[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 13857-13858]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 12, 2017

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reintroduce the United States 
Commission on an Open Society with Security Act, a bill as timely now 
as it was when I first began working on it. I saw the first signs in 
the closing of parts of our open society after the Oklahoma City 
bombing in 1995, and I saw it again after 
9/11. This bill grows even more urgent as the country is ensnared in 
continuing wars that threaten our security, causing an increasing 
variety of security measures to proliferate throughout the country 
without due diligence and deep thinking about the effects on common 
freedoms and ordinary public access, and often without guidance from 
the government or bona fide security experts. For example, security in 
some federal buildings bar tourists here for Cherry Blossom season from 
even use of restrooms or cafeterias. The security for some federal 
buildings has for too long been unduly influenced by non-security 
experts, who happen to work for an agency but do not have the expertise 
to take into account actual threats.
  The bill I reintroduce today would begin the systematic investigation 
the nation needs to fully take 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 continue 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.
  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 2013 Navy Yard shooting, I wrote to 
then-President Barack Obama 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 creates a commission that would act not in the wake 
of a tragedy but before a crisis and before 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.

[[Page 13858]]



                          ____________________