[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 60 (Tuesday, April 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2919-H2920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1715
INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS ACT OF 2009
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3808
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 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 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
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations
Act of 2009, requires all Federal and State courts to recognize
documents lawfully notarized in any State of the Union when interstate
commerce is involved. An identical version of this bill passed the
House in 2007.
A notary public has the professional expertise to verify the identity
of the signatory to a document and ensure that it was willingly signed.
Notary publics are a critical first line of defense against fraud.
Although notarization serves the same purposes in all States, there are
differences in State laws governing notarization, and also varying
technical formalities. That makes it difficult for a State to recognize
an out-of-state notarization.
For example, some States dictate that ink seals must be used, while
others require embossers. Some States require very specific language in
the acknowledgment certificate, and thus the language used in other
States may not be acceptable. Such technical differences between State
law hinder the recognition of documents that were lawfully notarized in
the State in which the notarization was performed, and this can cause
unnecessary delays that impact important legal rights and interstate
commerce.
The fact that some States do not recognize documents lawfully
notarized in other States also presents a constitutional issue. The
U.S. Constitution requires that each State give full faith and credit
to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other
State. The 21st century affords advances in transportation and
telecommunications that have expanded the ability of individuals and
businesses to conduct their affairs across State boundaries. The laws
governing notarization should not be permitted to continue encumbering
their ability to do so.
By giving those laws reciprocal recognition, effectively harmonizing
them, H.R. 3808 will bring those laws within the spirit of the
Constitution's vision and bring much needed relief from antiquated
formalities.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, at the outset I want to thank the sponsor of the bill,
Representative Aderholt, for his persistence and patience. This is the
third time the full House has considered his bill to streamline the use
of notarized documents across State lines, and I hope this will be the
last, followed by the Senate, and then enactment.
H.R. 3808 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. 3808 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. 3808
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.
Madam Speaker, much of the testimony we received at our Subcommittee
hearing on the bill in 2006 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 instance, 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.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 3808.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's support for
this legislation to be brought to the floor, and of course the support
of Ranking Member Smith on this legislation as well. Without it, this
legislation, we would not be here today where we are.
One other person who has been very supportive and who actually
brought this to my attention several years ago is my friend Mike
Turner, from Birmingham. We've worked together on this to try to
resolve this issue through the United States Congress, and so here we
are, as mentioned, the third time to try to resolve this.
There is an old saying, ``The third time's the charm,'' and I am
hopeful today that saying holds true. As my colleagues who serve on the
Judiciary Committee are well aware, today marks the third time that the
House of
[[Page H2920]]
Representatives has brought up, and hopefully will pass, this bill. The
key, of course, lies with our friends in the other Chamber. So I look
forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate and getting the
bill moved through that Chamber as well.
I was first made aware of this problem, as I say, by my friend Mike
Turner when I was first elected to Congress back in 1997. Here we are
in 2010. The issue is still not resolved. This is an issue of great
frustration to people who deal with notaries on a daily basis.
Several years ago, the House Judiciary Committee worked with
supporters of this issue to find a satisfactory solution to the problem
of the recognition of notarizations across State lines. In March of
2006, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual
Property heard from several witnesses who all agreed that this is an
ongoing and difficult problem for interstate commerce. To businesses
and individuals engaged in businesses across State lines, this is a
matter long overdue.
In a nutshell, as it has been stated, H.R. 3808 will expedite
interstate commerce so that court documents and other notarized
documents will be fully recognized from one State to another. Today
States can refuse to acknowledge the integrity of notarized documents
from one State to another. This legislation, H.R. 3808, will streamline
the interstate, commercial, and legal transactions consistent with the
guarantees of the States' rights that are called for in the full faith
and credit clause of the United States Constitution.
This legislation preserves the rights of States to set standards and
regulate notaries, while reducing the burden on the average citizen who
has to use our court systems. Currently, as the law stands today, each
State is responsible for regulating its notaries. Typically, an
individual will pay a fee, they will submit an application, and they
will take an oath of office. Some States require the applicants enroll
in educational courses, to pass exams, and even obtain a notary bond.
Nothing in this legislation will change those steps. Please know we are
not trying to mandate how States regulate notaries which they appoint.
The bill will not preclude the challenge of notarized documents such as
a will contest.
Again, I want to stress that this is in no way trying to mandate what
a State should do or what a State should not do. It simply allows there
to be more free flow of commerce between States, and particularly when
you are talking about the regulation of notaries themselves.
Again, I want to thank the chairman and also the ranking member for
their support of this legislation to allow us to move forward. I would
urge my colleagues that when this legislation is brought for a vote
that they would support it under suspension of the rules.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3808,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3808.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________