Republicans intensify opposition to capping bills per session in Oregon
From left to right, House Speaker Julie Fahey, former Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp, and Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, speak in support of House Bill 2006, which would cap the number of bills a lawmaker could request be drafted for consideration in the Oregon Legislature. (Shaanth Nanguneri/Oregon Capital Chronicle)
Despite bipartisan support for an Oregon bill limiting the amount of legislation a lawmaker can introduce every session, the measure has angered some prominent Republican lawmakers, who called it a partisan power grab during its first committee hearing.
Three of the bill's leading supporters — Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, former Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp, and House Speaker Julie Fahey — argued in front of the House Committee on Rules on Thursday that the number of bills the Legislature has had to consider in the past session has been overwhelming. They described the onslaught of reviews staff and legislative analysts must conduct to draft legislation as swamping the public with excessive bureaucracy that impedes good governance.
'Each bill takes staff time, legal review, printing, scheduling,' said Fahey, D-Eugene. 'Thousands of taxpayer dollars go into processing bills that don't become law or even get here. What we're talking about today — being more focused and deliberative in how we introduce legislation — isn't about stifling good ideas. It's about improving the system.'
House Bill 2006, introduced in mid-April by six Democrats and five Republicans, would cap individual lawmakers to requesting 25 drafts during the 160-day long sessions in odd years. Lawmakers have historically limited bills in the 35-day short sessions in even years — in 2024, for instance, lawmakers could introduce two bills apiece.
The number of bills lawmakers have been considering in the past years has increased steadily, particularly during odd years. This session, legislators have introduced more than 3,400 pieces of legislation since February.
Republicans on the committee, however, said further limits on the legislative process would continue to shut them out of opportunities to pass legislation in the minority. The new bill revives another limitation effort that popped up after the last time the Oregon Legislature saw a record number of bills introduced — nearly 3,300 in 2001. At that time, lawmakers considered similar restrictions that eventually failed in the Senate, which was controlled by Republicans at the time.
'I routinely propose bills that are similar to other bills in the building and the only reason for that is because my district wants me to have that voice,' said House Republican leader Rep. Christine Drazan, R-Canby. 'And what ends up moving is the Democrat bill time and again.'
Other provisions of the legislation include allowing 400 bills for state agencies and the governor to introduce, 15 bills for each legislative committee, 25 apiece for the secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer and commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, and 100 for the Judicial Department.
The Joint Ways and Means Committee is excluded from the bill. The bill wouldn't preclude sponsors from introducing more than 25 pieces of legislation if, for instance, another sponsor requested the drafting from legislative counsel.
Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, said the idea of bill limits 'is great,' but that the bill is 'extremely problematic.' She noted that the legislation would allow for the Senate president and speaker of the House to authorize additional measures for members or committees. Combined with the 400 measures the governor and state agencies could introduce, 'that's a problem,' she said.
'You have the majority party being able to authorize,' she said. 'There's no limit on that.'
The opposition to the bill doesn't fall squarely along partisan lines, however. One Democrat has called the bill 'capricious' and warned of unintended consequences for lawmakers.
'The meager number of vehicles would more than likely accomplish the following: increased authority for the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and most policy committee chairs,' wrote Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, in a Wednesday letter to the committee. He has filed the most bills this session as a single lawmaker — over 300. 'This will exacerbate the power differential between leadership, policy, and budget specialists.'
During the hearing, however, Fahey said she agreed that 400 bills for state agencies and the governor was an excessive estimate, though it was not clear how far she'd be willing to lower the limit. Another Representative, Jason Kropf, D-Bend, said that even 300 bills would be going too far.
'We use the exact same limits and language in the bill, with two exceptions, increasing the baseline number of bills from legislators to 20 to 25 and the number of committee bills from 10 to 15,' Fahey told the committee. 'This drafted bill will go into effect in the 2027 session. Back in 2001, that bill had bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition, and I fully expect that this bill will have the same.'
Passing the legislation would make Oregon the 14th state in the nation to put explicit laws on the books that restrict the amount of bills a legislator can introduce. The bill would essentially make the maximum number of bills per session on an odd-year at least 2,850, if each lawmaker, committee, agency, state official and the governor introduced the maximum number of bills they are allowed under the legislation. Because the Joint Committee on Ways and Means is excluded from the legislation, that number is likely an undercount.
Another piece of legislation, Senate Bill 1006 by Sen. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, would limit introductions of bills to committees and legislators, preventing agencies from introducing legislation. It has been parked in the Senate Committee on Rules since March.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Politico
21 minutes ago
- Politico
White House plans to pull nomination for NASA administrator
The White House is planning to withdraw the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a White House official confirmed to POLITICO. The sudden move comes days before the Senate was slated to vote on his nomination to lead NASA. Isaacman, a commercial astronaut and billionaire CEO of the payment processing company Shift4, has a long-standing relationship with Elon Musk, who this week left his post as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump and chief of the Department of Government Efficiency. It's not yet clear what the White House's reasoning is for the personnel change. Semafor was first to report on the plan. The White House official was granted anonymity to discuss not-yet-announced personnel moves. Senate Democrats for months have been critical of Isaacman's relationship with Musk, in light of his close ties to the White House and his role as CEO of SpaceX, one of NASA's largest contractors. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk personally asked Isaacman to lead the agency, which Democrats honed in on during his confirmation hearing last month.


