No it doesn't. That lists property acquired from a state through consent of the legislature. That has nothing to do with property that belonged to the federal government before Oregon became a state and which was not turned over to them when admitted.
Oregon and other western states may want to get in on this as it is a USSC issue.
A question which the Supreme Court has answered many times in the past.
So you argue the courts can negate language of the Constitution specifically the limitations of why they can own land limiting to military and other “needful” buildings.
Last I saw this narrow issue, aka reason for the land, has not been made. lots of waterway stuff, lots of military use stuff, etc. oh and Trump weighed in on the BLM issue awhile back.
http://dennismichaellynch.com/must-see-donald-trumps-position-on-the-blm/