House Resolution 10 (H.R. 10), which seeks to restrict access to birth certificates. I received a reply from House of Representatives David Hobson 7th District, Ohio in which he said that the House passed HR 10 Oct 8th with a vote of 282 to 134 and that the Senate passed their version of the 9/11 Recomendations Implementations Act, S. 2845 on Oct 6th with a vote of 96-2. There are vast differences between these two bills which will have to be resolved in a House, Senate Conference Committee. It is expected that Congress will vote on a final version of this act when it reconvenes in November after the election. I urge everyone to protect your constitutional freedoms as well as public records access and pass this on to the other lists and contact (and keep contacting them) your representatives voicing your concerns/opposition on restricting our family research capabilities to birth records and who knows what else !!!! From: Linda Harrison < lp.harrison@verizon.net> Subject: [Fwd: [OHFAIRFI-L] Congressman trying to restrict birth records...pleaseread] Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:27:39 -0400 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [OHFAIRFI-L] Congressman trying to restrict birth records...please read Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:37:26 -0600 Resent-From: OHFAIRFI-L@rootsweb.com Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:37:44 -0700 From: Lois Franceschi < ljfljf@psyber.com> To: OHFAIRFI-L@rootsweb.com Please pass this along to your lists. We need to get this information out to the public. This was posted on Ancestry Daily News. You can find it online at www.ancestry.com/dailynews Issue: October 7, 2004 Thanks, Sharon Pike Sharon@MeriwetherSociety.org Immediate Action Requested Legislation in Congress Seeks to Restrict Access to Birth Records; FGS Recommends Writing to Your Congressional Representatives The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a bill, House Resolution 10 (H.R. 10), which seeks to restrict access to birth certificates. This bill, which purpose is to respond to the threat of terrorism, is on a fast track to passage and has been voted on by several committees already. Your help is needed now. David Rencher, Chairman of the Record Access and Preservation Committee, a joint committee of the National Genealogical Society and Federation of Genealogical Societies, has sent a letter to the bill's sponsor, Congressman Dennis Hastert, recommending an amendment to the bill as follows: "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 the letter is available on the FGS site at www.fgs.org/rpa/formalactions.htm. To view this bill, go to http://thomas.loc.gov. Enter HR 10 in the search box for "Bill Number." Action Is Needed Now Because this bill is moving toward passage so quickly, it is urged that the genealogical community take action immediately and let their representatives know that they are in support of David Rencher's amendment and the FGS position in this important matter. To find your state representative's contact information, go to www.house.gov/writerep/. How Should I Word My Letter? While you should word the letter in any way that is comfortable for you, it is recommended that you include the following as a portion of the letter: "While I support the intention to increase security to protect the U.S. from terrorists and those who wish to improperly take U.S. identities, I am concerned that those researching their family's history continue to have access to non-certified birth records. Therefore, in order to support HR-10 I ask that you amend HR-10 Section 3063(d)(2) by adding the following wording to the existing 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.' I believe that this additional language is imperative so that the states do not react by restricting all certificates to comply with the law, rather than dealing with certified as opposed to non-certified birth certificates. This proposed amendatory language would remind them that they can and should be treated differently."