Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee discusses adding data‑sales disclosure to ADS reporting bill H 4 58
Loading...
Summary
Members of the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee discussed proposed language to H 4 58 that would require state agencies to report what data they sell, the types sold and revenue received; the bill goes to the Senate Institutions Committee next week and committee members said they will closely track any changes.
Members of the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Tuesday discussed adding a requirement to H 4 58, the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) reporting bill, that would make agencies disclose whether they sell data, what categories of information are sold, and how much revenue the sales generate.
Committee members said the proposed addition grew out of testimony, including from Sean McFadden of Oregon, that raised concerns about states selling datasets for revenue. Representatives working on the language—identified in committee discussion as Rep. Sebelius and Rep. Southworth—told colleagues they want a line item in H 4 58 that lists which departments sell information, what they sell and total receipts.
The committee does not have a final text yet and no formal vote on the change was taken. Senators on the Senate Institutions Committee are scheduled to take up H 4 58 next week; committee members said they plan to present the data‑sales language to that committee and watch testimony and amendments closely. Secretary Riley Hughes of the relevant state agency is scheduled to meet with the committee Tuesday and committee staff sent her links to prior testimony and briefing materials, the members said, so she would be prepared to discuss ADS topics including the proposed data‑sales reporting language.
Members emphasized oversight as the purpose of the reporting requirement: they said they want transparency about what departments may be selling and how much money the state receives. Committee members also acknowledged an opposing view that selling datasets is a de facto revenue source that can reduce tax pressure; several members said they would prefer to know the scope of sales rather than speculate.
Committee staff and members said they will monitor the Senate Institutions hearing closely, follow written testimony, and be prepared to concur with or challenge changes when the bill returns from the Senate. Committee members described this as a near‑term, oversight‑focused ask rather than a broad change to ADS procurement and funding policy. A larger, separate discussion about state IT funding and procurement remains unresolved; members referenced a JFO briefing memo and testimony from multiple witnesses (including the Oregon presentation and a witness identified as Doug Robinson) and said that larger conversation might result in additional legislation later.
Other legislative items mentioned during the meeting included S 50 (scheduled for a committee vote next Friday), H 1 25 and several bills the committee said it will continue to track (H 1 21, H 1 81, H 11). Committee members also raised the topics of cybersecurity, AI and weatherization as potential future testimony topics.
No formal committee action on H 4 58 or the proposed data‑sales reporting language was recorded during the meeting. Committee members set a priority to watch Senate Institutions testimony and to be ready to act if substantial changes are proposed when the bill returns to the House.
