[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 150 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7504-H7506]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




VETO MESSAGE ON H.R. 3808, INTERSTATE RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS ACT 
                                OF 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
November 15, 2010, the unfinished business is the further consideration 
of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 3808) to require 
any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a 
notary public licensed

[[Page H7505]]

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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of November 15, 2010, 
at page H7402.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Smith) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I will urge the House to vote ``no'' 
so as to sustain the President's veto, and I would like to explain why 
it is important that we are taking this vote.
  This bill has passed the House under suspension in each of the last 
three Congresses. It has been brought forward by our colleague from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) each time. It requires courts to recognize duly 
performed out-of-State notarizations. As it was passing the Senate, 
reports began to surface regarding improper and possibly fraudulent 
documentation in foreclosure actions across the country.
  Improperly performed notarizations were reportedly a major factor in 
circumventing the legal protections afforded to citizens in 
foreclosure--notarizations in the absence of the person signing the 
document or without that person's signature or sometimes even forged 
notary signatures.
  So we are taking a fresh look at the notarization bill. There were 
concerns that it could have the unintended effect of facilitating 
improprieties in mortgage foreclosures and in other financial 
transactions as well in that a State could remove important protections 
from its notarization rules, and then the bill would effectively force 
other States to go along.
  The President took the responsible course in refusing to sign this 
bill into law so that we could give it a careful and fresh examination 
in light of these concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, criticism of H.R. 3808 focuses on its potential 
application to the ongoing crisis in the foreclosure markets. News 
accounts have detailed stories of fraudulent activity involving 
affidavits used to rid banks of bad mortgage inventories. I support any 
effort to combat that activity, but this situation does not involve 
H.R. 3808.
  The bill applies only to ``any lawful notarization made by a licensed 
notary public.'' There is nothing in its language that pertains to 
fraudulent acts of notarization. The bill advances the legitimate 
purposes of the Interstate Commerce Clause by ensuring that a lawfully 
notarized document from one State will be acknowledged by another State 
in an interstate legal proceeding.
  The Courts Subcommittee conducted a hearing on this issue 4 years 
ago, and it learned of instances in which States rejected otherwise 
lawfully notarized documents, for petty reasons, from other States. For 
example, State A requires a notarized document to bear an ink stamp 
while State B requires a raised, embossed seal. They should be mutually 
recognized.
  The legislative history of the bill and the text, itself, has nothing 
to do with fraudulent notarizations. We should override the veto and 
support the legitimate purpose of H.R. 3808.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just respond to my dear 
friend, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, by saying that 
what we are trying to do here is to prevent the possibility of sloppy, 
inaccurate, or fraudulent notarizations from creeping into the 
foreclosure process.
  As we all know, many of the foreclosures have now been found to be 
legally defective because of many things, including, possibly, improper 
notarizations. With millions of people losing their homes, it really 
would be almost negligent for us to assume that notarizations coming 
from another State, which might be electronic, would not be fraudulent. 
I think caution is the better choice for the matter that is under 
discussion.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), who is the sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity to 
address the House on this important matter.
  Mr. Speaker, today and over the last several weeks, I think there has 
been a broad misunderstanding of the Interstate Recognition of 
Notarizations Act, which led to the President's unfortunate veto of 
this legislation a few weeks ago. There is absolutely no connection 
whatsoever between the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 
2010 and the recent foreclosure documentation problems.
  I first introduced this legislation back in April of 2005, and 
obviously there was no concern about weakening the foreclosure 
documentation process at that time. This is a bill that would help 
people, and I am disappointed that the legislation has been vetoed. 
This legislation that I introduced would improve interstate commerce by 
requiring that documents be recognized in any State or Federal court. 
It would help court reporters; it would help attorneys, businessowners, 
and consumers in general.
  I have heard from many individuals who have been affected by this 
particular issue. For example, a construction company located in one 
State submits a contract for a job in another State and is turned down 
because the second State refuses to recognize the notarized contract.

                              {time}  1640

  This is not an isolated problem. This is interfering with interstate 
commerce, and it should be addressed.
  H.R. 3808, this legislation, expressly requires lawful notarizations 
be recognized in other States and in no way validates improper 
notarizations. Let me stress that again. It in no way validates 
improper notarizations. Fraudulent notarizations are illegal. 
Enforcement of notarizations is a State responsibility, and I fully 
support each State Attorney General to vigorously prosecute all 
fraudulent notarizations.
  Currently, each State is responsible for regulating its notaries. 
Typically, someone who wishes to become a notary pays a fee. They will 
submit an application. They will take an oath of office. Some States 
require applicants to enroll in an educational course, pass an exam, or 
obtain a notary bond. This legislation does not change how an 
individual State regulates notaries in any form or fashion.
  This bill had strong bipartisan support in the House of 
Representatives each of the three times it passed the House of 
Representatives, and most recently, with unanimous support, as recently 
as April of this year. I hope the White House will work with the 
Congress so this legislation can eventually become law.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by expressing my 
surprise at the author of this bill, who apparently hasn't heard about 
the fraud and misrepresentations, the swindling of people whose 
mortgages have led to foreclosure, and then we find out that the 
instruments that were brought into court didn't even know who the owner 
was, much less know who notarized it. So I would caution my colleague 
to let's be a little bit more careful here. A million people are losing 
their homes, and you're telling me that we're going to accept a 
notarization from anywhere, coming from any State, because you've 
introduced this before this problem began?
  I say, ``no.'' We can't even find out who the owners were after these 
instruments get chopped up and resold and moved in the financial scheme 
of things. We don't want anybody running the risk of accepting an out-
of-State notarization because you've introduced the bill before this 
problem began. And now that it has begun, let's be careful. Let's be 
certain that we're protecting everybody that's being foreclosed on, and 
that's my major concern.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?

[[Page H7506]]

  In accord with the Constitution, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________