On the recordNovember 17, 2010
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.
