Representative McLean, co-chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation, urged colleagues to approve a package she said was needed to prevent closures, layoffs and service cuts at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). “We are here today because Oregonians cannot wait without action, and we will face immediate and painful consequences,” she said during third-reading debate.

Lawmakers spent much of the special-session floor debate weighing whether to raise new revenues now or attempt further cuts and reallocations. Supporters said the bill preserves core services — snowplows, bus service and maintenance stations — and funds audits and performance reviews to improve agency accountability. Representative Graeber said, “At its heart, this bill is about safety,” noting winter plowing, crash response and the need to keep emergency routes open.

Opponents argued the package places disproportionate burdens on working families and questioned whether temporary oversight measures are sufficient. Representative Reschke asked, “Is now the time to raise taxes on Oregonians?” Representative Edwards said the proposal “does not represent fairness. It does not represent reform. What it represents is surrender,” and raised concerns about exemptions for certain heavy commercial vehicles and the bill’s payroll and registration fee increases.

The legislation includes several accountability provisions described on the floor: $500,000 general fund for a Department of Administrative Services review of the highway cost-allocation study, $300,000 to the Legislative Policy and Research office for a performance audit, and performance audits by the Secretary of State. Sponsors said those measures, along with strengthened legislative oversight, were designed to rebuild public trust in ODOT’s spending and project delivery.

Proponents warned of immediate safety consequences if the House did not act: members cited maintenance-station closures, reduced snowplowing and scenarios in which emergency responders could face longer response times. Opponents pointed to public testimony; several speakers cited that roughly 94% of submitted testimony opposed the governor’s larger package and argued the state should prioritize existing funds differently.

After extended debate and a call of the House to ensure members were present, the clerk conducted a roll-call vote. House Bill 39 91 received the constitutionally required majority and was declared passed. The measure now moves on for the administrative steps required to implement the revenue and oversight provisions described during debate.