The Oregon Senate in a 17-11 vote Thursday advanced a bill meant to safeguard public lands against the threat of privatization.

Senate Bill 1590, sponsored by Sen. Anthony Broadman, D-Bend, would prohibit state agencies from using any funding, data, equipment or staff to help the federal government sell or transfer federal lands to private parties. The measure puts no restrictions on tribes.

Broadman brought the bill in response to efforts from congressional Republicans to include in their massive summer 2025 tax and spending law plans to sell between 2 to 3 million acres of federally-managed land across 11 Western states, including hiking trails and campgrounds in Oregon. Those provisions ultimately failed after receiving bipartisan pushback and because Congress could not guarantee that those lands wouldn’t be bought by antagonistic foreign interests.

Roughly 53% of land in Oregon is managed by the federal government, specifically the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service.

“We will not collaborate with federal efforts to privatize our national parks, our monuments, our sacred places,” Broadman said.

The Senate advanced the bill along party lines, with Republicans citing concerns that the bill would limit private and public partnerships meant to manage the state’s natural resources and protect the health and safety of Oregonians.

Sen. Todd Nash, an Enterprise Republican and cattle rancher, said there are times when it is beneficial to transfer public lands to private hands.

“I just don’t want to put us in a place where we don’t have the benefit of doing that, allowing counties and the state of Oregon to participate in that transfer,” he said.

The bill heads to the House next.

— Mia Maldonado, Oregon Capital Chronicle

The Oregon Capital Chronicle, founded in 2021, is a nonprofit news organization that focuses on Oregon state government, politics and policy.

It’s a common scene at the Oregon Legislature: Crowds filling committee rooms and hallways hoping to testify on legislation, only to miss their chance to speak, submit written testimony instead or face interruption by a committee chair with a reminder that they have two minutes or less to speak.

Legislative chambers in more than a dozen states already limit the number of bills lawmakers can propose in response to similar issues, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Oregon Legislature limits lawmakers to two bills in 35-day short sessions, like this year’s ongoing session. But how and whether to address the problems of limited public input and time for considering bills in 180-day long sessions has divided lawmakers on both sides of the aisle over the past two decades. Multiple attempts at legislation to cap the number of bills lawmakers can introduce each year have failed in Salem.

To supporters, such a limitation would ensure public input and streamline engagement with lawmakers. But to the bill’s detractors, it would limit the voice of Oregonians with little access to the Legislature outside of the bills they can convince their elected officials to introduce.

This year’s version of the legislation, House Bill 4002, has the backing of House Speaker Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, Senate President Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, 16 other Democrats and two Republicans. It would limit the number of bills lawmakers could request a legislative draft for at 25 bills a piece for each long session. It comes after lawmakers last year introduced a record number of bills — more than 3,400 — in at least two decades, and as dozens of bills have already failed to clear key deadlines and died in this year’s short legislative session.

“We already have the limits in the short session, but I feel very strongly that bill limits will help us improve public engagement in the long session. There are too many bills. There are too many amendments there,” Fahey told reporters on Tuesday. “It’s too difficult for the public and the media to track what is happening in the long session, because the agendas are so packed.”

She confirmed Tuesday evening that the bill remains alive after the House Rules Committee canceled a scheduled Tuesday vote. As of Wednesday evening, no new amendments had been posted and no committee vote had been scheduled.

Opposition’s ‘numbers are growing’

In the meantime, at least one Democrat and some Republicans have voiced concerns with the legislation, and opposition appears to be growing. They argue that the legislation would further entrench power with the Democratic majority and that they are doing their due diligence to represent their constituents across the state. That includes Rep. Paul Evans, a Monmouth Democrat who filed more than 300 bills in the last session, Sen. David Brock Smith, R-Port Orford, and Rep. E. Werner Reschke, R-Malin.

“I’ve never introduced bills thinking they’re all going to pass in one session. It’s not about that. It’s about bringing people together, using the vehicle, seeing it written down and figuring out what people can live with, what they can’t live with,” Evans told the Capital Chronicle. “By limiting bills without giving the ability to amend on the floor, that means you’ve got to be aware on things and not really be invited to the conversation.”

Aside from the limitations on lawmakers, the bill would limit Gov. Tina Kotek and state agencies to preparing drafts for up to 200 pieces of legislation, aside from bills necessary to implement her budget. Other independent agency heads, such as the attorney general and secretary of state, would have up to 15. The same figure applies to the Oregon Judicial Department and the head of the Bureau of Labor and Industries. Rules committees in both chambers could get around the bill’s limitations by requesting additional measures.

Kevin Glenn, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, did not say whether Kotek supports the bill, but noted that she will review any legislation that comes to her desk before signing off on it.

Two Republicans, Rep. Kim Wallan, R-Medford, and Rep. Mark Owens, R-Crane, signed onto the bill-limiting bill as sponsors, but Wallan walked back that support in an interview Wednesday. She told the Capital Chronicle that she signed onto the bill to “facilitate the discussion,” and that Evans’ testimony at a Feb. 12 public hearing swayed her.

“I want all bills to originate in the Legislature,” she said. “It partly is just separation of powers. We’re the branch that makes the laws. So the agency or the executive, anyone has to come to us to get a bill.”

Divisions over the bill have also boiled over at Democratic caucus meetings. Evans told the Capital Chronicle on Wednesday that he resigned from his position as assistant majority leader last week after he was dissatisfied with his party’s deliberations over the legislation. Asked whether others in his caucus feel similarly, he said “our numbers are growing, actually.”

He also shared a statement that he had held off from publishing, in which he wrote that “the leader of our caucus holds a governing philosophy I cannot support.”

“I don’t know why people are afraid of ideas,” he said. “The more the speaker makes this an issue, the more she’s going to divide the caucus.”

In a Wednesday statement, Fahey said she respected Evans and that “it’s no secret that he advocates fiercely for his district.”

“While we disagree on the idea of bill limits, I know his opposition to is rooted in that advocacy,” she said. “I’m grateful for his time on our leadership team and honored to have him as a colleague.”

— Shaanth Kodialam Nanguneri, Oregon Capital Chronicle

The Oregon Capital Chronicle, founded in 2021, is a nonprofit news organization that focuses on Oregon state government, politics and policy.