Enhanced Presidential Security Act of 2024

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9106, the Enhanced Presidential Security Act of 2024, requires the Secret Service to apply the same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect Presidents, Vice Presidents, and major Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

It also directs the Secret Service to conduct a review of the provision of protection provided to these individuals and to report its findings and recommendations to Congress.

I support this legislation to ensure that the Secret Service has the tools, resources, and procedures necessary to keep our highest elected officials and candidates safe, which is critical to our democratic system of government.

In advancing this legislation, Republicans are hoping to distract from the common denominator in every successful assassination of a U.S. President, as well as the attempted assassination of President Reagan and the attempted assassination of former Presidents and Presidential candidates Theodore Roosevelt and Donald Trump. In every single one of these events, the weapon used was a gun.

The fact is that the work of the Secret Service is made infinitely more difficult by our lax gun laws.

This Congress, the Republican majority has repeatedly sought to further weaken our gun laws, endangering our children, our law enforcement officers, our communities, and even their own Presidential candidate.

Last year, after a mass shooter killed six people, including three children, at a school in Nashville, Republicans fought to make sure everyone could continue to acquire the accessory that shooter used in circumvention of the National Firearms Act.

Earlier this year, our Republican colleagues cheered as the Supreme Court, stacked with Republican nominees, struck down the regulation of bump stocks, allowing the accessory used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history to again be available to the public without even a background check.

When the Senate tried to bring up legislation to again regulate bump stocks, Senate Republicans blocked it. Similar legislation in the House has just one Republican cosponsor, and the Republican majority has refused to advance it.

Just today, Republicans used their control of the Judiciary Committee to advance a bill that would weaken the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, reinvigorate the black market for guns, and reopen the online and private sale loophole. That legislation would make it so that convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other dangerous persons who are prohibited from possessing a gun could easily get one without a background check. It would make it so that unlicensed sellers could, once again, profit from endangering our communities.

It doesn't stop there. Not only have they sought to unravel our gun laws through legislation and our courts, but our Republican colleagues have also sought to defund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the primary agency tasked with enforcing our gun laws, including by helping State and local law enforcement solve violent crimes and keep guns out of the wrong hands.

The cumulative effect of these efforts is clear. We know from headline after headline that it is far too easy for violent individuals to get a gun and end a life or many lives in a matter of seconds. That is true whether the attacker targets schoolchildren, a domestic partner, a house of worship, or a Presidential candidate.

The challenges faced by the Secret Service would be vastly diminished if we passed any one of our many proposals to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but over and over, Republicans have prioritized access to deadly weapons over the safety of our communities.

I support this legislation because the Secret Service must be able to protect our highest elected officials and candidates, but this legislation will do nothing to make the rest of us any safer or change the fact that gun violence continues to take the lives of more than 100 Americans every single day.

As Republicans yet again rush headlong toward a government shutdown, unable to even manage the most basic aspects of governing, and as they continue to oppose every action to prevent gun violence, Democrats will continue to fight to make our communities safer for every American.

Mr. Speaker, I nonetheless urge my colleagues to support this modest legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation is awash in guns. It is the only Nation where we have, time after time after time, school shootings, where we aren't even surprised at mass shooting events in schools. We are the only Nation that has mass shooting events because of our lax gun laws, because we are awash in guns.

Mr. Lawler says we should prosecute people who use guns in crimes. I agree. We certainly should. We certainly should do that, and if the people of New York aren't, they should. I can't comment on the New York laws. I haven't been in the legislature in 32 years. Mr. Lawler has been there more recently.

The fact of the matter is, this country is awash in guns, and Mr. Jordan says that a left-winger attempted to assassinate former President Trump. We don't know that. The person who attempted to assassinate him, we know, researched the whereabouts of former President Trump. He researched the whereabouts of President Biden. He seemed to want to kill somebody, and the evidence seems to point out that the reason he attacked Trump and not Biden was because Trump was holding a rally near where he was. However, the fact is he is dead, and we don't know. We certainly don't know his political opinions.

In any event, this country is awash in guns.

