Republican Party senators are expecting Donald Trump to intervene on a bill used to "smuggle" unvetted changes into law.
The bill has been flagged as a "concern for a number of reasons" by several GOP members, and an unnamed lawmaker within the party believes the president may have to get directly involved. Speaking to The Hill, the GOP lawmaker said part of the problem was satisfying the concerns aired by three Republican senators who are refusing to approve the bill.
The lawmaker said, "I don’t know that we’ll ever be able to satisfy them, that’s the frustrating part. I think the president is going to have to get involved."
Conservative Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WS) and Rick Scott (R-FLL) brought the bill to a standstill over a number of concerns.
Lee explained the problems he had with the bill, sharing, "There are a number of authorizing provisions that were smuggled into the bill, into the [Interior] appropriations bill. It shouldn’t have been. It’s not how it’s supposed to work. We’re not supposed to authorize in an appropriations bill and you’re certainly not to do that without the knowledge and consent of the chairman."
The delay means the package will likely not be passed through this year, but Lee believes delaying the bill is justified because of the overlooked additions found on a closer look.
He said, "There are a number of earmarks in this package and it concerns me for a number of reasons. We’ve still got a conference policy that has been in place since 2011, it’s never been rescinded, that says that it is the policy of our conference that no member shall direct a congressional directed spending item, meaning an earmark."
"That policy was followed quite consistently by our conference for a decade after it was adopted. I have grave concerns that we’re now well into — nearly a year into — the new Republican administration and this is the most substantive [spending package] that we’ve had so far and definitely the most earmarks that I’ve seen."
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), a member of the Appropriations Committee, aired his frustrations with the delayed bill and said it's more about "trying to move to regular order" than anything else.
He said, "The bottom line is members should be able to get amendments because we want an open process but nobody is going to guarantee an outcome to members that have a disagreement on one piece or another. That’s disconcerting to some members, they’d rather have an outcome. This is about trying to move to regular order."