ALERT!! THERE WILL BE A VOTE ON THE PRESIDENTS VETO of H.R. 3808,TOMORROW.

[dixiegrrrrl]

From the LEGISLATIVE DAY OF NOVEMBER 15, 2010 111TH CONGRESS – SECOND SESSION

"......further consideration of the veto message and the bill shall be postponed until the legislative day of Wednesday, Nov. 17, 2010; and that on that legislative day, the House shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion. Agreed to without objection."

For full copy and source of alert, see:
http://4closurefraud.org/2010/11/16/action-alert-its-back-h-r-3808-interstate-recognition-of-notarization-act-of-2010/



NOW you must call/email your Rep.

Here is how to find them:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml


Please keep this kicked.

[foxfeet]

1. K&R to keep it visible.

[jkshaw]

2. Why did he veto?

[Canuckistanian]

4. Remember that mysterious "Notarization Recognition" bill?

The one that caused everyone to scratch their heads?

That one.

[Abq_Sarah]

9. Speaking as a notary

It would make sense to apply the full faith and credit clause to notarized documents.

[Canuckistanian]

16. Umm, meaning what?

I'm not sure I get your meaning. I'm just not conversant in fine points of law.

Could you explain?

[Abq_Sarah]

31. If I notarize a document

All I'm doing is verifying the identities of the person/persons signing and make sure they appear aware of their actions and not under duress. I don't verify the content of the document that's being signed. If I notarize a document in NM that's entered into a court case in Oklahoma, generally OK will accept my notarization but the side that didn't enter the document into evidence may decide to claim it's not a valid notarization because it wasn't done by an OK notary public. That's asinine and needs to change.

[jkshaw]

7. Sorry, didn't read the links. Also this --

The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was designed to remove impediments to interstate commerce. While we share this goal, we believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized.

Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents. As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

Dan Pfeiffer,White House Communications Director

[elleng]

10. 'The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind '

Not zacly!

[femrap]

47. I attended Roots Camp this past

weekend and Jennifer Brunner, Sec'y of State from Ohio, who gave us all the 'heads up' on HR3808 was also in attendance and spoke.

I asked her about HR3808. I said, 'Don't you think it's odd that this bill just FLEW through Congress?' She sounded as if Congress was stupid and really didn't understand the significance. I said, 'Really? It seems very strange to me.'

But then I trust no one. But come on....Congress is made up of lawyers who know about notaries.

I understand that some states DO ACCEPT electronic notaries....OH is not one of them. I don't know which ones do or don't.

All I gotta say is The Banksters are lobbying Congress and they want this bill passed. Dollars are flying into the pockets of campaign funds.

I should have told Jennifer not to get into any small planes. Banksters are evil. Morgan Chase employs over 15,000 in Columbus, OH....lots of back office, credit card, mortgage and customer service. Jamie Dimon is the CEO and a real arrogant crook.

If this veto is doesn't hold, everyone will know that The Banksters rule this country.

[Waiting For Everyman]

3. K&R Also there's a live Senate hearing on c-span right now

on foreclosures. It's on c-span tv too in my area. Apparently it started after 3pm EST, which is very odd - that's usually when most hearings are ending. From what I've seen so far, it looks like something is going to hit the fan about this finally.

This is the hearing that was scheduled because of the robo-signing scandal before the election. Not to go off topic, but I thought some here might want a headsup on this too.

[dmr]

8. Thanks, just tuned in to CSPAN 3

:hi:

[xchrom]

5. Recommend

[Myrina]

6. Kick

:kick:

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. If you do contact your Rep, maybe leave a copy of message here????

[adamuu]

14. To Tonko (D-NY20)

Uphold the President's Veto on H.R. 3808. Do not allow the banks to retroactively correct their paperwork. They took a risk by cutting corners. Now it is time they pay for their losing bets. This is the land of personal responsibility, the Right is so fond of saying.

[grahamhgreen]

12. H.R. 3808: to require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary publ

H.R. 3808:
to require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce

[bbgrunt]

13. k and r

[the redcoat]

15. Done!

I hope I'm not the only one in my district to do so, but I bet I am. :(

[onenote]

17. The veto isn't going to be overriden. This vote is a formality that the House is taking

as a way of asserting its view that the bill wasn't pocket vetoed. The House takes the position that the President can't pocket veto a bill when they are merely on a recess, rather than having adjourned sine die. If at some point the President claimed to have pocket vetoed a bill and the House and Senate successfully passed override resolutions, there might be an interesting Constitutional case. But Pelosi wouldn't schedule this vote if she didn't know the outcome, which is that the veto will be sustained, the prerogatives of the House preserved, and everyone can claim to have done what they needed to do, without anything being different at the end of the day.