While this bill is a good bill, we should equally protect our Presidential candidates, whether they are the incumbent President or the would-be President and Vice-Presidential candidates. The fact is that Presidential candidates and all of us are less safe because this country is awash in guns, and it is the only country in the world--I shouldn't say that--there are countries where genocide is being committed, like Darfur in Sudan, but it is one of the only countries in the world awash in guns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres), the cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Federal Government is just as it was this same time last year, on the brink of shutting down, threatening to cut off essential services for millions of Americans.

Instead of addressing the real needs of the American people, Republicans have spent this week spreading misinformation about immigrants, attempting to hide from their own record on reproductive care, and evading their responsibility to govern.

In bringing up this legislation, they seek to distract the American people from the fact that their own actions have repeatedly made every American, from Presidential candidates to schoolchildren, more at risk of gun violence.

When Democrats take back the House, we will work to make everyone in this Nation safer, but for today, I urge Members to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

In America, elections are determined at the ballot box, not by an assassin's bullet.

In recent months, we have seen two such attempts on the life of former President Donald Trump: first in Pennsylvania, and most recently in Florida.

That these incidents were allowed to occur is a stain on our country. We have endured through assassinations of political leaders, including Presidents. It is destructive to our country. It is destructive to our democracy, our constitutional Republic, and it undermines the confidence that Americans have in their government and in the electoral process.

But for a millimeter's difference, Donald Trump would be dead. But for a millimeter's difference, an assassin would have upended our election. Regardless of how every American feels, regardless of how every American intends to vote, it is the right of the American people to determine the outcome of this election.

The idea that our election could be decided by an assassin's bullet should shake the conscience of our Nation, and it requires swift action by the Federal Government. It requires Congress to ensure that the Secret Service provides the same level of protection as it does to the President of the United States to the leading candidates for President. In this case, they are former President Trump and Vice President Harris.

Either one of them is going to be President come January 20, 2025, and the American people should get to make that choice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres) for assisting in immediately moving to introduce this legislation in the aftermath of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

It is shocking that it took a second assassination attempt for Donald Trump to get the same level of protective detail from the Secret Service as the President of the United States. It shouldn't have come to that, which is all the more reason why this bill is necessary. It will ensure that this never happens again and that the Secret Service conduct an immediate review to determine what resources are

needed, what personnel is needed, and report immediately back to Congress.

This will ensure that every candidate running for President gets the same level of protective detail as the current President and that the same level of protective detail afforded to the Vice President is afforded to the Vice-Presidential candidate.

We have a responsibility to ensure their safety and their well-being.

I also commend my colleagues, Congressman Mike Kelly and Jason Crow, who are leading the House Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump. Their work to investigate this incident and the detailed shortcomings within the Secret Service will certainly help Congress implement further meaningful reforms in the future and ensure the funding and resources are available.

I think the most important thing for the American people to understand is that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that our elections are free, fair, and decided by the American people at the ballot box, and that any attempt, either by a foreign government or by a fellow citizen, to undermine that by trying to assassinate a political candidate must be stopped at all costs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, and Chairman Jordan for swiftly moving to advance this legislation to the floor for a vote. I encourage every single one of my colleagues, regardless of their political views, regardless of whether they like or dislike one of the candidates, to recognize the fundamental fact that we have a responsibility to ensure their safety and well-being and let the American people decide who will be President, not an assassin and not an assassin's bullet.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of gun violence in America, I think about New York and the disastrous cashless bail law, which was put into effect and supported by the ranking member and continues to be supported by the ranking member, in which more than 80 percent of perps who are carrying and using a gun are released back out onto the street.

I will quote New York City Mayor Eric Adams: ``When it comes to guns, this year, 2,386 people were arrested with a gun. Of those, approximately 1,921 are out on the street.''

Eric Adams went on to say:

``Arrested with a gun, out on the street.''

``Gun arrests in custody, 19.5 percent. Out of custody, over 80 percent.''

``How do you take a gun law seriously when the overwhelming numbers are back on the streets after carrying a gun?''

