[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E983]
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

                       Tuesday, October 17, 2023

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, today, I introduce the No 
Fencing at the United States Capitol Complex Act, which would prohibit 
the installation of new permanent fencing on the grounds of the United 
States Capitol complex. I am pleased that Senator Chris Van Hollen is 
introducing this bill in the Senate.
  After the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, 
the Capitol complex became an untraversable fortress surrounded by 
frightening fences capped with barbed wire--typical of authoritarian 
regimes. Although 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 on January 6th does not justify 
closing the complex to 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 January 6th 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 6th that we can and must 
address, including: taking threats of extremist violence seriously at 
an earlier stage; closing the Capitol building grounds during high-
profile and high-threat events, as is typically done, but was not done 
on January 6th; manpower; building security; and training. Permanent 
fencing, which is incredibly imprecise, would not address those 
security lapses. It is more likely to keep out children, joggers and 
tourists than a coordinated attack on the Capitol. In fact, it is a 
form of security theater--it would make the Capitol ``look'' safer but 
mask the lack of state-of-the-art security measures that could prevent 
attacks in the future. Every threat to the Capitol since January 6th 
has been stopped by longstanding and new security measures and the 
excellent work of the Capitol Police. Permanent fencing would not aid 
the Capitol Police in stopping threats but it would create an image of 
authoritarianism, secrecy and inaccessibility. The Capitol complex is 
for all the American people, and, with proper security, must remain 
open to them.
  Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the nation and 
the world, by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible, 
transparent and of the people to one that is closed off, secretive 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, 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. 
After January 6th, these residents and businesses were more than 
understanding as their neighborhoods turned into militarized zones. 
They waited patiently as officers checked their identification on their 
walks home or took alternative routes when they 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.
  The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust 
in government at historic lows. Installing permanent fencing at the 
Capitol complex would only increase that distance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________