This is a very long message, but think it is of importance to all our list members as it applies to all states. Please read it carefully. Contact your Congressman and Senator, >Massachusetts Genealogical Council HR 10 Alert > > >The US Bill from the House of Representatives, H.R. 10 “the 9/11 >Recommendations Implementation >Act of 2004”(HR10) creates “unintended consequences” for millions of >American Citizens, including >but not limited to Adoptees, Retirees, Military and Other Federal >Government Employees, Education >and Medical Service Providers, Journalists, Attorneys, Family History >Researchers, Genealogists, >Historians, Biographers, Private Investigators, as well as Generations of >Under-privileged or >Under-documented Populations. > >The Massachusetts Genealogical Council (MGC) was organized in 1980 as an >umbrella organization of >genealogical societies throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to >monitor legislation >affecting public records access and preservation, and educate the public >in responsible family >history research practices. The MGC has examined and testified at >Massachusetts numerous >legislative hearings and provided decades of public education seminars. > >In addition to the ability of the MGC to understand the impact of proposed >legislation for it’s >members and the research community, the MGC Board of directors is >comprised of professionals in >the fields of security, telecommunications, transportation, medicine, data >base systems, law, >government and business procedures. > >The MGC Board of Directors and Members applaud credible measures for >protections against >terrorism, ID Theft and invasion of privacy. > >However, the provisions in the Federal Bill HR 10, Chapter 2 creates the >most extensive list of >“unintended consequences” in our decades of experience with proposed >legislation. > >Within the hundreds of pages of measures proposed in HR 10, we >specifically address “CHAPTER >2--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES”, as it decimates normality in >the every day >activities of citizens, as well as professionals who rely on source and >fact checking due >diligence procedures throughout the country. > >Open Records, Public Records and Vital Records definitions within each >state are rooted in the >origins of the state constitutions, charters and legal systems. Thus each >state has built a system >of laws and regulations, and adopted their own specific positions and >measures such as “certified” >versus “non-certified” or “for genealogical or other research purposes >only” certificates, as well >as privacy periods for Vital Records information access. > >David E. Rencher, Chair of the Record Preservation and Access Committee >for the Federation of >Genealogical Societies and The National Genealogical Society has already >noted that HR-10 Section >3063(d)(2) should at least be modified by adding the following wording to >one paragraph: > > “However, nothing in this Chapter 2 shall be construed to require a > State to change its law with >respect to public access to (A) non-certified copies of birth >certificates, or to (B) birth >certificates or birth records once a period of 100 years has elapsed from >the date of creation of >the certificate or record.” > >A copy of David Rencher’s letter to the bill's sponsor, Congressman Dennis >Hastert, is available >on the FGS site www.fgs.org/rpa/formalactions.htm > > >Upon further examination of the full content of HR 10, Chapter 2, the MGC >Board of Directors finds >that the entire HR 10 Chapter 2 should be excised from the process that >the House and the Senate >will now explore to combine their separate bills to satisfy the 9/11 >recommendations: > >First, many states, such as Massachusetts, would be required to change >their state constitution to >comply with HR 10, Chapter 2. > >Second, all states vary widely in their adoption of certified versus >un-certified records >procedures, as well as privacy and access periods, and numerous other >aspects of Vital Records >administration ­ often combined and intertwined with what that state >considers related measures at >the time of enactment. > >Next, the crafters of HR 10 clearly are not aware of the escalating >“unintended consequences” of >The Patriot’s Act, HIPPA and other post-9/11, ID Theft and Privacy >legislation: > > Genealogists are particularly aware of post-9/11 “unintended > consequence” incidents. The >poignant vignettes of suspicion and trauma are increasing for elderly >citizens who were immigrants >during the twentieth century. > In parallel, education and medical system personnel are reporting > similar problems, >particularly in the many communities where the latest Federal census in >2000 shows 20 per cent or >more of their population were born outside the US. > > HR 10, Chapter 2, Section 3063 (a) specifically provides punative > measures for the millions >of individuals in