US CONGRESS · SITTING

Jeff Merkley

Senator for Oregon · Democratic · United States

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

“That is why we need to pass the bipartisan Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act on which I am so pleased to partner with my colleague Senator Curtis from Utah. This bill prepares our communities in two different ways. First, it makes it easier for communities to do prescribed burns.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“Mr. President, they say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is certainly true when it comes to wildfires and smoke. And as climate chaos makes the fire season longer and hotter and more dangerous, wildfires are ravaging States across our country, certainly including my home State of Oregon.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“Forests burning, grasslands burning, more lightning strikes, more wind, more drought, more dryness, hotter temperatures--all of it combined to create that extraordinarily destructive summer we have just gone through.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“Second, this bill helps communities prepare for smoke, to have locations that are safe for people, particularly people with lung problems, with asthma or emphysema or so forth or people who are particularly allergic to the content of the smoke to be able to get to places that have clean air through filtering. So that is essential.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“They have to be meticulously planned, carefully controlled, and then they reduce so much fuel on the ground and provide a lot of protection thereafter. So prescribed burns are--along with thinning and mowing-- significant ways to reduce the fuel load and reduce the devastation when there is a fire.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

“That is a pretty good foundation for a bill--a bill, the Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act, that will give our communities the tools they need to prepare for wildfires and smoke pollution, and I would encourage that we adopt this bill today. I yield to one of my colleagues.”
Senate29 September 2026Source ↗

The complete record

298 held · 140 searchable for Jeff Merkley. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.

This is not an official version of US Congress proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one US Congress publishes.