[laughingliberal]

25. OTOH, we have a large number of blue dogs just defeated sitting there who need jobs.

Not out of the realm of possibilities they might be looking to ingratiate themselves to certain corporations.

[onenote]

32. Again, Pelosi would never bring this to a vote if she thought it might get overriden

Really.

[Major Hogwash]

35. Was it a pocket veto? I wasn't paying close enough attention to what was going on.

At the time they vetoed that bill which I didn't even know was vetoed.

[dixiegrrrrl]

38. "But Pelosi wouldn't schedule this vote if she didn't know the outcome,"

she scheduled the original House vote which PASSED the Notarization Law in the first place in Sept.
why would she have changed her mind about it now?

sorry, but "off the table" Pelosi has not shown me much in the way of supporting "the little people".

[onenote]

40. The notarization bill was passed by unanimous consent in three different Congresses

dating back to 2005. It was not some conspiracy (unless of course you think that John Conyers, Tammy Baldwin, and every single Democrat in the House, including Dennis Kucinich is part of that conspiracy and has been for five years). It was a classic example, of which there are many in the annals of Congress, of a bill with unintended consequences. No one connected the dots between this bill and the foreclosure mess until after it was passed. No one. Do you remember anyone screaming about the bill when its 2005 iteration was introduced? The 2007 version? The version introduced in April of this year? Of course you don't because no one saw the problem with the bill until after it was already passed.

[dixiegrrrrl]

46. I have no idea which Dem was for or against it.

There was no record of the vote kept, remember?

I DO know the current version, which was passed and vetoed, was introduced right after a committee hearing in April in which the problems of robo-signers and mortgage fraud was revealed in testimony.

I DO know that NOW said bill would allow any robo-signer in Fla. to sign as a notary, on any mortgage document of any state, and the paper would have to be accepted.

I DO know there are many many legal depositions of robo-signers who were located in Fla. and
who "notarize" mortgage papers for many banks, for many states, who have not witnessed any of the signatures they are notarizing. and that the robo-signers have admitted they signed as Vice-Presidents
of banks, even Countrywide, AFTER the institution had become defunct.

I DO know that robo-signing and mortgage fraud became extremely pervasive in 2005 and thereafter.

and since you are very aware of the 2005 and the 2007 bills, what happened to them?
what are their bill numbers, who introduced them?
apparently they did not pass, or else there would be no need for HR 3808 to be introduced and passed so quickly.

for a look at "intended consequences" of forcing all states to accept the laws of one state, check out
Delaware and the credit card interest rates, which ALL states are now forced to accept.

[femrap]

50. I called Jennifer Brunner just to

make sure she is aware of the goings-on. Her staff member, Tim, said she was aware. I asked him for her to use her email list if we needed to be informed of the current actions on HR3808.

[dixiegrrrrl]

51. thank you!!

If you hear back, would put up a thread about any developments, pls????

[femrap]

61. I just got home and rec'd this email

from Jennifer:

During floor proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives, beginning at approximately 3:30 p.m. today, members of Congress will take up the question of the President's "pocket veto" of H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010.

A "yes" vote would override the President's veto of legislation that would have legitimized thousands of faulty and fraudulent bank documents for churning foreclosures to unlawfully deprive Americans of their homes. A "nay" vote would sustain the veto and protect consumers.

Please contact the Congress and urge a "nay" vote on this measure. Time is of the essence. To write your Representative, please click here.

Thanks for all you do.

Jennifer Brunner

Jennifer Brunner
Ohio Secretary of State

Go ahead and copy this post....you put it up. I have a bad, feminist rep. Please. Thanks!!!!

[femrap]

63. We won....

FROM JENNIFER BRUNNER:

The U. S. House of Representatives just concluded its vote on the President's veto of H.R. 3808, and you did it!

The President's veto of the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was sustained by 235 votes of the 435-member House. Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of sustaining the veto of this bill that has huge anti-consumer consequences. Just five Republicans joined them.

