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.

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 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. 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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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.