Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010

Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1493, as chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, I submit the following highlights of ``changes in law'' enacted in the 111th Congress within the jurisdiction of the Committee that ``help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promoting efficiency and reform of government, and controlling spending within Government programs.'' These enacted changes in law include:

(1) Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (Public Law 111-21). This law clarifies and strengthens the criminal penalties for various forms of fraud, including fraud in connection with the Troubled Asset Relief Program and other federal assistance programs, including economic stimulus funds. It also strengthens incentives and protections under the False Claims Act for private citizens to help root out fraud against the federal government and help bring the perpetrators to justice. See 111 Cong. Rec. H5260-67 (May 6, 2009).

(2) Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Extension Act (Public Law 111-30). This law extends and strengthens a temporary program that promotes more effective and efficient detection and prosecution of illegal price-fixing cartels, by giving secondary participants in the cartel legal protection for blowing the whistle on the cartel and cooperating in the investigation and prosecution. This program has been demonstrated to substantially enhance the reach of the Justice Department's cartel enforcement resources. See 111 Cong. Rec. H3716-7 (May 24, 2010).

(3) Human Rights Enforcement Act (Public Law 111-122). This law consolidates Justice Department jurisdiction over serious human rights crimes into one section within the Department's Criminal Division. This will enable the Department to employ its enforcement resources with greater efficiency and effectiveness to vigorously prosecute perpetrators of serious human rights crimes. See 111 Cong. Rec. H14892- 4 (December 15, 2009).

(4) Foreign Evidence Request Efficiency Act (Public Law 111-79). This law promotes greater efficiency and cooperation in international law enforcement by streamlining the process by which the federal government responds to requests for evidence by foreign governments in their investigations. Instead of having to file and process a request separately in every federal judicial district where the evidence or witnesses might be found, which could require involvement by a dozen or more different U.S. Attorneys on a single request, the request can now be handled centrally by one or two U.S. Attorneys. See 111 Cong. Rec. H10092-4 (Sept. 30, 2009).

In addition, other proposed legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee has been approved by the House and would reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promote efficiency and reform of government, and control spending within Government programs. This legislation includes:

(5) H.R. 2247, the Congressional Review Act Improvement Act, which would provide for federal agencies to more efficiently promulgate final rules, while ensuring effective Congressional review;

(6) H.R. 3632, the Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2009, which would improve the efficiency of the federal court system, including by improving the control and protection of confidential information and the reporting of criminal wiretapping orders; and

(7) H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009, which would improve the efficiency of federal and state courts by requiring them to recognize documents lawfully notarized in any state where interstate commerce is involved.

In addition to the legislative activity described above, the Committee has conducted extensive oversight aimed at reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement and improving federal government efficiency. A primary focus of the Committee's oversight efforts is the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its component divisions and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Both the Committee and the DOJ Inspector General have devoted considerable attention to the FBI, DOJ, and other agencies, with several Committee hearings held relating to the Bureau and other agencies this year, including:

(8) Committee Oversight Focusing on FBI-ATF Problems. The Committee's Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing on February 24, 2010, focusing on three recent Inspector General reports raising concerns about long-standing problems in FBI and other DOJ operations. These include wasteful and potentially dangerous overlap and rivalry between the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) on explosives investigations, backlog and related problems concerning the FBI's foreign language translation work, and coordination and related problems concerning DOJ and FBI anti-gang activities. The hearing and related oversight of the FBI and DOJ have revealed significant progress in addressing these difficulties, and DOJ indicated at the hearing that it was moving forward vigorously to complete its efforts to resolve the decade-long FBI-ATF problems. In fact, in early August, 2010, the acting Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum and protocol specifying the division of responsibility between FBI and ATF on explosives-related matters, including the conduct of investigations and the maintenance of a single national explosives database.

(9) Other Committee Oversight Concerning the FBI. On March 24, 2010, the Committee held a hearing including representatives of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, as well as the National Counterterrorism Center and the Departments of Homeland Security and State, which focused on efforts to improve the sharing and analyzing of information to prevent terrorism. On May 20, 2010, the Committee's Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing at which an FBI representative provided an update concerning national efforts to eliminate the DNA backlog in forensic casework and the Combined DNA Index System that supports the national DNA database. A staff briefing on FBI efforts to remedy the backlog is scheduled for September 20, 2010.

(10) Committee Oversight on the Department of Justice and its Divisions. Other Committee oversight hearings have focused on DOJ and its divisions. On May 13, 2010, the Committee held a DOJ oversight hearing at which Attorney General Eric Holder testified and answered a full range of questions from Committee members about many aspects of DOJ operations. The Committee has submitted followup written questions, including questions focusing on efforts to improve DOJ efficiency with respect to financial and grant funds management. On March 4, 2010, the Committee's Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing on efforts to enforce criminal laws against medicaid fraud, which included testimony from the Department's Criminal Division. Overall, the Committee has held 12 oversight hearings during this year alone focusing on DOJ, including testimony from officials from the Antitrust, Civil, Criminal, and Civil Rights Divisions, the FBI, and the Executive Office of Immigration Review.

(11) Committee Oversight on Other Federal Agencies. The Committee has also held a number of oversight hearings focusing on agencies within its jurisdiction that are outside DOJ. For example, focusing on hearings during this session, on March 23, 2010, the Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which included testimony from the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office on efforts to improve information technology, fees, and other aspects of USCIS management. On May 5, 2010, the Committee held an oversight hearing on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which led to the PTO-related legislation discussed above. On May 20, 2010, the Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on the recently revived Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), which featured testimony by the Chairman of ACUS and Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia. On June 29, 2010, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held an oversight hearing featuring testimony from the Secret Service. And on July 27, 2010, the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee held a hearing on Federal Rulemaking and the Regulatory Process, which included testimony from Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3808, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.