ForeclosureYour quick advocacy has sustained an important Presidential veto. You made a difference. With your help we have moved closer to holding financial institutions and law firms accountable for mistakes and fraud in selling and trading interests in Americans' homes and for dishonest and unlawful practices in foreclosing on them.

This issue is complicated. It is not going away. It affects every American.

Thank you for being willing to speak up and help other Americans. Thank you for demanding honest and fair practices. Thank you for exercising your citizenship and telling your representatives what you want them to do. Let's keep going.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Brunner

Jennifer Brunner
Ohio Secretary of State

HOWEVER IT'LL BE BACK AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, I ASSUME.

[onenote]

69. I realize that Congressional procedures are a bit obscure

so I'll try to explain. You suggest that because it was a voice vote there is no way to know which Democrats supported it or opposed it. Well, the fact is that all of them had to support it or it couldn't have gotten to a vote since it was considered under a procedure that requires unanimous consent in the House. Last April (which is when the bill was passed by the House) it just wasn't considered controversial. If it was, I'd love to see a link to something from one of the many groups that opposed it after it was passed by the Senate in September voicing their objections back in April. It was only after the bill passed the Senate in April, and folks took a fresh look at it in light of the foreclosure crisis, that anyone realized that the bill could have unintended consequences in its current form and thus needed to be vetoed.

Oh, and the 2005 version was HR 1458 and the 2007 version was HR 1979. They, like HR 3808, were originally introduced by Rep. Aderholdt. The 2005 version was the subject of a hearing and mark up in the House Judiciary Committee before being brought to the floor by sensenbrenner, the repub chair of the Judiciary Committee under the suspension of the rules procedure and passed by a voice vote. In 2007 and 2009/10 there were no new hearings and the bills were brought to the floor and passed using the same procedures, only in 2007 it was Conyers that brought the bill up and in 2010 it was Tammy Baldwin.

[femrap]

49. Pelosi's damn table

is not to be trusted.

If the homeowner hasn't moved out-of-state, why do we need this? Oh....the mortgage has moved out of state? Geez, these banksters will do anything to kick people out of their homes.

Someone needs to notify Jennifer Brunner, Sec'y of State in Ohio...I'll call her now.

[Catherina]

18. Done! Say no to foreclosure fraud ! n/t

[chill_wind]

19. At least there won't be anonymous voice votes

this time, from what I can tell.

"View H.R. 3808 Veto Override Procedure in the House and Senate on Scribd"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42776222/H-R-3808-Veto-Override-Procedure-in-the-House-and-Senate

K & R.

[Mira]

20. Good to know ! Thanks. K&R

[Better Believe It]

21. Oooppsss. Just saw your post on this matter. Will try to re-direct responses Recommend

[blondeatlast]

22. My rep. is Shadegg, but I will call anyway. Thanks for the heads up; k/r. nt

[laughingliberal]

23. K & R nt

[Hannah Bell]

24. kr

[laughingliberal]

26. Some astounding information found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9571983#9572535

[ms.smiler]

27. We have Notary fraud as it is.

We don't need Congress making it easier for banks to defraud American homeowners.

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/25764145/index.html

[me b zola]

28. K&R

I'm going to call now to see if I can at least leave a message.

On edit, I just sent an e-mail.

[WillyT]

29. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[EC]

30. Aaah, I see....

they pass it quietly - The President vetoes as planned - then they have a vote ON RECORD of who wants to let the banks off the hook and who doesn't...:thumbsup:

[Hannah Bell]

33. it's a vote on the veto that already happened, i believe -- i.e. a vote to override the veto.

[EC]

42. I know...

but the vote will be on the record with clips for campaigns to use in the future...they passed it in the beginning only to have it vetoes (on purpose) so they could get the vote on record...

[no limit]

54. Lol, you can't be serious. You honestly believe this is a chess game the dems are playing?

Really?

[spanone]

34. hmmm, the democrats have a huge majority in the house still, don't they? lame fucking ducks?

it won't be the gop overriding the veto...

