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
You can’t wait for a disaster to happen to start preparing, and this funding finally moving forward will be transformative for disaster resiliency along the North Coast.
Every Oregon community needs the resources to keep young people safe, support children who have experienced abuse and neglect, and build stronger relationships between families and those who serve them.
China’s campaign of repression and human rights abuses continues to have horrific consequences, including reports of forced organ harvesting from vulnerable groups across the PRC. We must stand up for the victims of these crimes, and our…
This is unacceptable, and our bill holds the Netanyahu government accountable for its illegal, reckless, and inhumane actions in the West Bank.
Other voices in this conversation
