[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 133 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1849-E1850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   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.

                          ____________________