[dixiegrrrrl]

39. Remember who passed it once already, in BOTH houses.

[onenote]

41. Remember who didn't recognize that the bill was a problem? That would be everyone

Including progressives, consumer advocates, everyone. This bill was first introduced (by Conyers) in 2005. It passed by unanimous consent. Same thing in 2007 and again in 2010. It was no secret. Like every bill that is introduced, it is a matter of public record. Yet I don't recall anyone raising any questions about it any of the times it was introduced. That's because it wasn't until after it was passed that folks woke up to the potential unintended consequences of what otherwise appeared on its face to be a relatively innocuous bill. Its an unfortunate fact of life that these sorts of screw ups occur in Congress. At least in this instance the problem with the bill was recognized before it became law. Members of the House and Senate leadership have made it clear that they have no intention of letting this bill become law in its current form. THe override vote, if it occurs, is a formality intended merely to reflect the Congress' view that the President's veto was not a pocket veto, but rather a standard veto.

[dixiegrrrrl]

48. If the Notarization bill passed in 2005, during a republican Congress,

what was the need for it to be, as you say, passed in 2007, and then introduced this April and passed again?
Are you saying there are 2 laws on the books already about this issue?
Please link me to the them so I can read them.

No one raised questions in 2005 and 2007 because the mortgage fraud was not widely known at the time.

NOW it is widely known, NOW there is opposition to retroactively legalizing one of the many steps in
mortgage fraud.

[chill_wind]

52. Their pants were on total fire

and it's still not clear what the big, big emergency was- why they would yank it out of committee unfixed (which is where I gather it ended up each time before-- I believe I read it's been the same identical bill each time) and rush it through at the zero hour right before recess.

"The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt.."

This remains very interesting to me:

"CONSTITUENTS" PRESSED FOR PASSAGE

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill's existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.

Actually the whole two-page story of it does:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955YX20101006?pageNumber=1

[dixiegrrrrl]

53. WTF?

Leahy is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He had the bill stalled there for a reason.

Strange. Thanks for the link.

In any event, I am still trying to reconcile the previous poster's comments that the bill is
no big deal and it has passed in '05 AND in '07.

[onenote]

70. Here is how this played out

In 2005, the bill (HR.1458) was introduced in the House in April. It was referred tot he Judiciary Committee where it sat around for about a year without being taken up. In March 2006, it was the subject of a subcommittee hearing and it was reported out of the subcommitee and then the full committee in May 2006, at which point nothing happened until early December, when Sensenbrenner (the Judiciary Chairman) called it up for a vote and it passed the full House by a voice vote. It then moved to the Senate where nothing happened before the 109th Congress adjourned.

In April 2007, the bill was introduced again (HR 1979). After referral to the Judiciary Committee, it was moved out of Committee by Chairman Conyers on July 10, 2007 and passed by the House by voice vote. It moved over to the Senate, but once again, was not taken up for debate or a vote before the 110th Congress adjourned.

In October 2009, it was introduced once again (HR 3808). In April 2010, Tammy Baldwin moved that the bill be considered and it was passed by a voice vote. It then moved over to the Senate where, as it had in 2005 and 2007, it sat. Except towards the end of the legislative calendar, it was discharged from the Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent and on the same day passed by the Senate by unanimous consent.

Why did it get out of the Senate this time but not the two times before that? I can't say for certain, but based on my 30 years experience in dealing with Congress, it probably was passed by the Senate in September 2010 because it had gotten that far twice before and Senator Leahy and/or Senator Reid were trying to clear out an old bill that no one seemed to care that strongly about but that had been passed without objection in the House three time in five years--Again, no one was complaining about this bill in 2005 or 2007 or when it passed the House in 2010. Its not pretty, but that's the way Congress works sometimes -- some bills don't get passed some years simply because no one cares enough to push for passage and some years some bills get passed for the same reason, -- no one much seems to care about them enough to object to passage. As I pointed out, it turned out that, in light of the foreclosure crisis, folks took a fresh look at the bill after it was passed by the Senate and realized what it might mean in the context of the foreclosure mess. As a result, the very Congressional leaders that had helped move the bill forward, like Leahy, made it clear that the bill was flawed and that the President should veto it, which is what happened. And today, as predicted, the House held a pro forma override vote on the bill that not only failed to get the 2/3 vote necessary to override, but failed even to get a majority. This was utterly not a surprise since Pelosi wouldn't have scheduled the vote if there was any chance of the override being successful.

Finally, I should add that I fully expect this bill to come back again next Congress and I wouldn't be surprised if it passes again. Whether it passes by a voice vote or a contested vote will depend on whether attempts to amend the bill to ensure it doesn't cause the problems that have been identified with it are successful. Even if they're not and the bill passes the repub controlled House, it would either die or be amended in the Senate, since Leahy still runs the show over there. And if it still somehow got through in its current form, Obama could and likely would veto it again and the votes to override wouldn't be there.

