House Committee on Federal and State Affairs 03/11/2026

HB 2759 Hearing Overview

Introduction and Bill Context

• The hearing begins with a brief delay, indicating the presence of numerous amendments to be discussed.

• Mike Hyman from the Reviser of Statutes Office introduces HB 2759, which focuses on the registration of agents in political organizations linked to foreign entities.

Key Findings and Definitions

• Section one emphasizes that Kansas voters deserve transparency regarding foreign influence in political activities, particularly from countries deemed hostile.

• Important definitions are provided:

• Agent: A representative acting under a foreign principal's direction.

• Countries of Concern: Includes China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela; Taiwan is excluded.

Registration Requirements

• The bill mandates that individuals must register as agents with the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission by submitting necessary documents.

• Organizations receiving foreign support must also register and keep their information updated. Violations incur penalties consistent with existing laws.

Discussion on Penalties

• Representative Corbett questions the structure of fines for violations:

• First violation: $5,000

• Second violation: $10,000

• Third or subsequent violations: up to $15,000

Clarifications on Agency Registration

• Representative Howell seeks clarification on which agency oversees registrations; it is confirmed as the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission responsible for enforcing ethics laws.

• There’s a suggestion to add a definition for "commission" within the bill due to its oversight.

Proponent Testimony

Introduction of Tom Rawlings

• Tom Rawlings joins via Webex from Georgia; he represents State Shield and discusses his organization’s focus on educating about threats posed by hostile foreign influences.

Concerns About Foreign Entities

• Rawlings highlights concerns regarding companies controlled by hostile nations like China:

• These entities operate under coercive conditions influenced by their governments.

• Issues include data extraction practices that compromise American privacy and security.

Transparency in Foreign Influence Legislation

Importance of Transparency for Companies and Individuals

• Creating transparency for companies under foreign control is crucial to protect public sector workers, educators, and legislators from potential risks associated with foreign adversaries.

• The bill emphasizes the need for awareness when engaging with organizations that may be influenced by foreign entities, ensuring informed decision-making.

Registration Requirements for Foreign-Funded Organizations

• The legislation mandates registration with the Public Exposure Commission for organizations funded by foreign adversaries, addressing concerns about political influence campaigns.

• Reports indicate that protests and political movements may be financially supported by foreign nations like Iran and China, highlighting the need for scrutiny.

Case Study: Neville Roy Singham's Influence

• An American citizen named Neville Roy Singham has been identified as a significant financier of protest groups in the U.S., which some argue aim to undermine confidence in American institutions rather than advocate for specific issues.

• This example underscores the necessity of transparency regarding funding sources behind political movements.

Legislative Precedents Across States

• Similar transparency measures have been implemented in states such as Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Indiana, showcasing a growing trend towards accountability in lobbying practices at state levels.

• Ongoing legislative efforts across various states aim to enhance transparency concerning those lobbying government officials or seeking business engagements.

Challenges Posed by Chinese Influence Operations

Michael Lucci's Testimony on State Armor's Role

• Michael Lucci from State Armor supports the proposed legislation due to its focus on resilience against China's political warfare and protection of critical infrastructure at state levels.

• He outlines three main reasons why this legislation is necessary: inadequacies in federal laws regarding foreign agents, unique challenges posed by China requiring heightened transparency, and recent research indicating Chinese influence operations within Kansas specifically.

Inadequacies of Federal Foreign Agent Law

• The current federal Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) has significant loopholes; only 17 or 18 agents from Communist China are registered under it, reflecting its ineffectiveness.

• Certain exemptions allow organizations defined as cultural or academic not to register under FARA, enabling further evasion of accountability by Chinese entities operating in the U.S.

Warnings from National Intelligence Officials

• In 2022, warnings were issued regarding China's strategy targeting state-level activities; states must increase internal data sharing about potential influence operations linked to Communist Party affiliates.

Obligations Under China's National Intelligence Law

• China's National Intelligence Law requires individuals and organizations within the U.S. to assist Chinese intelligence services while maintaining secrecy about their activities—essentially mandating espionage efforts abroad.

Mapping Chinese Influence Networks

• Research indicates that there are approximately 1,000 United Front entities active within the U.S., aimed at supporting China's global ambitions through various means including influencing democratic processes in multiple countries beyond just Kansas and Nebraska.

