Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Forced Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs ban on government purchases of EVs tied to forced labor; supporters cite human‑rights concerns, opponents ask enforcement questions
Summary
House Bill 1683 would bar state and local governments from buying electric vehicles or components manufactured with forced labor. Sponsors and witnesses framed the change as a moral procurement standard; committee members pressed how enforcement, penalties and sovereign‑immunity issues would work.
Representative Mindy McAlinden presented House Bill 1683, which would prohibit government entities from procuring electric vehicles or components if the vehicles were manufactured using forced labor.
McAlinden said the measure targets supply‑chain links that may rely on child labor or state coercion, including cobalt mined in parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and labor programs in China. “One of those lines is allowing children to be exploited for the sake of electric vehicle production, especially when ethical alternatives exist,” McAlinden said, pointing to automakers’ moves toward low‑ or no‑cobalt battery chemistries.
Witnesses who testified in favor said the proposal uses procurement power to discourage forced labor and to align state purchasing with federal guidance that encourages North American components for battery supply chains. Samantha Vick of Heartland Impact told the committee that federal action and private firms’ industry moves show manufacturers can adjust sourcing.
Committee members pressed McAlinden on enforcement mechanisms: whether penalties would be civil or administrative, how an aggrieved city or agency could pursue a claim, and whether sovereign immunity would block suits against government entities. McAlinden said the bill allows penalties where conduct is found outside an employee’s course and scope and that the attorney general’s office had reviewed the language; she said enforcement could include administrative actions and court filings when appropriate.
Representative Collins asked who would bring an enforcement action and whether a city that sued a state agency would obtain damages; McAlinden replied that an aggrieved entity could seek relief, and civil penalties were structured to be assessed to a responsible party but not as a private‑right‑of‑action payment that would be awarded directly to a plaintiff. Several members sought and received assurances that the attorney general’s office had reviewed parts of the draft; McAlinden said the AG’s office had been consulted and reviewers were comfortable with the language. The committee voted to pass the bill as amended.