By the way, in case you haven't read the bill, here it is in its entirety:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.

Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if--
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public's authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.

Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if--
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public's authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD- The term `electronic record' has the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).
(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH- Seal information is `logically associated with' an electronic record if the seal information is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, either the record or the seal information.

[defendandprotect]

36. K&R

[Major Hogwash]

37. What do we get if we keep this kicked?

A "I kept the topic kicked and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirt?

In Large, Humongous, and OHMUHGAWD

[mistertrickster]

43. Un-rec-ed because poster did not make clear what the bill does. nt

[me b zola]

44. Has the motion come to the floor yet?

I just got up, am awaiting my first cup of coffee, and plan to call if there is still time.

[me b zola]

45. I just got off the phone with Blumenauer's office

The staffer had no idea how Congressman Blumenauer is going to vote or his feelings on this matter. I told him that it is beyond scandalous that it was ever passed to begin with, particularly the manner in which it passed, with no objection so that there was no recorded vote.

[dixiegrrrrl]

55. The House is in recess??????

I was busy for a bit, then turned on Cspan tv and no House activity, but a hearing on TSA stuff.
House.gov streaming says House is in recess.

Anybody know House schedule????

[laughingliberal]

56. Maybe for lunch? nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

57. No clue when House will be back in session, but I will keep eye on Cspan

and post new thread if they do debate the bill.
They DID agree to limit debate to 10 minutes per side, before the recess, so I assume a debate is planned and I fully intend to listen to it.
This issue affects ALL mortgages and the future of state property laws.

[chill_wind]

59. Found this:

CURRENT HOUSE FLOOR PROCEEDINGS
LEGISLATIVE DAY OF NOVEMBER 17, 2010
111TH CONGRESS - SECOND SESSION

10:28 A.M. -
The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is subject to the call of the Chair.

H. Res. 1720:
providing for the printing of a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress

10:27 A.M. -
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.

Mr. Ellison asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.

Considered by unanimous consent.

S.J. Res. 40:
appointing the day for the convening of the first session of the One Hundred Twelfth Congress

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

On passage Passed without objection.

10:26 A.M. -
Mr. Ellison asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.

Considered by unanimous consent.

DEBATE TIME LIMITATION - Mr. Ellison asked unanimous consent that debate on passing H.R. 3808, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding, be limited to 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Agreed to without objection.

10:03 A.M. -
ONE MINUTE SPEECHES - The House proceeded with one minute speeches, which by direction of the Chair would be limited to 15 per side of the aisle.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - The Chair designated Mr. Quigley to lead the Members in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

10:02 A.M. -
The Speaker announced approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

Today's prayer was offered by the House Chaplain, Rev. Daniel Coughlin.

10:01 A.M. -
The Speaker designated the Honorable Ed Pastor to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.

10:00 A.M. -
The House convened, starting a new legislative day.

http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html?day=&today=20101117

[truth2power]

58. A cursory look. I believe this may go to the heart of the signing

of documents by thousands of VICE-PRESIDENTS of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS).

Bad, bad business.

MERS is privatizing the recording of title to real property all over the country. They are making it impossible to know who owns title to a parcel of land (by putting title in the hands of a "nominee", i.e., MERS) and making it impossible to trace ownership back to a root of title.

BE AWARE!!

[ms.smiler]

60. Conyers speaking now

http://houselive.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=2

[chill_wind]

68. Welcome to DU ms smiler

and thanks. :hi:

[ms.smiler]

72. You are quite welcome chill_wind

It was about two years ago that two DU members turned me on to the problems with mortgages/foreclosures. I've been researching ever since and I find myself posting more often on these issues.


:hi:

[chill_wind]

62. Heads up-- the House is back from recess. n/t

[chill_wind]

64. Veto upheld.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/we-won-bill-retroactively-immunize-mortgage-fraud-defeated

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

Most Dems (all but 16, I think when I was watching) voted to uphold. MOST GOP voted to over-ride.

[dixiegrrrrl]

65. Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

However:

We need to keep an eye on Plan B, whatever it is they come up with.

[chill_wind]

66. Roll Call's up :-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9579521

[dixiegrrrrl]

67. Thank you Chill.

:hi:

[tomm2thumbs]

71. Good - thanks for posting the update