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
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
New York Post
37 minutes ago
- New York Post
California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants. AP But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. 'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget. California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in San Francisco, Calif. in June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 7 Migrant farm laborers have their temperatures in King City, Calif. on April 28, 2020. Getty Images 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually. 7 Protesters hold up signs supporting healthcare for illegal immigrants during California's Immigrants Day of Action on May 20, 2019 in Sacramento, Calif. AP 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Health care Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care. Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.' The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. 7 A family whose parens are illegal immigrants sign up for government assisted health care at the San Mateo Medical Center in San Mateo Calif. on Feb. 22, 2023. AP Environment Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. 7 The California State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. on Aug. 5, 2024. AP The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. Public safety The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program. 7 A protester holds an American and Mexican flag outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles during a rally on June 6, 2025. AP Other priorities Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown is getting ICE agents hurt
New tactics are being met with rising public resistance and desperation from suspects facing ICE detention and deportation. Masked agents. Terrified suspects. Emotions running high as screaming crowds press in, cell phone cameras in hand. Amid surging immigration enforcement across the country, federal agents are being hurt and hospitalized as they make increasingly public – and risky – arrests of people they believe are undocumented. White House officials say there's been a 500% increase in assaults on agents, as President Donald Trump's massive deportation campaign ramps up. Administration officials say bold tactics are needed to repel what they call an "invasion" of immigrants. But policing experts say the aggressive approach is provoking unnecessarily dangerous encounters. In a recent incident in Nebraska, a female ICE agent was thrown to the ground and choked by an accused Tren de Aragua gang member who said he was formerly a Venezuelan soldier, according to court documents. The suspect escaped and was later captured with the help of local police. Bystander videos have captured agents wrestling suspects to the ground on crowded streets and chasing them through farm fields. One widely circulated video showed an agent grabbing a U.S. citizen by the neck in a Walmart parking lot as he resisted being taken; federal prosecutors have charged the man with assault after he allegedly punched an agent. "Just this week, an ICE officer was dragged 50 yards by a car while arresting an illegal alien sex offender," Tricia McLaughlin, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary, told USA TODAY. "Every day the men and women of ICE put their lives on the line to protect and defend the lives of American citizens." Trump, who has promised to deport 1 million immigrants this year, ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents "to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest mass deportation program in history." In a June 15 social media post, he also said: "Every day, the brave men and women of ICE are subjected to violence, harassment and even threats from radical Democrat politicians, but nothing will stop us from executing our mission, and fulfilling our mandate to the American people." Art Del Cueto, the vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, said the union's 16,000 members welcome Trump's tough new approach to immigration enforcement. Detainees are increasingly fighting back, he said, because they know there's no escape: "That's why you're seeing attacks on agents." 'It's not about public safety anymore' But there's growing pushback from the public. Recent immigration sweeps in the Los Angeles area sparked widespread protests and small riots downtown, as people threw rocks at law enforcement and set patrol vehicles on fire, and federal agents responded with tear gas and pepper spray. In some cases, federal agents are getting into shoving matches with crowds trying to film or stop what they consider to be overzealous detentions, especially when the masked agents refuse to identify themselves. Policing experts say ICE agents are exacerbating tense situations with practices that many American police departments have largely disavowed. While there's little objection to detaining violent criminals, masked agents descending upon Home Depot parking lots to arrest day laborers and food vendors – most with no criminal record – sparks panic. "The aggressive police tactics being employed by the federal government are causing the issue," said longtime police supervisor Diane Goldstein, who now directs the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, which has spent decades working to develop trust between the public and police. "Their direction and their leadership is directly putting them in a horrific situation," she said. The ICE tactics on display are a dramatic departure from