[国会纪录卷158，第51号（2012年3月28日星期三）] [备注] [页面E467-E468]介绍美国开放社会委员会，即2012年______ HON的安全法案。2012年3月28日星期三，哥伦比亚特区哥伦比亚区的埃莉诺·霍尔姆诺顿诺顿女士。演讲者先生，随着樱花季节开始，在这里汇集成千上万的美国人，我崛起在2012年的安全法案中重新介绍了美国开放社会的开放社会。该法案表达了一个我开始工作的想法[[页面评估]第一个签署俄克拉荷马城市轰炸后，我们的开放社会部分出现在9/11之前出现。这条法案随着全国各地增长的越来越多的安全措施而没有关于对普通自由和普通公众接入的影响，而没有政府或其他地方的任何指导，这条例草案随着各种各样的安全措施而迅速发展。借鉴政府建筑的例子。联邦建筑安全性所以失去控制，即美联盟建筑的旅游甚至不能进入使用洗手间或享受众多餐馆，否则就可以缺乏这样的设施。联邦建筑的安全性太长，只是在非保安专家手中居住，他们不考虑实际威胁，并因此花费奢华的纳税人美元免于不必要的安全程序。例如，几年前，政府责任办公室调查人员将炸弹制造材料带入10家高安全联邦建筑物，然后在浴室组建。这种丑闻在未能在资源分配中使用基于风险的评估来揭示。我今天重新考虑的条例草案将开始系统的调查，这充分考虑了维持我们民主传统的重要性，同时充分应对恐怖主义姿势的真实和实质性威胁。 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 of openness and security. The commission 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 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, from checkpoints on streets near the Capitol, even when there are no alerts, to applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy. 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 times will long be remembered for the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and the unprecedented challenges it has 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 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. 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 measures that neither requires nor is subject to advanced 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 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. ____________________