[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6329774,"mediaKeyId","2315643-f8495967466cafd5aef417f5fdf1675c","parentId",2315643,"title","Committee Advances Data‑Privacy Bill After Lengthy Amendments Debate","audioSeconds",1608,"startMs",2084000,"endMs",3692000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315643-f8495967466cafd5aef417f5fdf1675c&start=2084&end=3692","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315643-f8495967466cafd5aef417f5fdf1675c/thumbnail_2084000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6329774/Washington/Committee-Advances-DataPrivacy-Bill-After-Lengthy-Amendments-Debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329774-0df3ca956285fc90d27c79324e5fe6a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168270&Signature=kqWAXSZIdON7dxLBe9mRrdWH7lHYXZ~ESwPUoh8gvjBCrm8DJG9p3Nc9snuoJeV76ptEKvhXfelWwp5wu50eCC3i2ce61hrrGRz8pU34YoLCHkkV9tcm0bNFNkd9RVF-JBrnPhWF-91tFjBxGf7YRiGc5vwuGpvxmN9B20303gMh86KEHfCr1ffwm5z-5aFf9iPOJpFK~OhdS9VYW7IrbirJMQcTs1V0PBtBjybE9tpEehx1KdZnUgcXY-jyrgRm-0HhrDsDghYyK5oYTtm9lrZzLkL33kmlc-utLqQYHv-QtBEWCVlrAws1SVOcpz5FCteb-4oLDtO8B2s0DrU5GQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans","date","2025-02-14T00:00:00Z","article","The Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee on Feb. 14 reported out a proposed substitute of House Bill 1671 (data privacy) with a due‑pass recommendation after an extended debate over several amendments.

Martha Whaling, committee staff, briefed members on the proposed substitute. She said the substitute modifies the bill’s consumer definition, clarifies presumption of Washington residency based on location, narrows certain definitions for government contracts, and adds limited exemptions for journalistic activities and specified insurance‑fraud reporting organizations. The substitute also requires the attorney general to offer an opportunity to cure potential violations, with that opportunity expiring on Aug. 1, 2027.

Committee discussion focused on four amendment packages. Representative Keaton moved amendment pool 110 (language narrowing the definition of “dark pattern” to align with other pending bills), which the committee adopted. Representative Barnard’s amendment pool 108 — to expand applicability to state government entities and their contracted service providers — was debated as raising public‑records and transparency issues and was not adopted. Pool 109, addressing loyalty and rewards programs, was offered to protect those programs from effective disruption; members voted not to adopt it after concerns that it would allow undisclosed sale of consumer data. The final contested amendment, pool 106, would have removed a private right of action in favor of attorney‑general enforcement only; it was also not adopted after members argued the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) precedent and private enforcement mechanisms are longstanding in Washington law.

Vice Chair Clobba defended the overall approach, saying features such as opt‑out rights for sales of personal data and restrictions on automated profiling align with other states and reflect years of work in the legislature. Representative Kloba (vice chair in later remarks) and other supporters said the bill targets surveillance‑economy practices and risks from inferred profiling. Opponents raised concerns about impacts on small businesses, loyalty programs, and the scale of a private right of action compared with other states.

After debate, the committee voted to report the proposed substitute out of committee with a due‑pass recommendation. The clerk announced the result as 7 ayes, 4 nays and 2 excused. The roll call during the meeting recorded votes by name as entered in the hearing record.

The adopted and rejected amendment actions, plus the requirement that the attorney general issue an opportunity to cure through Aug. 1, 2027, are now part of the committee record for the proposed substitute. Further changes could occur as the bill moves through floor action or conference.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans - 2/14/2025 10:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee on Feb. 14 reported out a proposed substitute of House Bill 1671 (data privacy) with a due‑pass recommendation after an extended debate over several amendments.","taxTitle","Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20265,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6329778,"Committee Hears Bill to Create Washington Supply‑Chain Competiveness Infrastructure Program",1985,64000,2049000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315643-f8495967466cafd5aef417f5fdf1675c&start=64&end=2049","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315643-f8495967466cafd5aef417f5fdf1675c/thumbnail_64000.jpg","/articles/6329778/Washington/Committee-Hears-Bill-to-Create-Washington-SupplyChain-Competiveness-Infrastructure-Program","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329778-f61d8f8013b2abc7eba40f67de8a5661/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168270&Signature=AqSpknNDKMvHzX1RmEzLB2D4wbmLErTsxqZlJMSLQz54kJtufntyOLeNpX7~-fhKvXcKTtq6YdgdWCXn14jig~nJywwndtpoVbVaT1op5oQBHDHtoipBhqYp-LFvYMPMWRzFyOJi8Tp4T5DM958ZpfSzCTBHUq2n4DGRbXyxDSvXxmWKXi5RircQBxmyyB5BylGBWheh-Ifsvo92bn-26vZbvYm8Cso5ptr6~QfJO0lqwWmtbuw~ruVD0~fWBWqJYzLM~nJxvi73lf5XXQmUgzCIo62ACsj6dBxazgjt72Q8FoGir~zpc9XXlzqdFMUSZ4Lk50mvYHYx35H1xK3oeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee on Feb. 14 heard testimony on House Bill 1860, which would create a state Supply Chain Competitiveness Infrastructure Program to provide grants and loans to public and tribal ports for freight and port‑adjacent projects.

