Committee hears competing views on AI bill; sponsors propose definition and linkage to national‑security vendor rules
Loading...
Summary
Co‑Chair Nathanson opened a public hearing on House Bill 3,936, which would add a statutory definition of artificial intelligence and apply that definition to statutes that govern covered vendors and procurement for state agencies.
Co‑Chair Nathanson opened a public hearing on House Bill 3,936, a measure that would restrict use of certain artificial‑intelligence products on state information technology assets. Committee staff described a dash‑1 amendment that inserts a statutory definition of artificial intelligence and aligns AI‑specific language across statutes that govern the executive branch, the secretary of state and the state treasurer.
Representative Darcy Edwards, sponsor of the dash‑1 amendment, told the committee the change is intended to modernize existing covered‑vendor and procurement statutes so agencies can identify AI capabilities that pose risk. ‘‘By inserting this definition into key statutes … the bill ensures consistency and clarity across government entities,’’ Edwards said, arguing the statutory definition aligns with national and international standards and will support later policy development, risk management and vendor accountability.
Rebecca Gladstone, testifying on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Oregon, urged caution and opposed a blanket ban based on country of incorporation. The League recommended a standards‑based, risk‑based vetting process that evaluates AI systems against privacy, security and ethical standards regardless of country of origin. ‘‘Banning AI owned or developed by a foreign corporate entity is shortsighted,’’ Gladstone said, adding that ‘‘rather than banning AI systems based on country of origin, Oregon should prohibit using any AI regardless of origin that fails to meet strict standards.’’
Committee staff noted Representative Edwards’ dash‑1 amendment removes or narrows language that would single out foreign incorporation and instead focuses on products or vendors that present national‑security or state‑cybersecurity threats as defined in existing covered‑vendor law (House Bill 3,127, 2023).
Questions and context
Members asked for examples of how AI is already embedded across agency systems and where risk may lie; Edwards noted AI capabilities are widespread and evolving quickly and that breaches and incidents across state agencies have demonstrated the need to clarify statutory coverage. Several senators and representatives emphasized the need for further discussion and clear standards that keep security protections aligned with procurement policy.
No committee vote was taken during the hearing; the public testimony record closed and staff noted opportunities for additional amendments or standards work in later sessions.