how cautiously ICE agents previously worked, said Jason Houser, a former Department of Homeland Security counterterrorism official. Houser is an Afghanistan combat veteran who was ICE chief of staff during the Biden administration. Previously, ICE agents prioritized serious criminal offenders for arrest, Houser said. A team of agents might work for days or weeks to surveil a single subject before making an arrest carefully timed to minimize risks to the public and to agents themselves. ICE agents are trained to "think about prioritization of public safety, risk and removability," he added. Internal Justice Department training programs stress that police agencies should focus on de-escalation whenever possible and avoid making arrests in public areas, especially when there's no imminent threat to public safety. "Now we have political quotas: 'Give me 3,000 arrests' (per day). And all gloves are off," Houser said. "It's not about public safety any more." Before Trump, assaults were on the decline An increase in assaults on officers and agents this year would reverse a three-year trend of declining incidents, according to internal Department of Homeland Security statistics. Despite millions of daily interactions with the public, it was rare for ICE, customs officers and Border Patrol agents to get attacked on the job. The agency logged 363 assault incidents in fiscal 2024, down from 474 incidents in fiscal 2023 and 524 in fiscal 2022, according to DHS data. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which includes both customs officers and Border Patrol agents, has 45,000 law enforcement personnel and is the nation's largest law enforcement agency. Additionally, ICE has roughly 6,200 deportation agents on staff. White House officials declined to answer USA TODAY's questions about the numbers underlying the 500% increase in assaults, including the total number of injuries and their severity. It's also unclear how many additional federal agents have so far been re-assigned to immigration enforcement. Masked agents refusing to identify themselves In Huntington Park, Calif, authorities this week detained a man they said appeared to be pretending to be an ICE agent ‒ a situation they said was possible because real ICE agents are refusing to properly identify themselves as they aggressively detain people. Mayor Arturo Flores said the way ICE agents are acting does not present "the image of a just and lawful government." He said he can understand why people are angry and scared, especially knowing there are potential vigilantes and impersonators operating in the area. In response to the accused impersonator's arrest, Huntington Park leaders asked local police to verify the identity of any suspected ICE agents operating in the city. The suspect was found with multiple police radios, official-looking federal paperwork, flashing lights and a 9 mm handgun in his otherwise unmarked vehicle, according to city police. "When people cannot trust who is enforcing the law, public safety us undermines and fear begins to take hold," Flores said in a June 27 press conference. "What we are saying is simple: if you are acting with federal authority, show it. ID yourself Do not hide behind unmarked vehicles, facemasks and vague credentials." 'Someone's going to pull a gun' Underlying the tension between ICE and members of the public is a fundamental fact: ICE is arresting a record number of people who have no criminal record. An analysis by the Libertarian Cato Institute shows ICE is arresting four times more people with no criminal convictions or criminal charges per week now than the agency did during the same period in June 2017, when Trump was also president. "This is a radical tactical shift compared to Trump 1.0," David Bier, Cato director of immigration studies, in a post on X. ICE officials said they are responding to interference by the public. They say advocacy groups are stalking agents as they try to make arrests, putting the agents at risk and allowing their targets to escape. Federal agents testifying before a Senate committee on June 26 said that during a recent enforcement operation bystanders photographed an officer and posted the photo online with a threatening message. There's been a small but growing number of incidents, too, in which people called their local police department to report the presence of armed, masked men bundling community members into unmarked vehicles. ICE officials also often say that if hundreds of "sanctuary" jurisdictions around the country would hand over immigrants after they've completed a criminal sentence, that would reduce the need for agents to make risky, public arrests. But prior to Trump's enforcement ramp-up – about 70% of people arrested by ICE were transferred directly from the prison system into ICE custody, according to the nonprofit Freedom for Immigrants. Trump's new approach has pushed agents to make more arrests in the community at places like Home Depot. The push to meet a quota is driving agents toward raids and round-ups that expose them to greater risk in the field, says Goldstein. She worries that aggressive tactics combined with masks will eventually lead to a shootout. Twenty-eight states have "Stand Your Ground" laws that allow citizens to shoot if they feel threatened. "If you have masked people running out at you, someone's going to pull a gun out and someone's going to get hurt," she said. Trump's Homeland Security leadership appears to have no plans to back down. "Federal law enforcement is facing an ever-escalating increase in assaults," DHS posted to X, "but we will not be deterred."
