[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 26 (Thursday, February 11, 2021)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E129-E130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE NO FENCING AT THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL COMPLEX ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 11, 2021

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the No Fencing at the 
United States Capitol Complex Act, which would prohibit the

[[Page E130]]

construction of new permanent fencing on the grounds of the United 
States Capitol complex. Since the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol 
on January 6, 2021, the Capitol complex has become an untraversable 
fortress surrounded by frightening fences capped with barbed wire, 
typical of authoritarian regimes. In recent days, some officials, 
including the Acting Capitol Police Chief, have suggested that fencing 
become a permanent security feature of the Capitol complex. Although I 
agree that more needs to be done to protect the Capitol complex, the 
failure of Capitol security leaders to plan for the predictable and 
openly announced attack on the Capitol does not justify closing the 
complex from the public, to whom it belongs. We can and must maintain 
our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using 
the least restrictive means necessary to address security.
  The attack on the Capitol, which had little to do with the lack of 
permanent fencing, was the greatest intelligence and security failure 
in the history of our Nation's capital. There were countless security 
failures on January 6 that we can and must address, including: Taking 
threats of extremist violence seriously at an earlier stage; blocking 
off the Capitol during high-profile and high-threat events, as is 
typically done, but was not done on January 6; manpower; and training. 
Permanent fencing, which is incredibly imprecise, would not address 
these very real security lapses. It is more likely to keep out 
children, joggers and tourists than a coordinated attack on the 
Capitol. In fact, it is another form of security theater--it would make 
the Capitol ``look'' safe but mask the lack of state-of-the-art 
security measures that could actually prevent attacks in the future. 
Just in the past few days, security experts have already begun putting 
forward innovative ways to protect the Capitol while also protecting 
the values of openness and transparency, which are central to our 
democracy. We must foster that dialogue and welcome fresh ideas, not 
default to an archaic security strategy that humans invented over 
10,000 years ago.
  Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the Nation and 
the world, by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible 
and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own 
citizens. It would tell the world that the most powerful nation must 
rely on crude barriers for safety instead of state-of-the-art 
intelligence and security protocols. The Capitol has welcomed First 
Amendment protests and demonstrations for centuries without becoming a 
fortress. The openness of the Capitol and our democracy is our 
strength, not a security weakness that needs to be rooted out. Any 
further consideration of permanent fencing is desperate, distasteful 
and disrespectful of our history and institutions.
  Furthermore, we cannot forget that the Capitol complex does not exist 
in a vacuum. It is immediately surrounded by residential neighborhoods 
and local businesses, which form the heart of the District of Columbia. 
Permanent fencing would cause serious damage to the fabric of these 
communities. These residents and businesses have been more than 
understanding as their neighborhoods have turned into militarized 
zones. They have waited patiently as officers check their 
identification on their walk home and taken alternative routes when 
they have found blocked streets. Permanent fencing would infringe on 
their ability, as well as the general public's ability, to enjoy the 
public spaces that define our nation's capital.
  Already, the distance between government and the people has grown, 
with trust in government at historic lows. We should not entrench that 
distance further by placing intimidating barriers between ourselves as 
public servants and the people we serve, especially when such barriers 
are neither effective nor necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________