[国会记录第160卷，第95号（2014年6月18日星期三）] [备注] [Page E1011]在2014年______ HON的安全法案介绍了美国开放社会。2014年6月18日星期三，哥伦比亚特区哥伦比亚特区的埃莉诺·福尔摩诺顿女士诺顿女士。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. ____________________