Discussion on Foreign Influence in U.S. Education

Overview of Chinese Influence in Kansas

• The discussion highlights concerns about propaganda and the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at a sub-national level, particularly through organizations like the United States Heartland China Association.

• This association has collaborated with the University of Kansas, raising alarms among scholars who identify it as part of China's United Front strategy to promote dialogue while potentially undermining U.S. interests.

• Congressional leaders have urged Secretary Rubio to classify Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSAs) as foreign missions, similar to Confucius Institutes but perceived as more detrimental.

Legislative Measures Against Foreign Influence

• Several states, including Nebraska and Texas, are considering measures to enhance transparency regarding foreign influence in educational institutions.

• A proposed addition suggests that lobbyists should not accept payments from entities associated with adversarial nations like China, aiming for greater accountability without compromising transparency requirements.

Addressing Concerns About Russia

• A committee member questions why Russia is not mentioned as an adversary in the bill; it is clarified that while Russia is recognized as a foreign adversary, the focus remains primarily on China due to its significant economic footprint and influence operations.

• The speakers emphasize that Russia's corporate presence in the U.S. is minimal compared to China's extensive network of CSSAs operating on major campuses.

Clarification on Lobbyist Registration Requirements

• Concerns were raised about potential overreach requiring disclosure of all employees working for companies linked to adversarial nations; however, it's clarified that only agents engaged in lobbying activities need to register.

• The registration process aims for transparency regarding who represents foreign interests within lobbying groups, ensuring legislators can identify individuals associated with hostile foreign entities.

Conclusion and Next Steps

• The session concludes with gratitude expressed towards participants for their insights. No further proponents are noted from the audience wishing to speak on this matter.

Hearing Closure and Bill Introduction

Closing the Hearing

• The section is closed due to a lack of written or oral opposition, although there are written objections from several organizations including the Kansas Chamber and Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association.

Introduction of SB 372

• The committee moves on to discuss SB 372, known as the App Store Accountability Act, which aims to regulate app stores and developer operations. It includes provisions for protecting minors and parental involvement in app access decisions.

Key Provisions of SB 372

Enforcement Mechanism

• Violations of this act would fall under the Consumer Protection Act, with enforcement responsibilities assigned to the Attorney General's office.

Contractual Implications for Minors

• A discussion arises regarding minors' ability to enter contracts without parental consent; if enacted, this bill could change how accidental purchases by minors are treated legally. Representative Burdkamp raises concerns about enforceability versus current law where contracts signed by those under 18 are generally voidable.

Amendments Discussion

Chair Humphries' Input

• Chair Humphries expresses gratitude for the committee's efforts and introduces a comprehensive amendment aimed at addressing feedback from various stakeholders while maintaining the bill's integrity. Amendments were made based on suggestions from partners like Walmart but some were rejected due to their potential impact on the bill’s effectiveness.

Content Neutrality Concerns

• Emphasis is placed on ensuring that amendments do not compromise content neutrality, which is crucial for avoiding stricter legal scrutiny similar to issues faced by Texas law regarding app regulation. This highlights a careful balance between stakeholder input and legislative intent.

Specific Amendments Highlighted

Key Changes Proposed

• Notable amendments include:

• Striking certain lines requested by Walmart to maintain neutrality.

• Allowing apps to opt-out of child access as per requests from stakeholders focused on child protection.

• Clarifying how age signals will be communicated between developers and app stores, addressing previous ambiguities in legislation.

Cleanup Efforts

• Additional cleanup measures aim to clarify private cause actions within the bill while considering feedback from neutral parties about implementation timelines set for January 1st, 2027, amidst discussions about further extensions being unnecessary given existing frameworks already in place.

Age Verification and Child Protection in App Stores

Current Practices and Urgency

• The speaker emphasizes the importance of not delaying age verification measures, as many practices are already in place to protect children.

• Age verification methods include account longevity and credit card ownership, which are already known by app stores.

Legal Definitions and Standards

• A question arises regarding the legal definition of "clear and convincing evidence" related to age assessment, indicating a higher standard than mere preponderance of evidence.

• Clear and convincing evidence is compared to standards used in civil fraud cases, highlighting its significance in legal contexts.

Concerns About Prepaid Cards

• Representative Smooy raises concerns about prepaid cards being accessible to minors, questioning their effectiveness for age verification.

