[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 22562-22563]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 22563]]

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 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.

                          ____________________