[Congressional Record: September 10, 2007 (Extensions)]
[Page E1849-E1850]




   INTRODUCTION OF UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON AN OPEN SOCIETY WITH
                          SECURITY ACT OF 2007

                                 ______


                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2007

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the United States
Commission on an Open Society and Security Act; expressing an idea I
began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our
open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing tragedy, well
before 9/11. I introduce this bill on the sixth anniversary of 9/11
because the bill grows more urgent as increasing varieties of security
throughout the country proliferate without any thought about their
effect on common freedoms and ordinary access, and without any guidance
from the government or elsewhere. The bill I introduce today would
begin a systematic investigation that takes full account of the
importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding
adequately to the real and substantial threats terrorism poses.
  To be useful in accomplishing its difficult mission, the Commission
would be composed not only of military and security experts, but for
the first time, they would be at the same table with experts from such
fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art,
engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date,
questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to
security and military experts. They

[[Page E1850]]

are indispensable participants, but these experts cannot alone resolve
all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open
society. In order to strike the balance required by our democratic
traditions, a cross-cutting group needs to be working together at the
same table.
  For years before our eyes, parts of our open society have gradually
been closed down because of terrorism and fear of terrorism--whether
checkpoints on streets near the Capitol even when there were no alerts,
or applications of technology without regard to their effects on
privacy. We have also seen heightened controversy, litigation,
hearings, legislation and court decisions because of the use of
technology that intercepts terrorist communications but also covers
communications among Americans.
  Following the unprecedented terrorist attack on our country,
Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to
protect citizens against this frightening threat. However, in our
country, people also expect government to be committed and smart enough
to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of
their personal liberty. These years in our history will long be
remembered by the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country
and the unprecedented challenges it has brought. We must provide ever-
higher levels of security for our people and public spaces while
maintaining a free and open democratic society for as long as is
necessary. Yet, this is no ordinary war that we expect to be over in a
matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The
indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting
aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the
goal of maintaining an open society.
  When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past,
we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply and to move to
resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the
9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of
the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as
the Silberman-Robb Commission) and the Kerner Commission that
investigate the riotous uprisings that swept American cities in the
1960s and 1970s. The important difference in the Commission proposed in
this bill is that it seeks to act before a crisis-level erosion of
basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global
terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the
proliferation of security that neither requires nor is subject to
advance civilian oversight or analysis of alternatives or repercussions
on freedom and commerce.
  With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness,
we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th century
approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around
beautiful monuments and other signals that the society is closing down,
or anti-privacy applications, without appropriate exploration of
possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is
too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are
often as inadequate as they are menacing.
  We can do better, but only if we recognize and then come to grips
with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and
open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The
place to begin is with a high-level presidential commission of experts
in a broad spectrum of disciplines who can help chart the new course
that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic
institutions and traditions.





HR 3519 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3519

To establish the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 10, 2007

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL

To establish the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 4. FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 5. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 6. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

SEC. 7. REPORT.

SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

END