[国会纪录：2009年9月10日（延期）] [页面e2243]介绍了美国开放社会委员会，安全法案为2009年______ HON。2009年9月10日星期四，哥伦比亚特区哥伦比亚区的Eleanor Holmes Norton诺顿女士。议员，今天，我介绍了美国委员会与安全行为的开放社会，表达了一个想法我开始工作的想法，当俄克拉荷马州城市轰炸悲剧之后出现了开放社会的部分出现的第一个迹象时，9/ 11。我在9/11八周年介绍了这项法案，因为这项法案在全国各地增长的越来越多的安全措施，而不思考他们对普通自由和普通访问的影响，而没有政府的任何指导别处。本条例草案的介绍还在即将到来的9月22日关于联邦建筑安全性的聆讯，这使得不受联邦建筑的旅游传递的游客甚至无法进入使用洗手间或享受众多地区的餐厅设施失去了这样的机会。联邦建筑的安全性太长，才居住在不考虑实际威胁的非保安专家手中，因此，花费奢侈的保障程序。例如，政府责任办公室今年完成了Sting Operation，将炸弹制作材料载入10家高安全联邦建筑物，并在浴室组建。这种丑闻在未能使用基于风险的评估的资源中的评估亮起。 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 accomplish its difficult mission, the Commission created by this bill 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 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 diverse group of experts 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 the fear of terrorism-- whether checkpoints on streets near the Capitol even when there were no alerts, to 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 on 9/11, 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 they have brought. We must provide ever-higher levels of security for our people and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society. 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 investigated the riotous uprisings that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. The important difference in this bill is that the Commission 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 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 the society is closing down, 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. ____________________

HR 3555 IH

111年大会

1日会议

h . r . 3555

建立美国安全开放社会委员会。

在代表院里

2009年9月10日

诺顿女士介绍了以下条例草案;委员会提到了运输和基础设施委员会，除了国土安全委员会之外，在每案中何时由发言人决定，以便审议截至相关委员会管辖范围内的此类规定

法案

建立美国安全开放社会委员会。

第1.短头衔。

秒。2。发现。

秒。3.委员会建立。

秒。4.委员会的职能。

5秒。。委员会的权力。

秒。6.人事事项。

秒。7。报告。

秒。8。终止的佣金。

秒。9.拨款授权。

结尾