[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7466-H7468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS ACT OF 2007
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1979) 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, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1979
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate Recognition of
Notarizations Act of 2007''.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Coble) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
{time} 1615
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this measure is a commonsense requirement
with respect to the process of notarizing documents that occur in every
State, every city, every county. And what we do in H.R. 1979 is simply
to require Federal and State courts to recognize documents lawfully
notarized in any State of the Union when interstate commerce is, in
fact, involved.
As we all know, notary publics play a critical role in ensuring that
the signer of a document is, indeed, who he or she claims to be and
that the person has willingly and without coercion signed the document.
By performing these two tasks, the notary public serves as an
indispensable first line of defense against fraudulent acts and other
manipulations of contracts and other documents.
[[Page H7467]]
Although the purpose of notarizations is the same across our Nation,
each State has, in the course of time, established its own laws
governing the recognition of notarized documents. And some things are
required in some places, and other things are required in others. And
so the lack of consistent technical rules and the resultant formalities
make it unnecessarily difficult for courts to recognize out-of-State
notarizations. Some places impose certain technical requirements, such
as dictating that the ink seals must be used, while others require
embossers. Some States demand very particular language in the
acknowledgment certificate and will, accordingly, reject out-of-State
notarizations that lack the same language that they require in their
State. And there are many other little details that create snafus,
create problems in accepting documents that have been notarized and may
be different in some small technical way. These inconsistencies, of
course, do not further the goals of notarization. In fact, this problem
has led to the bill that we have before us. And I'm very pleased to
thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and Mr. Artur Davis,
also of Alabama, Mr. Braley of Iowa, who have all together introduced
this measure. And so what we're seeing here is that we propose to grant
relief to these kinds of snafus that occur in accepting out-of-State
notarizations.
H.R. 1979 is supported by the National Notary Association, countless
numbers of notary publics in many States, the academics that follow
this arcane area of the law, and we think that they are correct, that
we're making an important revision in how notarized documents are
recognized by the courts, all courts. And it's in that spirit that I
introduce or urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1979.
I'll reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
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. A document should not be refused admission to support
or defend a claim in court solely on the ground it was not notarized in
the State where the Court sits. H.R. 1979 ensures this will not result.
A notarization, in and of itself, Mr. Speaker, 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's signer is who he or she purports to be and has willingly
signed or executed the document.
By executing the appropriate certificate, the notary public, as a
disinterested party to the transaction, informs all other parties
relying upon or using the document that it is the act of the person who
signed it.
H.R. 1979 compels a court to accept the authenticity of the document,
even though the notarization was performed in a State other than where
the form is located. This reaffirms the importance of the notarial act.
Mr. Speaker, after hearing testimony on this subject before the
Judiciary Committee during the 109th Congress, I have concluded that
the refusal of one State to accept the validity of another State's
notarized document in an intrastate legal proceeding is just plain
provincial and insular.
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 may well require
documents to be notarized with a raised, embossed seal.
Passing this bill will streamline interstate commercial and legal
transactions consistent with the guarantees of the Full Faith and
Credit Clause of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the chief sponsor of the bill,
the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for such time
as he may consume.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Chairman's support for
this legislation to be brought to the floor. I also want to say that I
appreciate Congressman Coble, his lending his support for this
legislation and making sure that it gets to the floor today. And as
Chairman Conyers noted, Congressman Davis of Alabama and Congressman
Braley of Iowa have been very helpful in this effort as well. So I'm
glad to have their support.
One other person that has been very supportive that actually called
this to my attention initially was a friend of mine from Alabama, Mike
Turner, some time ago brought this issue to my attention, and so I'm
glad that we can work on this and try to get this resolved here on the
floor of the House and through the United States Congress.
I'm pleased to have been able to work together with the committee of
jurisdiction to find a satisfactory solution to this issue dealing with
recognition across State lines. During the hearing that was held during
the 109th Congress, which has already been mentioned, by the
Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property,
then Ranking Member Howard Berman pointed out that though the topic of
notary recognition between the States is not necessarily the most
exciting issue, it is an extremely practical one. And to my colleague
who, of course, now chairs that subcommittee, I would have to agree
with him on both points.
During the hearing, which was held back in March of 2006, we heard
from several witnesses who all agree that this is an ongoing and a
difficult problem for interstate commerce. To businesses and
individuals engaged in businesses across State lines, this is a matter
long overdue that is being resolved.
H.R. 1979, the bill today, will eliminate confusion that arises when
States refuse to acknowledge the integrity of documents from another
State. This act preserves the right of States to set standards and
regulate notaries, while reducing the burden on the average citizen who
has to use the Court system.
It will streamline the interstate, commercial, and legal transaction
consistent with the guarantees of the State's rights that are called
for in the Full Faith in Credit Clause of the United States
Constitution.
Currently, as the law is today, each State is responsible for
regulating its notaries. Typically, an individual will pay a fee, will
submit an application, takes an oath of office. Some States require the
applicants to enroll in educational courses, pass exams and even to
obtain a notary bond. Nothing in this legislation will change these
steps. We are not trying to mandate how States regulate notaries which
they appoint.
In addition, the bill will also not preclude the challenge of
notarized documents such as a will contest.
During the subcommittee hearings on this bill that were held back in
the 109th Congress, Tim Reineger, who serves as 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.''
This is an issue that has really lagged on for many, many years. When
I was first elected to Congress back in 1997, this was an issue that I
was first made aware of, and here we are in 2007, and this issue is
still not resolved. And this is an issue that people who deal with
notaries on a daily basis deal with, to a lot of frustration.
And simply, this legislation that we have before the House today and
that will be going before the United States Senate, hopefully in a very
short period of time, will address this problem. It will try to
expedite interstate commerce so that court documents and so that when
notaries are in one State or the other, they will be fully recognized.
And again, I think it must be stressed that it is in no way trying to
mandate what a State should do or should not do. It simply allows there
to be more free flow of commerce between the States and particularly
when you're talking about the regulation of notaries themselves.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support, Congressman Coble
for your support of this legislation, and allowing it to be able to
move forward today. And I would urge my colleagues that when this bill
comes for a vote, that they would support it under the suspension of
the rules.
[[Page H7468]]
Mr. COBLE. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this addresses a problem that has
come across my path many times. Back home, Mr. Conyers, I don't know
about you in Michigan, but in North Carolina, I hear this complaint
frequently. A document properly notarized in one State, and then as I
said, it must be by happenstance, crosses a State line and goes to
another State, and then, of course, denial rears her ugly head, and all
sorts of confusion results.
{time} 1630
So this addresses a problem that needs to be fixed, and I think this
legislation does it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the author of this bill, Mr.
Aderholt, and always I am pleased to come to the floor with the floor
manager on the Republican side, Mr. Coble.
And I only want to underscore the fact that communications interstate
are so common and frequent that this is a long overdue and important
improvement in the relations of legal documents between the citizens of
the several States. So I am proud to sign off with you and join in
urging that this matter be unanimously supported by the distinguished
House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1979, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title was amended so as to read: ``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
when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________