Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would bar state procurement from firms on ITAR/embargoed list; supporters cite national security risks
Summary
House Bill 188 would block state procurement contracts with entities owned, operated or controlled by countries on a federal embargo/ITAR list, a measure supporters described as a state‑level national‑security safeguard.
House Bill 188 would prohibit state procurement contracts with entities owned, operated or controlled by countries on a designated embargo/ITAR list. Sponsors and witnesses framed the bill as a security measure to prevent procurement relationships with suppliers tied to foreign adversaries and cited past federal actions and reported incidents involving equipment and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
Why it matters: Supporters argued that federal authorities already restrict certain suppliers from federal procurement and that states should likewise exclude suppliers from countries that present national‑security and human‑rights risks.
Delegate Brian Chisholm, bill sponsor, told the committee the legislation is intended to keep entities tied to countries such as China, Russia, Iran and others from entering Maryland’s procurement system. Chisholm said the measure responds to high‑profile cyber incidents, concerns about equipment that can access sensitive systems, and federal policy limiting certain foreign suppliers in federal contracting. He cited purchases of restricted technology by state agencies in prior years as an example of potential exposure.
Carla Jones of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) testified in support and urged careful vetting of third‑party vendors and noted 13 states have adopted laws limiting procurement from firms tied to the People’s Republic of China. Committee members pressed about fiscal impacts and the fiscal note’s estimate that compliance could cost at least $50,000 annually to track and review contracts; supporters said last year’s experience suggested lower costs but committee members requested clarification of the fiscal note.
Questions from members covered the scope of federal vs. state authority, examples of flagged vendors (witnesses named vendors including Lexmark, Lenovo, Hikvision and DJI) and whether self‑attestation by contractors could be used. The sponsor said he would work with the Senate and noted last year’s companion passed the House unanimously but did not advance in the Senate.
Ending note: The committee recorded supportive testimony and technical questions about implementation cost and enforcement. Sponsor and witnesses offered to provide drafting options and data to refine the compliance approach in subcommittee.
