[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 133 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8808-H8809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECOGNIZING NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 1458) 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, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1458
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1458, as amended,
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1458, a bill 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.
A notary public administers oaths and serves as an impartial witness
when certain documents are signed. Many States require these documents,
such as affidavits, deeds, and powers of attorney, be notarized before
they can become legally binding on parties. Since the point of legal
notarization is to deter fraud, a notary must positively identify the
signatory to a document and ensure that he or she signs the document
knowingly and willingly.
Notaries are currently licensed by individual States. However, legal
disputes are not always confined to the geographic and judicial domain
of a single State. The bill ensures that lawfully notarized documents
from one State are also acknowledged by sister States in interstate
commerce. The bill also clarifies standards by which electronic seals
are to be recognized. This is especially important as more lawyers and
business people notarize documents electronically.
I emphasize that H.R. 1458 does not conflict with the 10th
amendment's defense of States' rights. In fact, the bill promotes
States' rights through its compatibility with the full faith and credit
clause of article IV of the Constitution.
The bill address an obscure but important subject in the legal and
business realms, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this legislation which would
require Federal and State courts to recognize the validity of a
document notarized in other States. It has been clearly and accurately
described. It would operate to smooth out evidentiary rules which would
treat notarized documents differently from public documents.
Under section 1738 of title 28, Federal and State courts must
recognize the official acts of State legislatures and courts. With
respect to notarized documents, however, courts must determine whether
they are authentic. This can delay court proceedings and negate the
entire purpose of notarization, which is to authenticate the identity
of the person signing the document.
The measure before us would make it easier for notarized documents to
be admitted into evidence and thus speed up court proceedings. We on
this side are in total agreement of that. I urge support of the
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the author of the bill.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's support in
allowing this bill to be brought to the floor to the House of
Representatives today. I would also like to thank my friend, Mike
Turner of Freedom Court Reporting in Alabama, who first brought this
matter to my attention.
I am pleased we have been able to work together with the committee of
jurisdiction to find a satisfactory remedy to the issue of recognition
of notarizations across State lines.
During the hearings held on this bill by the Subcommittee on Courts,
the Internet and Intellectual Property, Ranking Member Berman pointed
out that, ``Although the topic of notary recognition between the States
is not necessarily the most exciting issue, it is an extremely
practical one.'' To my colleague across the aisle, I would have to
agree with both points.
During that hearing in March, we heard from several witnesses who all
agreed that this is an ongoing and a difficult problem for interstate
commerce. To businesses and individuals engaged in business across
State lines, this is a matter long overdue which is being resolved.
H.R. 1458 will eliminate the confusion that arises from States who
refuse to acknowledge the integrity of documents notarized out of
State. H.R. 1458 would require that documents be recognized in any
State or Federal court if the subject affects interstate commerce and
the document is duly notarized by a seal or if a seal is tagged to an
electronic document.
Currently, each State is responsible for regulating its notaries.
Typically, an individual will pay a fee, will submit an application,
and takes an oath of office. Some States require applicants to enroll
in educational courses, pass exams, and even obtain a notary bond.
Nothing in this legislation will change these steps. It shall be made
clear that we are not trying to mandate how States regulate notaries
public they appoint. In addition, the bill would also not preclude the
challenge of notarized documents such as a will contest.
During the subcommittee hearing, the executive director of the
National Notary Association stated, ``We like this bill because it is
talking about a standard for the legal effects of the material act, the
admissibility of it, not at all interfering with the State requirements
for education and regulation of the notaries themselves.''
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your support of this legislation
and allowing the legislation to move forward today. I urge my
colleagues to support
[[Page H8809]]
H.R. 1458 under the suspension of the rules today.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Representative Aderholt's bill
eliminates unnecessary impediments in handling the everyday
transactions of individuals and businesses.
Many documents executed and notarized in one state, either by design
or happenstance, find their way into neighboring or more distant
states.
If ultimately needed in any one of the latter jurisdictions to
support or defend a claim in court, that document should not be refused
admission solely on the ground it was not notarized in the state where
the court sits.
H.R. 1458 ensures this will not happen.
A notarization in and of itself neither validates a document nor
speaks to the truthfulness or accuracy of its contents.
The notarization serves a different function--it verifies that a
document signer is who he or she purports to be and has willingly
signed the document.
By executing the notarial certificate, the notary public, as a
disinterested party to the transaction, informs all other parties
relying on or using the document that it is the act of the person who
signed it.
Consistent with the vital significance of the notarial act, H.R. 1458
compels a court to accept the authenticity of the document even though
the notarization was performed in a state other than where the forum is
located.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by pointing out that much of the testimony we
received at our Subcommittee hearing on the bill addressed the
silliness of one state not accepting the validity of another state's
notarized document in an interstate legal proceeding.
Some of the examples were based on petty reasons--for example, one
state requires a notary to affix an ink stamp to a document, an act
that is not recognized in a sister state that requires documents to be
notarized with a raised, embossed seal.
Passing the bill will streamline interstate commercial and legal
transactions consistent with the guarantees of the Full Faith and
Credit Clause of the Constitution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moran of Kansas). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1458, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds of those voting having
responded in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as
amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________