“When it comes back, every category--that is, every title--of the reconciliation bill, in every single year, by the Byrd rule, has to be deficit-neutral or decrease the deficit. So we will have that debate, but we will have that debate when the reconciliation bill comes back from committee to this floor because my Republican colleagues decided to postpone that debate by taking the scoring rule out of their proposed budget resolution and said: We will kick it down the road to the next stage. And, certainly, we will be here, fiercely defending the deficit- reducing vision of pillars 2 and 3--pillar 2: no deficit in any category or any title of the bill beyond year 10; and pillar 3: use honest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. That pillar has survived since 1974.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“In that second pillar, no deficits beyond year 10; every category, every year has to be deficit-neutral or reduce the deficit. We can compare that to the law that has just been put forward--or the guidance that has just been put forward. We can look at year 11, the instructions that go in every category--year 12, year 13, year 20, year 100. It goes on forever, into the future, and the Republican bill guidance fails the Byrd test. Now, the Byrd test really gets applied in a second stage of the reconciliation process. We are in the budget resolution that sends instructions to committees. Those committees will send back specific revenue provisions: increase this revenue here, reduce it there, proceed to add this policy program, reduce this policy program.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“He said: If this reconciliation bill does not find a way to end or offset its tax cuts in the years beyond 2002-- That is beyond 10 years-- would the bill violate the Byrd rule? And the Presiding Officer responded: Yes, it would. So the second pillar, no deficits in any category beyond 10 years, was preserved--until now. That was in 1996, and here we are, 29 years later. Now there is a goal to destroy the second and third pillars of the 1974 bill. I must say, this is extremely extraordinary and disturbing that my Republican colleagues, who run on fiscal responsibility, destroyed the first pillar of the special system to reduce deficits in 1996, and tonight, they are proposing to destroy the second and third pillars.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“The first Budget Committee chair who passed the reconciliation bill consistent with decreasing deficits was South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings. He said: The whole idea of reconciliation--and I am giving you firsthand history: It is honest as the day is long--was to, by gosh, to cut back on the deficit. That is what it was for. So the Republicans blew up that pillar, all designed to reduce the deficits, and, instead, repurposed it for increasing the deficits. Pillar No. 1 drops. But, at the same time, the second pillar, that no increase in deficits could occur after 10 years, was sustained by the Chair sitting and presiding over the Senate, and that was Senator Daschle. Senator Daschle said--well, actually, he asked the question. He was asking the question of the Republican Chair.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“We will repurpose the deficit- decreasing bill from 1974 and say that it can be used in order to actually increase deficits with tax cuts. And they succeeded. They had the votes. They repurposed the bill. They blew up the first pillar of those three pillars. That first pillar was the reconciliation process, this special process created in 1974 that can only be used to reduce deficits in the first 10 years. They blew it up and said: OK. Nuclear option. We have reinterpreted the rule. It can be used to increase deficits. Well, that was a huge, huge damage to the goal of reducing deficits, and deficits have gone up ever since. When that happened--when that happened--there was a big protest on the floor.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“Some things happened then that, well, one maybe couldn't have foreseen. Maybe they could have. There was an effort to do a balanced budget amendment. It fell one vote short here in the Senate Chamber. It needed 67 votes; it only got 66. Then there was: We will do a line-item veto--and that was passed. But that gave the power to the President to strike down any line. The Supreme Court said: No, you can't do that. You can't delegate the power of the purse. The power of the purse belongs with Congress. So that fell. Then the Republican caucus in charge said: We are going to, instead, do a big tax bill giving enormous benefits to the richest Americans. Then they said: You know, the problem with that is the Democrats won't work with us. They won't give us 60 votes to do that. Oh, I know, they said, we will do a nuclear option.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“But he, along with 99 other Senators, said: We will create one exception, and that exception will be to reduce the deficit. And it had these three pillars, which I will mention again. It has to reduce the deficit. The provisions of the bill have to reduce the deficit over the first 10 years. They have to be deficit-neutral in every category in each year after the first 10 years. And we have to use honest numbers. And to have those honest numbers, we will create the Congressional Budget Office, an impartial body. We will no longer use smoke and mirrors, pretend that things don't cost money when they do cost money. But then what happened? I will tell you. For 22 years, it worked pretty well. Then along comes the Gingrich revolution, the 1994 election. Now we have the 1995 through 1997 biennium.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“That doesn't sound like much now, by our standards, when we are looking at $2 trillion per year, but it was a lot compared to the past. And folks said: Do you know what? That $5 billion per year over that 10 years exploded to an average of $20 billion a year in 1971 through 1973. Oh, my goodness, it quadrupled. We have got to get a handle on these deficits. We don't want to run up the debt--this fourfold increase in annual deficits adding to the debt. So Democrats and Republicans came together, and they passed the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act. It created a superhighway for this special effort to reduce deficits--a superhighway; a super, filibuster- free highway. Now, you all may remember Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Robert Byrd was always the fiercest defender of the filibuster.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“It is called a scoring rule, and that scoring rule will simply say that we are going to say this costs nothing, that there is no additional debt. A scoring rule has been used in the past. OK, it has been used in multiple years, but it was used to resolve little anomalies in tricky, little twists and changes in revenue bills or in policies' programs. It was always narrow. It always was honest about what it was trying to solve and explainable to the public. It was always consistent with the law, and it was always involving modest sums--modest by standards of the national budget. Certainly, now, this scoring rule that had been proposed by the Republicans, it was not bipartisan. It was not narrow. It was not improving the budget. It, in fact, was lying about the budgeting. It was not consistent with the law. And it was massive--$37 trillion.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“Then it said we are going to use honest numbers. Before, there had been a lot of smoke and mirrors. There had been a lot of gimmicks. And people on both sides said: No, no, we don't want to do that. Democrats and Republicans said: Let's use honest numbers. Let's create a Congressional Budget Office to give us impartial numbers so we can be honest among ourselves, have a real debate about any given policy provision or any particular revenue provision, and we can be honest with the American people because, otherwise, we will just keep running up more and more deficits while pretending we are not. My Republican colleagues initially said: Do you know what? We will just put a clause into the budget resolution.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“Madam President, families lose, and billionaires win. That is the Republican plan. It is a plan that slashes $1.5 to $2 trillion from programs that families depend on. And why? To fund tax cuts for the very richest Americans. But that is not all the bad news because there are additional tax cuts for the best and richest in the country--the richest Americans-- and those are unpaid for, and that means debt. How much more debt does this bill create? The current estimate--and the estimates keep going up--is $5.3 trillion of unpaid-for tax cuts over the next 10 years--$5.3 trillion--trillion with a ``t''--over the next 10 years. But that is not all. Their plan provides for $37 trillion--at least $37 trillion--in additional debt over the next 30 years. This is a phenomenal, phenomenal number.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Brian Lyons, communications director for the Budget Committee, be given full access to the floor for the balance of his service.”
Senate27 March 2025Source ↗
