Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foreign Influence Transparency Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debate on foreign-influence and procurement bill breaks down after wide-ranging amendments
Summary
A broad Senate bill aimed at increasing transparency around foreign agents, limiting some procurements from foreign adversaries and tightening reporting for higher-education gifts generated lengthy debate, major stakeholder pushback and ultimately no committee adoption of a large amendment package; the measure was deferred.
Senators on the Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection and International Affairs Committee spent the longest portion of their May 14 hearing on Senate Bill 229, a bill that would increase disclosure requirements for foreign actors working in Louisiana, restrict some economic development and procurement benefits for companies domiciled in certain foreign countries, and tighten reporting for foreign gifts to public higher-education institutions.
The bill’s sponsor and supporters said the measure is aimed at national-security threats and transparency. Brian Sikma, speaking for America First Works, told the committee: “This is not an easy bill, but easy didn’t build Louisiana and easy didn’t build The United States.” He described amendments that would narrow the bill’s reach to corporations domiciled outside the United States and explained changes to the higher-education reporting threshold, saying the bill was aligned with prior 2022 legislative work on university foreign gifts.
Opponents — including utilities, trade groups, parish and regional organizations, and industry representatives — said the bill as written and even as amended would have substantial operational and fiscal consequences. Jody Montalare (Entergy) and Desiree Lemoine (TJC Group) warned the committee that parts of the bill could hinder electric-utility contracting and raise privacy and compliance risks for routine contractors. Entergy provided examples about supply constraints for domestic solar panels and urged carveouts for public-utility projects. TJC Group expressed concern that registration requirements (including residential addresses) would create privacy and compliance problems for otherwise lawful contractors.
Committee members pressed for more detail about fiscal impacts and administrative capacity. Senator Price raised a question about the fiscal note after the bill’s administration was moved from the Secretary of State to the Board of Ethics; the sponsor indicated the fiscal note remained material and that some set-up costs would likely persist though reduced. Senator Connick and others asked whether the Board of Ethics had been consulted; sponsors said the fiscal analysts had consulted that office but conceded direct stakeholder conversations with the Board of Ethics had been limited.
Amendment work included narrowing the definition of covered “foreign corporations” to exclude companies with U.S. subsidiaries; moving enforcement/reporting tasks to the Board of Ethics rather than the Secretary of State; limiting procurement restrictions to certain hostile-adversary sources; and delaying effective dates for solar and other procurement provisions to Aug. 1, 2026. Amendments also attempted to clarify when criminal penalties would apply and to limit the bill’s reach to entities that are actually controlled or domiciled in listed foreign nations.
Despite extensive amendment work and multiple stakeholder presentations, a motion to adopt a lengthy amendment set did not proceed to adoption because committee members expressed continuing concerns and an objection was lodged. The sponsor said he would continue work on the measure, but the committee ultimately deferred Senate Bill 229. The clerk recorded a motion to defer and the bill was deferred.
The hearing drew a large set of written and in-person stakeholders: supporters included Brian Sikma (America First Works) and Kevin Hayes (Landowners Association); opponents included Entergy, DJI Technology, TJC Group, the Sierra Club, GNO Inc., and numerous business and parish stakeholders. The committee asked for more time and for additional technical conversations with the Board of Ethics and with utilities on narrow carveouts and fiscal impacts.
What’s next: Senators indicated the bill will need more stakeholder work, clarifying language about scope and enforcement, and a fuller fiscal and implementation plan (including whether the Board of Ethics can absorb the ongoing reporting and compliance work) before the measure advances.
