FYI - from the latest issue of Family Tree Newsletter SECURITY BILL COULD THREATEN RECORDS ACCESS A sweeping antiterrorism bill that's making its way through Congress with lightning speed has genealogists worried about records access. HR 10--a.k.a. the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act-- was introduced by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) on Sept. 24. It passed the House 282 to 134 votes last Friday, and now heads to the Senate. Among its provisions, the bill would create a National Intelligence Director, National Counterterrorism Center and Joint Intelligence Community Council; change immigration laws; and impose regulations on state records--which is where genealogy comes in. Section 3603 of HR 10 would require states to "restrict public access to birth certificates and information gathered in the issuance process to ensure that access is restricted to entities with which the State has a binding privacy protection agreement," and "subject all persons with access to vital records to appropriate security clearance requirements." Go to http://thomas.loc.gov and type in HR 10 to see the entire bill and get status updates. Should genealogists be worried that states will comply with the provision by cutting off public records access entirely? "I think just about any genealogist is willing to agree that access to birth certificates should carry with it reasonable restrictions to prevent those certificates from being used in any criminal manner," says Jim Beidler, Pennsylvania liaison for the Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS) Records Preservation and Access Committee. "However, the unreasonable part of this bill is when its logic is expanded beyond its limits under the umbrella of 'vital records.' HR 10 as currently written goes far further than needed for the protection of Americans." Brian Anderson, commissioner of New York City's department of records, doesn't think the legislation would affect the archival birth and death certificates his office keeps. "But," he adds, "how this will impact later birth records and my [department's] ultimately obtaining more recent years will remain to be seen. Sounds like one for the lawyers." FGS (http://www.fgs.org) urges family historians to contact their senators and request that the bill make specific exceptions for uncertified copies of birth certificates, as well as birth records older than 100 years. The contention over HR 10 is the latest in a series of events spurring genealogists to write politicians. Visit the E-Mail Update Archives at http://www.familytreemagazine.com/newsletter/ archive.html to read more in these newsletters: * Oct. 23 and Nov. 20, 2003: An Ohio county health department seizes microfilmed birth records from a library; the state considers recalling microfilmed records. * April 3, 2003: Massachusetts doubles fees. * May 15, 2003: Ohio hikes fees and outlaws uncertified copies. * April 24, 2003: Texas legislation threatens to restrict access. * Dec. 6 and 13, 2001: RootsWeb removes several states' databases; California temporarily stops selling vital records.