The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ernst doubles down on Medicaid comment with sarcastic video ‘apology'
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) doubled down on a recent quip about Medicaid in a Saturday post on her Instagram story. 'Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall,' Ernst said in the clip, with a sarcastic tone. On Friday, the Iowa Republican was jeered after brushing aside life or death concerns about cuts to Medicaid, a public health insurance program for low income families and individuals with disabilities. 'See I was in the process of answering a question that had been asked by an audience member, when a woman who was extremely distraught, screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, people are going to die,' Ernst said Saturday. 'And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth. So I apologize, and I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well,' she continued. The Iowa lawmaker then encouraged viewers who want to see 'eternal and everlasting life' to 'embrace' Jesus Christ. During her Friday event in Butler, Iowa, Ernst promised that Republicans would 'protect' social services for the most vulnerable. She suggested that those who work and have opportunity for benefits elsewhere 'receive those benefits elsewhere' and leave taxpayer dollars for those eligible for Medicaid. Under the current GOP-House passed spending bill, millions would lose access to healthcare if passed by the Senate. 'Children will get hurt. Women will get hurt. Older Americans who rely on Medicaid for nursing home care and for home care will get hurt. People with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to survive will get hurt,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said during the debate on the bill, according to Politico. 'Hospitals in your districts will close. Nursing homes will shut down. And people will die. That's not hype. That's not hyperbole. That's not a hypothetical,' he added. Every Democrat who voted in the House, voted against the bill. Some Senate Republicans have pledged to make some edits to the legislation, objecting to changes to Medicaid, the proposed phaseout of clean energy incentives and an increase in the federal debt.


The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Puerto Rico is Trump's perfect partner in reshoring
President Trump recently signed an executive order to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. by streamlining the process for the Food and Drug Administration to approve pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. This is the latest in the Trump administration's agenda to protect national security and create American jobs by promoting the reshoring of critical supply chains that Americans rely on every day. These efforts are coupled with international tariffs to encourage domestic manufacturing. Reshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing is not only dire for American national security, but it could have resounding economic impacts across the country. One U.S. jurisdiction that is ready and in a perfect position to partner in this effort is Puerto Rico, where pharmaceutical manufacturing is already a more than $50 billion industry. With complementary efforts underway in Congress and on the island, the White House should look to Puerto Rico as America's pharmaceutical powerhouse while not trapping the island in its current territory status by hindering a future transition to statehood that would further boost the island's manufacturing ability. As a territory, the island is part of the U.S. customs zone and is not subject to U.S. tariffs, and everything that is made in Puerto Rico is 'Made in the USA.' Yet, that same territory status has limited Puerto Rico's economic development by creating persistent uncertainty, underinvestment and an unequal playing field for economic competition. The territory status is unpopular on the island, and Puerto Rican voters have voted in favor of statehood four consecutive times, most recently last November. Trump and Congress have the opportunity of a generation to leverage the pharmaceutical infrastructure and workforce in Puerto Rico to achieve their agenda while also turbocharging the economy on the island, and they have the perfect ally in Puerto Rico to do it with — the island's Republican Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón. González-Colón is leading an ambitious agenda to reshape the national narrative about the island and its people — and ultimately achieve statehood for Puerto Rico. Aligning with the Trump administration's vision to reshore advanced manufacturing of critical products, she issued an executive order in late March and reached out to top White House officials to offer Puerto Rico's well-established, yet currently underutilized, manufacturing capacity as an economic engine to help grow American prosperity. González-Colón's executive order promotes the relocation of overseas manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and other products to Puerto Rico. Much like Trump's executive order, it eliminates barriers and streamlines the process for businesses to move to the island. This action is complementary to the Medical Manufacturing, Economic Development and Sustainability Act, which was recently reintroduced and incentivizes pharmaceutical manufacturing on the island and throughout economically distressed zones across the United States. The bill is designed to attract business to the island in a way that invests in the people of Puerto Rico. It does this by providing an incentive for medical manufacturing facilities to relocate to economically distressed zones, with an incentive dependent on the number of jobs created to ensure money is flowing back into communities. The incentive itself is based on economic factors and applies to communities throughout the United States — an appropriately wide scope that comports with Trump's strong desire to reshore large amounts of production in a short time frame. By tethering the tax credits to what manufacturers invest directly into wages, salaries and real middle-class benefits, the proposal creates good-paying, quality American jobs. Reshoring to Puerto Rico would mean that critical pharmaceuticals and medical devices, as well as other products that are currently manufactured overseas in China and other nations, would now be produced in America. This would create thousands of well-paying manufacturing jobs that Puerto Rico needs to turbocharge the modest economic progress it's made in recent years. The increased consumer demand on the island would help boost the approximately $70 billion in annual interstate commerce, resulting in more jobs and profits stateside. Puerto Rico is a natural partner in reshoring the medical and pharmaceutical manufacturing industry within U.S. borders. The island's leaders share in the White House's vision of a more prosperous pharmaceutical manufacturing industry and are working to ensure reshoring efforts do not trap Puerto Rico in its current territory status but instead enable it to reach its full potential as an engine of economic growth and prosperity as a future state of our Union. Manufacturing makes America stronger, especially when it lifts up communities and the hard-working American citizens that make 'Made in the USA' a possibility, including those in Puerto Rico.