“We must reject this gimmick that destroys the integrity of the budgeting process. One pillar--a filibuster-free pathway for deficit reduction--was destroyed by my Republican colleagues in 1996. The second pillar--integrity in numbers using an outside, independent CBO to give us honest numbers to work with here and for the American people--is going to be destroyed under current policy baseline being proposed right now. Be awake, pay attention, and say hell no to this massive fraud on the American people.”
Senate27 March 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Nathan Sansone today, my shadow intern.”
Senate26 March 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, today I commend the Friends of Mt. Tabor Park (FMTP) for its 25 years of unwavering dedication to preserving and enhancing one of Portland's most treasured urban green spaces. Mt. Tabor Park is not just a place of natural beauty; it is a community asset, a sanctuary for recreation, and a reflection of Oregon's deep commitment to environmental stewardship.”
Senate26 March 2025Source ↗
“I ask for the yeas and nays.”
Senate14 March 2025Source ↗
“So I hope all of you who are fiscally responsible and care about fundamental fairness to workers across America will vote for this amendment.”
Senate14 March 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1273 and ask that it be reported by number.”
Senate14 March 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for my intern Ellie White to have privileges of the floor.”
Senate27 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chance Mitchell, a law clerk on the Budget Committee minority staff, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. Con. Res. 7.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“I still invite our Republican colleagues to join us--join with us-- and help the families of America rather than attacking the programs that serve them in order to fund tax giveaways for billionaires. Tax giveaways for billionaires will not make our Nation stronger; stronger families will make our Nation stronger. Vote on S. Con. Res. 7”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“Colleagues, this amendment encourages the opportunity for Americans to purchase prescription drugs at or near the lower prices that manufacturers charge to individuals in other similar, developed nations. Here is what every American knows: We all invest more in the research and development to develop drugs than the taxpayers of any other nation in the entire world, so we should be getting the best price, not the worst price. This amendment creates an opportunity for us to serve the American people and get them the fair prices they deserve.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1207 and ask that it be reported by number.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, all evening we have been pointing out that, with this bill, families lose and billionaires win. That is certainly put onto steroids with this amendment because this amendment would add a quarter trillion dollars directed at the SNAP program. It would add a third of a trillion dollars directed at reducing the viability of student loans, and almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars to devastate Medicaid--programs that families depend on to be able to thrive, to live in the middle class, to pursue opportunity. I encourage everyone, if you don't want to have a bill in which families lose, vote no. Vote on Amendment No. 999”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“I ask for the yeas and nays.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 473 and ask that it be reported by number.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“But we will not be fighting for ourselves alone; we are fighting for the American family. This Republican budget, it is the great betrayal; and we, the Democrats, will fight to stop it. I yield the floor.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, this evening we had a vote on the motion to proceed to the Republican budget resolution, and that passed. It was a simple majority vote. And this budget resolution has a very simple, straightforward theme: Families lose, and billionaires win. The plan is simple: Slash programs for families, give massive tax giveaways to millionaires and billionaires, and run the country deeper into debt. That is not a plan that my constituents back home would vote for or support.”
Senate18 February 2025Source ↗
“Let's not make this mistake when we vote on his final nomination.”
Senate12 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, my colleague from Connecticut is here past midnight. Why is he here past midnight? Because the health and welfare of our children and our families are at stake. That is why I am here, too--because it matters. It matters that you have someone in charge of Health and Human Services who has some at least basic understanding of the issues and basic experience managing a Department or managing an organization.”
Senate12 February 2025Source ↗
“To protect Americans from Big Brother government exploiting their Social Security and tax records, I vote no.”
Senate5 February 2025Source ↗
“``Radical Russ'' wants to steal the power to write laws given to Congress and the Constitution and give it to Donald Trump to rule by Executive order and Presidential fiat. ``Radical Russ'' has attacked the Constitution before. Remember, he is the force that said ``Let's stop payments to Ukraine'' that got President Trump into trouble in his first administration. We here have taken an oath to defend the Constitution for working Americans--for all Americans. Join us in voting no because ``Radical Russ'' is dangerously unfit for public office.”
Senate5 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of my postcloture debate time on the Vought nomination to Senator Van Hollen, and I yield 60 minutes of my postcloture debate time on the Vought nomination to Senator Schatz.”
Senate5 February 2025Source ↗
“Colleagues, my fellow caucus members will be coming through the night to share their perspectives and why Russell Vought is untrustworthy, unelected, and unfit to serve as the Director of Office of Management and Budget. I believe that my colleague from Hawaii is going to carry the train of this conversation forward, and, therefore, I am wrapping up my comments while he figures out some issue at the counter. But I want you to all go forward into this long 30 hours knowing just a core fact: that we only have a republic if we can keep it, and we can't keep it if we put a man at the head of OMB who is determined to break the law and violate the Constitution. I yield the floor.”
Senate5 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns for their shadow days on the following dates: Olivia Sumerfield for February 4, 2025; Kira Shertz for February 6, 2025; Eleanor White for February 12, 2025; Ji Reichle for February 19, 2025; Diya Jaisankar for February 25, 2015; Lauren Pak for February 27, 2025; Reuben Hallsworth for March 5, 2025; Lila Batcheller for March 12, 2025; and Lucy Eckel for April 2, 2025.”
Senate30 January 2025Source ↗
“The war had ended by the time I had reached draft age, and I so respected the service that they had given and their dedication to the security of this country. If you are dedicated to the security of this country, if you respect the servicemembers of the United States of America, then do not give them a boss who is the wrong fit in every way possible.”
Senate24 January 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to speak to this bill.”
Senate17 January 2025Source ↗
“So I would ask that at least they get some discussion for the possibility of consideration. I thank my colleague from Alabama for coming and hearing me out as well as--I am not really thanking you for objecting, but I am thanking you in the spirit in which I think you want to do the right thing. And I will keep striving to convince you that the right thing here is we should debate these amendments.”
Senate16 January 2025Source ↗
“because that is when their shift ends; I am a kid who doesn't know what the hell to do now, and my life has been shattered. So this would create the opportunity for that flexibility that exists in current law after 30 days of mandatory detention. I think it is an appropriate way to address the potential for impact that I am sure no one intended in writing this bill, which was to leave a bunch of children back in a home with no parent and no support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I can offer amendment No. 71; that there be up to 15 minutes for debate on the amendment; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the amendment without further intervening action or debate.”
Senate16 January 2025Source ↗
“I know of no case in which there has been permanent, mandatory imprisonment of a child who has only been arrested and never charged and never convicted in the entire history of the United States of America, and we are about to change that. That is wrong. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I can offer my amendment No. 73; that there be up to 15 minutes for debate on the amendment; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the amendment without further intervening action or debate.”
Senate16 January 2025Source ↗

← Back to the terminal Search YouSaid for Merkley →