[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E467-E468]
INTRODUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON AN OPEN SOCIETY WITH
SECURITY ACT OF 2012
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the cherry blossom season begins,
bringing thousands of Americans here, I rise to reintroduce the United
States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2012. The
bill expresses an idea I began working on when the
[[Page E468]]
first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after
the Oklahoma City bombing, well before 9/11. This bill grows more
urgent as an increasing variety of security measures proliferate
throughout the country without any thought about the effects on common
freedoms and ordinary public access, and without any guidance from the
government or elsewhere. Take the example of government buildings.
Federal building security has gotten so out of control that a tourist
passing by a Federal building cannot even get in to use the restroom or
enjoy the many restaurants located in areas otherwise devoid of such
amenities. The security for Federal buildings has too long resided only
in the hands of non-security experts, who do not take into account
actual threats and, as a result, spend lavish amounts of taxpayer
dollars on needless security procedures. For example, several years
ago, Government Accountability Office investigators carried bomb-making
materials into 10 high-security Federal buildings and then assembled
them in the bathrooms. This scandal shines a light on the failure to
use risk-based assessments in the allocation of resources.
The bill I reintroduce today would begin a systematic investigation
that fully takes into account the importance of maintaining our
democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and
substantial threat that terrorism poses. To accomplish its difficult
mission, the bill authorizes a 21-member commission, with the President
designating nine members and the House and Senate each designating six
members, to investigate the balance of openness and security. 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 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 security/access balance required by our
democratic traditions, a diverse group of experts needs to be at the
same table.
For years, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down
because of terrorism and the fear of terrorism, from checkpoints on
streets near the Capitol, even when there are no alerts, to
applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy.
Following the unprecedented terrorist attack on our country on 9/11,
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 times will long be remembered for 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. Yet this is no ordinary threat 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 before moving 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, which investigated the riots
that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. The important
difference in this bill is that the Commission 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 measures that
neither requires nor is subject to advanced civilian oversight, or
analysis of alternatives and 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 our society is closing
down, all 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 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 commission of experts from a broad array
of disciplines to help chart the new course that will be required to
protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and
traditions.
____________________
