The Speaker’s Lobby: The same questions arise after second attempt to assassinate Trump
In the wake of two assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump, questions have been raised as to whether the Secret Service needs more resources and funding.
The questions are always the same.
Be they in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy walloping the northeastern U.S.
Or the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.
Or following the second attempt to assassinate a former President.
A DECISION TO MAKE: HOUSE SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON'S GOVERNMENT FUNDING BILL DIVIDES REPUBLICANS
Do they have enough money and resources?
Would the federal government provide sufficient money to help New York City and the Northeast recover after the massive hurricane spun through the most-densely populated corridor of the U.S.? Mudslides wiped out roads and bridges in Vermont. The storm drowned subway stations in the Big Apple.
What will it take to rebuild the bridge in Baltimore? That bill will come due in a year or two.
And so the question now lands on the Secret Service after a gunman tried to fire at former President Trump during a round of golf at Trump International in Palm Beach, Fla. Does the service have the money? Does it need more resources?
Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe said his agency has "done more with less for decades." Rowe says "we have immediate needs right now."
President Biden agrees.
"One thing I want to make clear. The (Secret) Service needs more help and I think that Congress should respond to their needs if they in fact need more services," said the president.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. chimed in.
"We all must do our part to ensure an incident like this does not happen again. This means that Congress has a responsibility to ensure the Secret Service and all law enforcement have the resources they need to do their jobs," said Schumer. "If the Secret Service is in need of more resources, we are prepared to provide it for them. Possibly in the upcoming funding agreement."
That’s a reference to the looming interim spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, due at the end of this month.
But on Fox, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., doubted this is strictly about financial resources. Johnson argued this was an issue specific to former President Trump. And it was a human resources problem.
"He's the most attacked. He’s the most threatened. Even probably more than when he was in the Oval Office," said Johnson on Fox. "So we are demanding in the House that he have every asset available and we will make more available if necessary. I don't think it's a funding issue. I think it's a manpower allocation."
By Tuesday, Johnson cooled to the concept of showering the Secret Service with additional money.
"We don't just want to throw more money at a broken system," said Johnson.
Other conservatives spoke out about boosting funding levels for the Secret Service.
"We don't need to throw more money at the Secret Service. We need new leadership," said Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., on Fox Business.
"We need answers more than the Secret Service needs money. In the real world, when you don't do your job, you get fired. In the world of Washington, common sense is illegal. When you don't do your job, you get more money because obviously you need it. You don't have enough," said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., "What the Secret Service needs to do right now is simple: do better."
There was chatter that lawmakers might try to infuse the Secret Service with cash by latching it to a still-to-be-determined interim spending bill, known as a CR, to sidestep a government shutdown in two weeks.
Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who called for former President Trump to drop the Secret Service and use private security, lambasted that idea.
REPUBLICANS BLOCK DEM-BACKED IVF BILL REVIVED BY CHUCK SCHUMER
"The American people are not stupid. They see it for what it is. They're trying to attach the shiny bill to this CR to try and get it passed when the reality is, that's not really what needs to happen. We need to stop the irresponsible spending," said Mills on Fox Business.
"No. No. No. No. We don't need more funding," said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. "They've got plenty of personnel. They got plenty of money. They need to prioritize where to be placing these Secret Service agents."
But, finding the right people – and assigning them to the right places with the right tasks - isn’t easy.
"You don’t hire them right off the street," argued Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
At a House hearing before she resigned following the Butler, Penn., shooting, former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle testified that she needed 9,500 employees. But the agency was only staffed at 8,000.
Still, some Republicans were more sympathetic to a cash injection for the agency.
"They seem to need more resources," said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., adding former President Trump suggested he needed a bigger detail. "There’s only one way to do that: have enough money to hire enough agents. If you can even find enough people willing to do it."
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., chairs the Senate panel which controls purse strings for the Secret Service. He argues that the threat environment is so dangerous that lawmakers want the agency to get "creative" about getting appropriate resources to guard protectees.
The House is on the precipice of rejecting an interim spending plan pushed by Johnson to fund the government through next spring. The bill also requires people prove their citizenship in order to vote. That measure likely fails. So the Senate may counter with a straight bill to fund the government – tacking on some assistance to the Secret Service.
Johnson denied that the House would "get stuck" by the Senate if the House faltered. But remember, members of Jane’s Addiction get along better than some House Republicans. Johnson lacks the votes to pass his own bill. So, if the Senate sends over legislation with Secret Service aid, the House might just have to eat it to avoid a government shutdown.
"If increasing the funding is part of the solution, I'm for it," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "It would be politically beyond stupid for us to (shut down the government) right before the election because certainly, we'd get the blame."
So this is the same question which arises after each crisis: could money solve the issue? It’s natural that Congress often responds with money. Spending authority is the ultimate power on Capitol Hill.
Will more dollars help?
If Congress spends the money and there are no more security breaches, then lawmakers will argue the extra dough worked.
But if Congress spends the money and something else happens, it will probably spend even more money.