Eric Adams says very clearly that you can't take it seriously when you refuse to prosecute people who use guns in the commission of a crime.

So many of my colleagues in New York have been so clueless about this. They talk about gun violence, but they have no problem allowing a criminal using guns in the commission of a crime to be put back on the street to do it again and again. It is wrong.

If you want to crack down on gun violence in America, then prosecute criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime, but no, we don't want to do that.

New York raised the age so 16- and 17-year-olds are being treated in family court rather than criminal court, and the gangs are using them, letting them use guns in the commission of a crime because they know they are going to get a slap on the wrist.

Let's get serious about gun violence in America. Let's crack down on criminals who actually use guns in the commission of a crime.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me make it clear that I share Senator Scott's concern--deep concern--that the recent attacks on former President Trump's life have made it clear that there are security gaps in his protection. What happened in Butler and Palm Beach was unacceptable, and it cannot be allowed to happen again.

That is why this week, Congress is coming together, poised to pass a continuing resolution that I hope the Senator will support that will give the Secret Service $231 million in additional funding to provide the Agency with the authority to spend money at a faster rate so that they can meet their mission, and their mission is ``zero fail.''

I am the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which is charged with funding the Secret Service. I am proud of the quick work that we have done to identify the funds that can be spent between now and the election and between now and the inauguration to make sure that any gaps are closed.

The reason that I rise on this particular bill, though, is because I don't want to promise the American public more than this bill actually delivers.

This bill says that the Secret Service shall use ``the same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect Presidents, Vice Presidents, and major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.'' Now, that may sound meaningful, but in reality, my sense is that that is current law.

Right now, when the Secret Service makes a determination on the provision of protection, it is assessing the protectee's life, their work, their travel patterns, the potential threats, and the risk of harm to that person. The standard that the Secret Service uses is to provide whatever protection level is necessary to meet that ``zero fail'' mission to protect the person under their charge. With a team of experts, the Secret Service determines the level and the type of protection that is needed. That is the process, and those are the existing standards.

Let's be clear. Commanders in Chief--Presidents of the United States--do have certain unique requirements regarding their protection. For instance, the Department of Defense is supplying a traveling Commander in Chief with certain capabilities, chiefly amongst them the ability to stay in contact with our nuclear triad and communication assets necessary for the President to be in seamless communication with the Department of Defense and military command should a crisis arise. That is a unique set of capabilities that a Commander in Chief has, and it goes into the assessment that the Secret Service makes as to the level of protection that the Commander in Chief needs.

They are using the same standard--do whatever is necessary in order to protect the life of the protectee--but Commanders in Chief, because they are Commanders in Chief, have a different constellation of assets that surround them that mean that the standard gets applied accordingly.

So I am not actually going to object. I am not sure that this bill changes anything about the way the Secret Service approaches their mission. They are going to continue to do whatever is necessary in order to protect the detailee, to protect the individual under their mandate. I think the much more substantive thing we are going to do this week is to get them the resources they need. My hope is that all of my Republican colleagues who have been talking about the importance of Secret Service protection are willing to support this increase in funding that the continuing resolution will include.

I will end by expressing my additional hope that we will seek to have a more holistic conversation here about how to protect former President Trump, how to protect President Biden, and how to protect Vice President Harris.

I am ready to move forward with this bill. I don't think it does anything to meaningfully change the way that the Secret Service approaches their job. I am ready to move forward on additional assets.

But we also continue to choose to give weapons of mass destruction to assassins. Other nations around the world don't choose to hand weapons with such accurate long-range capabilities, such powerful destructive force, to these assassins whose brains are breaking.

We also have a constellation of actors in this country who are engaged in a web of conspiracy theories. There is a justification of political violence that exists in this country today--apologies for those people who tried to kill us, attacked us on January 6--that leads many others to contemplate that they will also be let off the hook for their acts of political violence.

So I take the protection of former President Trump and Vice President Harris and everyone under Secret Service protection very seriously.

