So I find two things very interesting. They are saying, if something was in the law that they passed in 2017 and it expires, they are pretending it doesn't expire and that, therefore, extending it doesn't cost anything. But in their own bill, when they say a provision expires, they are saying: No, it really does die, and, therefore, we are saving money in the years after. How are those two things possibly consistent?
Discussing inconsistencies in legislative provisions during a floor speech.
Share
More from Jeff Merkley
FEMA’s decision to deny these FMAGs is a significant departure from FEMA’s historical criteria and agency guidance.
It looked like bombs had gone off in these towns. Thousands of people in the fairgrounds who couldn’t return to their homes. We want expertise, and the mistreatment of the federal expertise, the civil service, is going to hurt us for…
Medicaid enrollees have a right to expect that their private information will be safeguarded and not employed for mass deportation campaigns.
Trump’s illegal war with Iran has cost us dearly, and now he’s trying to rewrite history to better serve his agenda.
Other voices in this conversation
