Thad Cochran: “It occurs to me that this is an issue that probably ought not be on this bill. As a matter of general principle, it is a…”

“It occurs to me that this is an issue that probably ought not be on this bill. As a matter of general principle, it is a legislative decision. It seems to me the committee of jurisdiction would probably be the committee chaired by the distinguished Presiding Officer. Having said that, that doesn't make this amendment go away by itself. We have to dispose of it. We have to deal with it. Frankly, I am confused about how the amendment got added to the House Appropriations Committee bill. I am told it was an amendment offered on the floor and it was adopted by the House. This seems to me an amendment that ought to be at least discussed in conference. If we adopt the Leahy amendment without changing it at all, then we are stuck with the language, it seems to me. I don't know how you get away from having this provision in the final version of the bill, and this appropriations process would have been subverted and it would have been distorted. This is not an appropriations amendment. We are not talking about an amount of money to be appropriated for any particular purpose. Immigration services are provided, of course, by the Department of Homeland Security and apparently the Department feels it ought to have flexibility in the administration of that program. We are singling out an employment circular to prohibit its effectiveness on an appropriations bill. I think it is fairly convoluted. I don't like the process.”