• The issue of tracking transactions made with prepaid cards is discussed, noting that expiration dates may complicate verification processes.

Privacy Issues with Identification

• There is apprehension about potential requirements for users to upload government-issued identification for age verification by app stores like Apple and Google.

• The speaker acknowledges that while credit cards can indicate age, there are multiple ways minors might circumvent these checks.

Legislative Intent and Amendments

• The speaker admits that current measures won't be foolproof but expresses commitment to ongoing efforts aimed at protecting children from online dangers.

• An amendment clarifies that no individual should be required to submit government-issued ID to an app store provider, addressing privacy concerns directly.

Technical Insights on Age Verification APIs

• Discussion includes insights into Apple's APIs for developers concerning age confirmation without storing private information unnecessarily.

• It’s noted that profiles created on app stores allow for family management features while ensuring appropriate content access based on user ages.

Discussion on App Information and Data Collection

Concerns About Information Collection

• Representative Wilcott raises questions about the existing information that apps collect, emphasizing a lack of clarity regarding what data is being gathered.

• The speaker mentions that basic personal information such as name, birthday, and email are collected by Apple for user profiles, including those for children.

Age Verification Mechanisms

• Discussion includes how age verification works through birth dates provided in app profiles, with an example of a child's birthday affecting access to certain features.

• The comparison is made to alcohol purchase websites where users must enter their birth date to verify age, highlighting potential loopholes in self-reported data.

Data Gathering Practices

• There’s a suggestion that requiring government-issued identification could enhance protection against misuse of personal data by companies like Apple or Google.

• Acknowledgment of extensive data tracking practices by tech companies based on user activity and interactions within apps.

Accountability and Liability Issues

• Representative Corbett expresses concern over the implications if tech companies fail to manage user data responsibly; emphasizes the need for accountability.

• Questions arise about whether companies can be held liable for incorrect assumptions made from the data they collect since there’s no legal requirement for them to gather specific information.

Clarification on App Store Regulations

• It is clarified that the bill discussed pertains specifically to app stores rather than individual apps themselves, focusing on age verification processes.

• The discussion highlights that while app stores use existing information for age verification, they are not mandated to collect additional data.

Standards for Age Assessment

• A point is raised regarding whether app stores can be held accountable if they incorrectly assess a user's age based on available information.

• Reference is made to a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" which developers must provide if disputing an age assessment made by the app store.

This structured summary captures key discussions around data collection practices related to apps, concerns about privacy and accountability, as well as regulatory considerations surrounding age verification mechanisms.

Discussion on App Store Regulations

Age Verification Methods

• Representative Lewis emphasizes the need for the Attorney General to establish age verification methods for app store providers, as outlined in section five of the bill.

Clarification on Bill Scope

• The regulations will clarify the duties and obligations of app stores regarding age verification, resolving any ambiguities present in the law.

Applicability Across All Apps

• Representative Osmond seeks clarification on whether the bill affects all apps across various categories, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a content-neutral approach.

• It is confirmed that the bill applies broadly to all apps within app stores to avoid favoritism among developers.

Definitions and Exclusions

• A discussion arises about whether smart TVs are included under this bill's definitions. It is clarified that current definitions pertain only to mobile devices like phones and tablets.

Concerns Regarding Health Apps

• Representative Osmond expresses concerns about how health-related apps could be impacted by this legislation, particularly for users who rely on them for critical functions like monitoring diabetes.

Critique of Bill's Intentions

Parental Control vs. Tech Responsibility

• Osmond argues that while there are genuine parental concerns regarding technology use, this bill primarily serves tech giants rather than addressing parents' needs effectively.

Flaws in Legislative Approach

• She highlights flaws in how responsibility is shifted between tech companies without providing real solutions for parents managing their children's technology use.

Real-Life Implications

• Osmond shares a personal story about her nephew with type 1 diabetes whose health management relies on timely updates from apps, illustrating potential risks if these applications are not adequately considered in legislation.

Concerns About Government Intervention

Government Role in Parenting

• Representative Smooy voices similar concerns about government overreach into parenting responsibilities, questioning whether it is appropriate for legislation to dictate how parents manage their children's interactions with technology.

Discussion on App Legislation and Its Implications

Concerns About Pop-Up Ads

• The issue of inappropriate pop-up ads is attributed to third-party involvement, complicating the effectiveness of app store age-appropriateness measures.

