STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Let's bring Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin into the conversation. He's the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and he attended the dinner on Saturday.
Congressman, good morning.
JAMIE RASKIN: Good morning, Steve.
INSKEEP: I'm glad you and just about everybody else is OK. What did you think about as this unfolded?
RASKIN: Well, I ended up hitting the ground with everybody else, and we were down on the floor for around two to three minutes before people began to get up, and we were told that, you know, there was somebody who they got. And there continued to be a lot of unease and anxiety. The person I happened to be standing with when all this started was Kerry Kennedy, who lost both her father Robert F. Kennedy and her uncle John F. Kennedy to gun violence. And the first thing that she said when it was over was these kinds of incidents are happening all over the country in classrooms and schools, and there's no way for the kids to process the trauma that they go through. And that's where her mind went.
INSKEEP: I'm thinking of a quote we just heard from the president. Quote, "I understand life. We live in a crazy world." Is he right that this is kind of normal in America at this time?
RASKIN: Well, he might be right that it is kind of normal or - put it differently, we've normalized it. You know, we actually lose to gun violence more than 100 people every single day, and there are more than 300 shootings every single day, which is astounding to think that the same day this happened there were dozens and dozens of people being shot and killed across the country. So I suppose he's right that this is normal here, but it's not normal around the world. We have rates of gun violence 25 times higher than the countries in the European Union, for example, and far higher than Canada.
INSKEEP: I want to follow up on a couple of other statements the president has made in the last couple of days. The president, as we heard, and also people around the White House, picked up a talking point here. They got all their supporters on social media to repeat that this shows the need for the White House ballroom that the president wants to add to the White House. Does this show the need for a ballroom so the president never has to leave the White House grounds?
RASKIN: Well, that seems like a non sequitur to me. I didn't understand that argument from the first moment I heard it, and I started hearing it probably within an hour after all this took place. After all, this is a private event. This is not a government event. It's called the White House Correspondents' Dinner not because it's run by the White House, but because the people who run it are correspondents at the White House. And so it's not as if this would be at the White House anyway. In any event, even if the president wanted to invite them to use the White House, I understand his plans are for seating for 1,000 people, and there were 2,500 people there or 3,000 people. In any event, as I understand where things are legally, there's an injunction not against further construction, the construction is taking place, but construction for a ballroom. And so, I guess, you know, this argument suggests that, well, this ballroom is needed for the White House Correspondents' Dinner, but unless he's saying that he's going to invite them to have it there, I'm not quite sure I understand the logic of that.
INSKEEP: I also have a larger question about how exposed the president should or shouldn't be. And, of course, you don't want anyone exposed to danger at any time, and yet he is a citizen participating in public life and maybe needs to be out in the public in whatever fashion he can manage to do the job.
RASKIN: Well, the president obviously has to have the opportunity to go out in the public and make speeches and interact. It's circumscribed, of course, but that's what the Secret Service is all about. But on the one hand, we're being assured that the system worked, that everything was fine, that nobody was really in danger. They caught him at that second level, a floor away from where everybody was, but on the other hand, you know, they're saying this demonstrates the necessity of essentially the president not leaving the White House for large events. But again, I don't think anybody is saying that the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner should be moved...
INSKEEP: Yeah.
RASKIN: ...Into the White House.
INSKEEP: Do you feel like the system did work, Congressman?
RASKIN: I mean, the system of what? Not the system of civil nonviolence because my friend Kerry Kennedy was absolutely right. We have, you know, mass shootings and shootings taking place all over the country every single day. We simply haven't gotten serious about it. And so, even if we make changes to the Secret Service security system or we make changes to the White House, what does that do for 300 million other Americans? We're not dealing with that basic question, and it's alarming to me how quickly people say, well, of course we can't deal with that. Well, why not?
INSKEEP: Is the Secret Service being paid right now?
RASKIN: Yes.
INSKEEP: Even though there's not an agreement for the DHS more broadly. Do you see any sign of a possible agreement that would put the DHS back on the books legally?
RASKIN: Well, yes. I mean, the Senate voted unanimously for the same proposal that every Democrat in the House voted for, which is, you know, fund the rest of the government, and then let's deal with the fact that there were U.S. citizens being shot down in Minneapolis by ICE and what reforms need to take place to ICE. But ICE is super funded by, you know, the president's big beautiful bill.
INSKEEP: Other parts of the agency not funded. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, thanks so much.
RASKIN: You bet. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
