[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 18, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON AN OPEN SOCIETY WITH 
                          SECURITY ACT OF 2014

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 18, 2014

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the nation's capital brings thousands of 
Americans to Washington, D.C. this tourist season, I rise to 
reintroduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with 
Security Act of 2014. The bill expresses 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, 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 often 
without guidance from the government or bona fide security experts. 
Take the example of government buildings. Federal building security has 
gotten so out of control that a tourist passing by some federal 
buildings cannot even get in to use the restroom or enjoy the many 
restaurants. The security for federal buildings has too long been 
unduly influenced by non-security experts, such as the administrator in 
federal agencies, who do not take into account actual threats and, as a 
result, spend taxpayer dollars on needless security procedures or 
insist on restricting the public without regard to risk.
  Another example is the District of Columbia's only public heliport, 
which the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) shut down following the September 11, 
2001 terrorist attacks, without explanation or means to appeal the 
decision. Just days after the 9/11 attacks, helicopter service was 
restored in New York City, the major target of the attacks. However, 
even twelve years after the attacks, TSA and FAA and particularly the 
Secret Service still will not permit commercial helicopters to fly to 
D.C., unlike all other cities in the U.S.
  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 that should be required between 
openness and security. The commission would be composed not only of 
military and security experts, but, for the first time at the same 
table, also 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 should not 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, on an often ad hoc 
basis. Some federal buildings such as the U.S. Capitol have been able 
to deal with security issues, and then resume their openness to the 
public. Others, like the new Department of Transportation headquarters, 
remain mostly inaccessible to the public. These examples, drawn from 
the nation's capital, are replicated in public buildings throughout the 
United States.
  After 9/11, Americans expected additional and increased security 
adequate to protect citizens against the frightening threat of 
terrorism. However, in our country, people also expect their 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 for the unprecedented challenges it has 
brought. Nevertheless, we must provide ever-higher levels of security 
for our residents and public spaces while maintaining a free and open 
democratic society. What we have experienced since Oklahoma City and 9/
11 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. In the aftermath of 
the Navy Yard shooting, I wrote to the President of the United States 
requesting the establishment of an independent panel to investigate 
issues raised by that tragedy and to evaluate how to secure federal 
employees who work in facilities like the Navy Yard that are a part of 
a residential or business community. However, this bill seeks a 
commission that would act not in the wake of events but 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 require nor are subject to civilian oversight or an 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.

                          ____________________