President Donald Trump’s pet project is hanging by a thread.
The political risk of spending taxpayer dollars on parts of a new White House ballroom has unsettled congressional Republicans, who are questioning whether they can approve $1 billion in Secret Service security funding — even as officials from the agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House blanket Capitol Hill to make the case for its necessity amid growing threats.
Senate Republicans, including party leaders, are discussing making potential changes to the billion-dollar item as they deal with member concerns and wait for the chamber’s parliamentarian to rule on whether it can even be included in the GOP’s party-line immigration enforcement funding bill. No final decisions have been made, but options include reducing the amount of funding.
The discussions are centered on “how to get 50 votes in the Senate,” Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview about the security funding talks. “And then obviously what happens with the parliamentarian will have a lot to do with how that shakes out, too.”
Senate aides will meet with Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough Friday to litigate the portion of the legislation that includes the Secret Service funding, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose private scheduling. Senators generally defer to MacDonough’s interpretations of the “Byrd rule,” the restrictions governing what is permissible in a filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation bill.
Republicans across the Capitol are also keeping their powder dry until after the meeting, known in Hill parlance as a “Byrd bath.” MacDonough ruled Thursday other parts of the bill she had already reviewed did not pass muster, though GOP staff will try to rewrite them in the coming days to comply.
“We want to see what the Senate does, because they’ve … got the Byrd bath that they have to go through that is not a House process,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said. “Right now, I don’t think people are passing judgment because they don’t know what the final product is going to look like coming from the Senate.”
Scalise, asked about the alarm from some of his GOP members about the political optics of public funding for the ballroom, replied, “There’s a lot of meetings going on.”
“There’s a lot of those conversations, but we’re in the early stages, because we don’t know what the final product is going to look like,” he added.
Republican leaders are expressing confidence that MacDonough will approve the Secret Service provision, which directs the funding to “security adjustments and upgrades.” But some, including Senate Homeland Security Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have predicted the language could come out and are waiting to see how she rules before they decide if they will support the bill.
Reconciliation rules dictate that all parts of the bill must have a direct impact on the federal budget, and they also must fall within the jurisdiction of committees that are specified in the budget framework Republicans approved last month. Democrats are expected to argue that the security provision should be removed because it steps into an active court battle and was drafted by the Judiciary Committee, which does not have jurisdiction over the White House construction project, according to a person granted anonymity to describe private strategy.
MacDonough could decide that the whole provision has to go, or she might target part of it, such as language referring specifically to the East Wing project.
Even if that language gets past MacDonough, GOP leaders in both chambers are facing unease — and in some cases, outright opposition — within their ranks that could threaten the security funding.
Several GOP senators want a more detailed breakdown of how the Secret Service will use the funding related to the East Wing project. The Judiciary Committee language specifies only that it can be used for “above-ground and below-ground security features” but not on “non-security elements.”
A document handed to GOP senators Tuesday specified no more than $220 million would go to the White House project and listed a few examples of how the funding could be used in relation to the project, such as for bulletproof glass. That failed to quell concerns.
“The White House is trying, I think, to get more details to it. But I think what’s become clear is you have security pieces for the East Wing, but you also have a lot of just additional add-ons for Secret Service,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
Another GOP senator, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, added: “You can’t just drop a round number on us and say, ‘We need a billion dollars.’”
Thune said part of the $1 billion is meant to address a “fairly long and pent-up demand” for additional resources for Secret Service separate from the East Wing-specific money. But those requests have sparked questions from Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) about why they aren’t going through the normal government funding process.
Under reconciliation rules, Republicans will be subject to unlimited amendment debate before they can pass the bill. Democrats are expected to offer a proposal to strike the $1 billion, which could succeed if four Republicans vote with all Democrats.
Asked if leaders had the votes to pass the bill with the ballroom-related language, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) noted two committees are scheduled to act on the bill next week before it goes to the floor.
“You’re asking what’s going to happen in a vote-a-rama Thursday night,” Barrasso said, referring to the amendment extravaganza, noting it was still “days away.”
The ballroom issue could come to a head earlier, when the Senate Budget Committee meets next week to prepare the bill for the floor. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who sits on the panel, wants to lower the overall size of the immigration enforcement bill to offset the inclusion of the $1 billion security request.
If the funding survives the Senate, its approval in the House is hardly a sure thing. The prospect of taking a vote next week to green-light hundreds of millions of dollars for White House and ballroom security has alarmed several politically vulnerable Republicans.
“I haven’t committed one way or another until we get more of a further breakdown as to how it’s going to be allocated,” Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.) said in an interview Thursday.
In closed-door meetings earlier this week, House Republicans in at-risk seats pressed Secret Service Director Sean Curran and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin for more details on the $220 million White House portion of the security ask. Both men said that information would be forthcoming.
Bresnahan said he was still waiting to see an itemized list while also hinting that he is hoping the matter takes care of itself.
“This could easily be Byrded out,” he added, referring to MacDonough’s ruling.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who warned earlier this week that the ballroom funding was “not happening” on the immigration bill, signaled Thursday he was heeding voters in his district by not backing down.
“They want DHS funded, they want ICE reforms, and they don’t want taxpayer funds going to a ballroom,” Fitzpatrick said.
But Trump and his deputies have successfully browbeat GOP lawmakers into line many times in the past, and the White House’s pressure campaign on the ballroom money is making some headway, according to six people involved in the conversations.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) initially voiced apprehension about the idea Tuesday, saying, “I don’t think it’s wise.” Hours later, after meeting with Mullin, Bacon softened his views, arguing it wasn’t “as much money” for the ballroom project as he thought.
Other House Republicans who are facing tough races are under immense pressure from the White House to approve the money and privately say they are likely to do so. One thing weighing on GOP lawmakers’ minds is the succession of assassination attempts targeting Trump and the overall rise in political violence.
“We know there’s an emerging, just radically different threat environment, even [versus] just five years ago,” said one. “And so we have to make sure that we have the appropriate resources across a full spectrum of infrastructure capabilities.”
Ali Bianco, Mia McCarthy, Jennifer Scholtes and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