the general population who would be affected by these >unrealistic measures: > MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION. > (a) MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL USE- > (1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of > this Act, a Federal agency >may not accept, for any official purpose, a birth certificate issued by a >State to any person >unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section. > >HR 10 now threatens to rescind individual and State’s rights with sweeping >measures: > > Additional impositions under HR 10 would jeopardize such every day > procedures as Social >Security applications or military enlistment. > Individuals who were born in one state, are often not currently > living in the same state >(and therefore have no voting leverage). If the state of their birth >contests such sweeping >Federal authority or is simply unable to meet the requirements because the >Federal funding does >not address the pre-existing conditions of the state’s Vital Records, any >individual could be >denied recognition of their birth record. > >Next, HR 10, Chapter 2, Section 3063 (c) MINIMUM ISSUANCE STANDARDS >provides language that further >conflicts with the rights of millions of people: > >- The requestor must know all the information on the record, permanently >blocking all individuals >whose purpose is to >o correct an erroneous record (an unfortunately growing awareness due to >the numerous >transcription problems on both originals and the levels of derivatives >introduced by electronic >“progress”); >o get the record information, including, but not limited to >* states where adoptee rights have been modernized; >* the increasing need of the medical community for genealogical medical >histories to treat or >prevent inherited disorders; >* the ability of ethnic and cultural groups (that once responded to >discrimination by hiding their >origins) to reclaim their heritage; >* the establishment or correction of property rights that were incorrectly >adjudicated or >transferred in the past; >o utilize the Genealogical Proof Method (GPM) in any of the above >situations, to compare various >pieces of evidence with conflicting statements of other records purporting >to be “fact”; >o create family group and neighborhood reconstruction, for personal family >history, medical, >cultural and historical studies across many disciplines. > >- The language of this section further specifies that the requestor must >present legal >authorization to request the birth certificate without specifying what the >basis of legal >authorization is, suggesting that individual rights would have to be >adjudicated, creating a >myriad of class action suits or test cases before the “unintended >consequences” would be >recognized. > >- This section then further discriminates against individual rights by >leaving to regulations >“minimum standards for issuance of a birth certificate to specific family >members, their >authorized representatives, and others who demonstrate that the >certificate is needed for the >protection of the requestor's personal or property rights.” - when such >rights vary across and >between states. > >- Further difficulties in this section arise with an incredible “catch-22” >of suggesting that the >third party verifications of requestor identity that are currently failing >in electronic Identity >Theft (in spiraling credit card and electronic transaction fraud >statistics) should next be >employed for electronic birth certificate requests, thus creating, rather >than reducing >opportunities, for birth certificate fraud which is now anecdotal, >particularly as compared to the >escalation of electronic fraud and lack of effective security measures >against electronic hackers >of all kinds: >o “to meet the requirements of this section, for applications by >electronic means, through the >mail or by phone or fax, a State shall employ third party verification, or >equivalent >verification, of the identity of the requestor.” > >Next, Section 3063 (d) OTHER REQUIREMENTS proposes to create a >militaristic security environment >in every town clerk and Vital Records office with requirements that much >more closely resemble a >nuclear power plant document repository (without regard to the glaring >lack of proper preservation >and archival protections for the existing records), including but not >limited to: >- building security standards >- restricted to entities with which the State has a binding privacy >protection agreement >- security clearance requirements >- fraudulent document recognition training programs >- internal operating system standards >- central database that can provide interoperative data exchange with >other States and with >Federal agencies >- ensure that birth and death records are matched >- implementation of electronic verification of vital events > >Next, Section 3064. ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTRONIC BIRTH AND DEATH >REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, further >extends the goals of a futuristic system without addressing any of the >underlying problems >mentioned above, and relegates the following report requirement to >post-bill passage ­ instead of >pre-bill analysis, such that the aforementioned issues would be exposed, >examined, quantified and >actually >provide for realistic legislation initiatives: >- “Submit to Congress, a report on whether there is a need for Federal >laws to address penalties >for fraud and misuse of Vital Records and whether violations are >sufficiently enforced.” > >Next, Section 3065. ELECTRONIC VERIFICATION OF VITAL EVENTS, further >extends security checks to >allow for the electronic validation by state and federal agencies of paper >certificates - >particularly to prevent the use of a deceased person’s birth certificate. >Anyone, who has been >told that their birth does not exist, or found someone else’s credit >information has been >“provisionally” or permanently confused with their own, will immediately >relate to the potential >for being told that they have been marked as deceased or having to utilize >Mark Twain’s famous >“The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”, as only humor could >alleviate the kind of >distress, such errors provoke, particularly in the elderly and children >where they most often >occur. > >NOTE: While the genealogical community, in particular, would welcome a >“state of the art” and >accurate system for matching birth and death records, millions of family >history researchers have >intimate knowledge of the regularity of human errors in the original >records, the history of Vital >Records laws and late registration procedures, the loss of records through >disaster or neglect, >the promulgation of errors with electronic systems, the lack of proper >records facilities, and >other handicaps that make it difficult for Vital Records offices to >perform their current duties. > >IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST: > >Please, read the entire Birth Certificate Chapter! > >HR 10, >TITLE III--BORDER SECURITY AND TERRORIST TRAVEL >Subtitle A--Immigration Reform in the National Interest >Subtitle B--Identity Management Security >CHAPTER 2--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES > >included in http://home.comcast.net/~massgencouncil/MGCHR10Alert.pdf ; > >find out how your Congressman voted at >http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll523.xml ; > >forward this information to other concerned citizens ; > >and contact both your Congressman and Senators. > >To find your Representative and Senator contact information, go to >www.house.gov/writerep >and http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm > >HR10 has been passed in the House of Representatives. > >S2845, National Intelligence Reform Act passed the Senate and is awaiting >consolidation with HR10. > >Visit http://thomas.loc.gov/ for the full text of HR 10 and S2845 as well >as progress reports. The >Joint Committee consolidation reported goal is to be done within the next >two weeks ­ a fast track >election period initiative. > >HR 10, Chapter 2 needs to be excised from this legislation! > >The MGC Board of Directors is composed of elected officers and delegates >from the following member >organizations: > American-French Genealogical Society > Allen County Public Library of Fort Wayne, Indiana > Billerica Friends of Genealogy > Central Massachusetts Genealogical Society > Descendants of Whaling Masters > Essex Society of Genealogists > Friends of the Silvio O. Conte Archives > Genealogical Roundtable > Jewish Genealogical Society of Greater Boston > Massachusetts Society of Genealogists > Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants > The Greater Boston Chapter of Association of Professional > Genealogists > The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution > The New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS) > Plymouth County Genealogists > TIARA (The Irish Ancestral Research Association ) > Waltham Historical Society > >OFFICERS > President: Bernard J. Couming > Vice-President: Daphnah Sage > Treasurer: Peter Viles > Secretary: Sandra Gambone > DIRECTORS > Archives: Ann Dzindolet > Civil Records: Shirley Barnes > Asst. Civil Records: John S. Gracey > Newsletter: Mary Ellen Grogan > Asst. Newsletter Editors: Georgie Hallock, Christine Sweet-Hart, > John Thompson > Programs: Sharon Sergeant > Publicity: Bobby Lyman > Ways & Means: Sheila FitzPatrick > Webmaster: Bob Stone > >Massachusetts Genealogical Council Website: http://www.MassGenCouncil.org > > > >===== >Sharon Sergeant >Ancestors and Ephemera >http://GenealogyFair.com >Bring Your Ancestors Home! > > >==== APG Mailing List ==== >The Association of Professional Genealogists >http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html