Let's move ahead with this bill. I don't think it actually solves the problem. Let's pass the additional money so that they have everything they need--the Secret Service--in order to get the job done. Then let's sit down and have a broader conversation about why we have seen this spike in political violence and what other ways Republicans and Democrats can come together.

Only by having that comprehensive conversation about funding, about the lethal means of assassination, about the celebration of political violence that happens in this country will we really do the job that is necessary and help the Secret Service reach their ``zero fail'' mission.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, in both the House and the Senate, legislation was introduced to

increase the Secret Service protection for Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. We all know why this legislation is needed. In the span of just 65 days, President Trump, our former President and the Republican nominee to be the next President of the United States, has been the target of two assassination attempts.

In Butler, PA, President Trump was shot in the head but miraculously was spared from death. Unfortunately, Fire Chief Corey Comperatore was killed by the assassin's bullets, and others were gravely injured by his gunfire. Then it happened again in my home State of Florida.

It is thanks to the incredible work of President Trump's Secret Service detail that another would-be assassin was unable to take a shot at the President while he was golfing with friends. We know that day could have ended much differently. We thank God that these attempts have not been successful. But each of these events has reminded the Nation of the dangers surrounding President Trump and the need to make sure he, his family, and those around him are safe. That is why I introduced the Protect Our Presidents Act here in the Senate and Representatives Mike Lawler and Ritchie Torres introduced the Enhanced Presidential Security Act in the House.

The safety and security of those seeking to lead our Nation should never be in jeopardy and should be applied regardless of party. That is why these bills ensure all Presidential nominees, both now and in the future, are provided the enhanced protection they clearly require and deserve.

On Friday, the House passed Representatives Lawler and Torres's bill in a unanimous vote of 405 to 0. This unanimous vote shows that when commonsense and desperately needed legislation come before Congress, we can act quickly to do what the American people expect of us.

I am proud to lead this effort in the Senate, and I am on the floor today to request the immediate passage of the Enhanced Presidential Security Act so we can send this good and necessary bill to President Biden's desk so it may become law.

Our action today goes beyond the simple language of this bill to increase the Secret Service protection for our party's Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. Passing the Enhanced Presidential Security Act today, with the unanimous consent of the Senate, sends an important message to the American public and the world that we will not ignore these threats, which are truly an attack on our democratic process and have rightly shocked the world.

As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 9106, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their support of this commonsense legislation, which has now passed with unanimous, bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I will continue working with my colleagues to ensure nominees for President and Vice President are never in jeopardy and are provided the enhanced protection they clearly require and deserve.

This bill will now go to President Biden's desk, and I hope he acts quickly to sign it into law.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9106) to direct the Director of the United States Secret Service to apply the same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect Presidents, Vice Presidents, and major Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 9106.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), my friend, who is the sponsor of this critical legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. Some crazy guy on the left tries to assassinate President Trump, and it is Republicans' fault? That is what we just heard.

Next thing they are going to say is, oh, some crazy guy on the left tries to assassinate President Trump, and it is President Trump's fault. Oh, wait a minute. They said that, too.

This is ridiculous. We have a bipartisan bill that Representative Lawler went to Democrats to work with them on, something that everyone knows needs to happen, and what does the ranking member do? He says it is Republicans' fault. What do Democrats do? What does the left do? They say it is President Trump's fault. You cannot make this stuff up.

After all that President Trump has been through, they go to that. After they spied on his campaign, after Mueller, after impeachment, after they raided his home, after they tried the crazy 14th Amendment idea that the best way to beat him is not let him play the game, not let him go on the ballot--thank goodness the Supreme Court decided 9-0 that was bogus. That is what they do.

I wasn't even going to talk. I was going to let Mr. Lawler, who has done the work on this, handle all this. His remarks were totally bipartisan, not partisan at all. I was just going to let this good piece of legislation that is going to go on suspension--everyone is going to vote for it--just let it happen, but no, they cannot help themselves. It is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), who is working in the proper fashion on a good piece of legislation that will protect, as he indicated in his opening remarks, both former President Trump and Vice President Harris. That is what we want in America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this commonsense, good legislation that is designed to protect our Presidential candidates, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.