• There is a concern regarding passive consent for data collection, suggesting that moving towards explicit permission may not adequately address underlying issues.

Education Before Legislation

• Emphasis on the need for educational initiatives from companies like Apple and Google before implementing legislative changes, indicating a belief in proactive education over reactive laws.

• Schools face challenges in determining contractual obligations concerning personal devices, raising questions about parental consent versus school authority.

Legislative Amendments and Industry Input

• An amendment proposed by the chamber reflects industry expert feedback, highlighting the importance of understanding local business perspectives on legislation.

• Discussion around defining user capacity for apps aims to clarify responsibilities between schools and parents regarding content approval.

Detailed Examination of Proposed Changes

• The amendment seeks to refine definitions related to family accounts and minor accounts under 13 years old, aligning with existing privacy protections.

• A focus on obtaining parental consent is emphasized across various pages of the proposed amendments, indicating a structured approach to compliance.

Constitutional Considerations

• Concerns are raised about potential constitutional issues surrounding the bill; previous legal cases (e.g., Texas CCIA vs. Paxton) are referenced as cautionary examples.

• The speaker expresses skepticism about rushing into legislation without thorough discussions and understanding its implications for all stakeholders involved.

Discussion on Texas Law and First Amendment Rights

Overview of the Fifth Circuit's Timeline

• The Fifth Circuit has not established a briefing schedule, indicating that updates may not be available until late this year or into next year.

Comparison of Laws

• The Texas law is similar to another discussed law but is deemed unconstitutional due to its non-content-neutral nature, which discriminates based on content. This was a key reason for the judge's ruling.

Judicial Analysis and Implications

• Judge Pittman’s ruling suggests he might also find the current bill unconstitutional; however, he overlooked that restrictions on children's First Amendment rights are imposed by parents, not the state.

• The law empowers parents to determine what is appropriate for their children, emphasizing that parental authority does not equate to state control over speech rights.

Legal Precedents Supporting Parental Authority

• Reference is made to Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, where age verification laws were upheld as they do not directly regulate adult speech but aim to protect minors from obscene content. Justice Thomas highlighted that any burden on adults is incidental.

• The decision supports the argument that requiring age verification does not infringe upon adult free speech rights significantly and serves a protective purpose for minors.

Summary of Arguments Regarding Current Legislation

• Similarities with pornographic age verification laws suggest that the current bill only incidentally affects adult speech while facilitating parental choice regarding children's access to potentially harmful content. Thus, it could be argued as less restrictive than existing laws concerning obscenity.

Future Considerations and Legislative Support

• Acknowledgment of differing opinions within legislative discussions indicates ongoing efforts to refine the bill before it reaches broader scrutiny in committee or on the House floor, highlighting collaborative intentions among representatives despite varying levels of expertise in these matters.

• Representative Wilcott expresses strong support for addressing children's access to inappropriate content through legislation, reflecting personal experiences as a parent concerned about digital safety for kids.

Discussion on Parental Support and Privacy Concerns in Legislative Bill

Parental Intent and Legislative Expansion

• The speaker emphasizes the commitment to being effective parents, expressing hope for expanding the current bill to achieve more comprehensive goals while maintaining proper intent.

Concerns Regarding Privacy and Data Protection

• A significant concern raised about the bill is related to privacy and data collection, indicating a need for clarity on data protection requirements.

• The speaker expresses intentions to propose an amendment focused on privacy issues, highlighting ongoing discussions with legislative revisers regarding this matter.

Amendment Discussions and Procedural Clarifications

• There is confusion regarding whether an amendment was offered by Schmoy, leading to procedural clarifications about the status of discussions within the committee.

Recess Announcement and Future Agenda

• The chair announces a recess due to extended discussions, indicating that they will reconvene tomorrow without any scheduled agenda items for that day.

Approval of Meeting Minutes

• Before adjourning, there is a motion presented by Representative Smooy to approve minutes from previous meetings (March 3rd, 4th, and 5th), which passes unanimously.

Discussion on Bill Integration into Senate Legislation

• The chair opens up discussion regarding integrating Treasurer Johnson's bill into another Senate bill due to time constraints in the session.

• The intent is clarified: HB 2790 will be inserted into Senate Bill 260 after confirming necessary language adjustments have been made.

• A motion is made for approval of the house substitute for Senate Bill 260 favorably for passage.