Without the pocket veto, the banks would have been able to get out of the fraud they have recently perpetrated w/re to phony documentation. 

I bet no one read it.  Perhaps we dont pay them enough or maybe they need a better health care package to do their job.

One more step in the right/left direction.

Speeches by politicians about helping the poor and those that are left behind will
no longer be a vote getter, most voters are only interested in issues that help
protect their jobs, savings, and the value of their homes.  Without political support
expect cuts in food stamps, Medicaid, and other social programs, but churches
and charitable groups will not leave anybody behind, their super shelters and
kitchens will be there to help the needy in their struggle to survive. Millions of
volunteers will pitch in to cook the meals and make the beds, the spirits of the
poor will not be crushed, sounds of music will still be heard.