[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6418-6419]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 6419]]

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 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.

                          ____________________