Conference committee tentatively agrees to three amendments to Senate Bill 9; date change remains unresolved

Members of the Judiciary and House Commerce conference committee tentatively agreed on three substantive amendments to Senate Bill 9 and left one issue unresolved at a conference meeting, saying they would reconvene at 1:00 p.m. to finish negotiations.

The committee tentatively agreed to: (1) add a narrower definition of “camera” that targets permanently affixed, Internet‑connected devices; (2) replace a stand‑alone “foreign entity” definition by inserting equivalent language directly where it is used; and (3) require gubernatorial review of certain expansion requests. Committee members did not reach agreement on changing the bill’s effective date.

Why it matters: The bill addresses national‑security and law‑enforcement concerns that committee members said could be affected by unmanned aerial systems, fixed cameras and certain foreign‑linked companies. Lawmakers and staff debated wording that could affect which devices and actors fall under the statute and how quickly local agencies must comply.

The chair read a distributed “balloon” amendment that defines camera as “a device that records still images or video that is affixed in a permanent manner to a building or structure and connected to the Internet. Camera does not include a body camera as defined in KSA 45‑54, and amendments thereto, a dash camera or a camera in a mobile phone.” Chair Tarwater introduced that language after staff distributed the amendment.

Senator Titus described a separate amendment to remove a separate “foreign entity” definition and instead “take what it means by foreign entity and plainly say it there.” Titus said the change is intended only to clarify a paragraph that otherwise was confusing. “We would essentially take that definition and replace foreign entity with a company whose domicile as any other country than The United States,” Titus said during the meeting.

Representative Turk pressed staff to consider potential downstream effects of moving or embedding that definition instead of adding a stand‑alone definition to the bill, asking whether the change might create “third, fourth, fifth ripples in the pond.” A reviser answered that, because the term was used in only one place in the bill, embedding the language would preserve the effect while improving clarity.

Representative Hsu urged caution about broadening the bill without stakeholder input. “I’m not really opposed to this type of amendment,” Hsu said, but added that the conference committee had not yet heard stakeholders on the camera change and cautioned that an unexpected scenario could “torpedo the bill” later.

Members also discussed proposed implementation dates. The House position was to keep an earlier effective date in place, which representatives described as needed because the threat is “very real, very imminent.” The Senate side offered a later date; the committee discussed a Senate counteroffer to move the date to December 31, 2025, instead of the House’s original July 1, 2025 deadline. The date remained unresolved as the parties agreed to take the proposal back to their chambers for further consideration.

A reviser raised a technical but consequential drafting question about attorney‑general language that appears on page 6, concerning whether the statute should reference “rules and regulations” or instead use the phrases “policies and procedures.” Senator Titus and other members said that, because decisions under the program will be appealable, it would be cleaner to require regulations rather than leave ambiguous references to policy, and the committee asked staff to clarify that drafting point.

Committee members said they had four amendment offers on the table; they reported tentative agreement on three offers (camera language, governor review for expansion, and the embedded foreign‑entity language) and said the chambers would review the remaining date issue before returning. The committee directed staff to begin drafting a conference committee report if members believed they had reached tentative agreement, and to call another meeting if the chambers could not finalize the outstanding item.

The meeting included repeated staff and reviser involvement to prepare and distribute the balloon amendments; the chair and members repeatedly emphasized the goal of avoiding changes that would unintentionally broaden the bill’s reach to routine law‑enforcement equipment such as body cameras, dash cameras or mobile phones.

The committee set a reconvening time of 1:00 p.m. to continue negotiations and asked staff to flag military stakeholders for consultation about timing and implementation concerns.

The discussion was procedural and preparatory; no formal motions or votes were recorded during the portion of the meeting covered by the transcript.