Rep. Reed, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee the measure is intended to remove “barriers and bottlenecks to goods movement” that raise costs and deter investment. “The supply chain competitiveness improvement program allows investments to overcome this challenge by funding both port and port adjacent infrastructure,” she said.

The bill would require the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to set program priorities, collaborate with identified supply‑chain stakeholders to develop performance metrics, and publish an eligible project list tied to freight development plans that ports adopt as part of their harbor improvement plans. A project must be included in a freight development plan and align with six programmatic goals, the analysis states, including operations, efficiency, market access and mitigation for impacted communities. The bill also creates an account in the state treasury for the program.

Port representatives testified in strong support and described the types of projects they expect to propose. Chris Herman of the Washington Public Ports Association said the program is statewide and includes tribal port eligibility. “This legislation creates a new grant and loan program, within the state,” he said, adding that many projects involve port or near‑port infrastructure on city streets, county roads or the state highway system.

Sean Egan of the Northwest Seaport Alliance described the supply chain as the state’s economic “circulatory system” and urged investment to avoid the kinds of shortages seen during the pandemic. He gave examples ranging from an inland rail hub in Central or Eastern Washington to repairs at Terminal 7, which handles military hardware.

John Flanagan, state government relations for the Port of Seattle, said the program’s flexibility could support clean‑fuel and sustainable maritime fuel infrastructure in addition to traditional cargo handling. Other port officials described local needs: the Port of Benton’s inland rail project (a recent $9.5 million federal grant was mentioned as at-risk), Port of Bellingham’s $50 million modernization (including a $19 million BNSF reconnection), Port of Everett’s need to replace a seawall and create over‑dimensional cargo corridors, and Port Angeles’ century‑old pilings and terminal needs.

Committee members asked whether funding would be available in the current budget; witnesses and the sponsor said the bill primarily establishes the program and policy framework and that funding conversations with transportation budget writers would continue. “We’re not trying to create any sort of potential bow waves,” one port witness said, noting the bill does not require immediate state spending but creates a vehicle that can be funded in the future.

The committee took public testimony from city, port and tribal representatives and closed the hearing on HB 1860 without taking a committee vote that day. The bill will return to the committee process if and when a funding source or further committee action is proposed.

The record includes multiple project examples and local dollar figures offered by port representatives; those specifics will inform future prioritization if the program is funded.","The Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee on Feb. 14 heard testimony on House Bill 1860, which would create a state Supply Chain Competitiveness Infrastructure Program to provide grants and loans to public and tribal ports for freight and port‑adjacent projects.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6329769,"Committee Backs Bill Directing Commerce to Develop Five‑Year Statewide Economic Plan",1674,2290000,3964000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2315643-f8495967466cafd5aef417f5fdf1675c&start=2290&end=3964","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2315643-f8495967466cafd5aef417f5fdf1675c/thumbnail_2290000.jpg","/articles/6329769/Washington/Committee-Backs-Bill-Directing-Commerce-to-Develop-FiveYear-Statewide-Economic-Plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6329769-fd0ac43390eab1d4a3ff4372ee6cc11e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168270&Signature=FBOTDpEYen3tiD5EaAyjd84~DMadGB5P~hP-pJoL-EL0GpU5JS4y8bO9I9pGWOjxdMMSqjcjHT~yONrgca2qhWT7C3d1P-mmVZaQsleAMU3Zz7BPjKlYEDGnDOaNgopZbeWte5LjKmBEyr8M9d43TLUUm7NFta80S2mZAEGKrQlqAWMlA71i~gxivrIEj7dOSV5LNwnBi92AOpsmzezx~JMO2Ubl-Q7vlrbWExJUWT3vG2G8ozz2asfZO9NWtJt8A74g-z0qmTQt9YxbT4-j9m1ElCmLBcztT2AgSigZkcuqZsBaZHQdAd1Y94x-lURKsk5WPCoD8XZ0J9J2zS71hw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee on Feb. 14 voted to report House Bill 1595 out of committee with a do‑pass recommendation. The bill requires the Department of Commerce to develop a five‑year statewide economic development plan and establish an advisory committee to guide that work.

Martha Whaling, committee staff, summarized the bill and two sponsor amendments. Amendment WALE 215 added a second industry association slot to the advisory committee, specified industry sectors for representation and allowed the Commerce director discretion to expand membership in the future. Amendment WALE 217 removed a requirement that the advisory committee hold a statewide economic development summit; the sponsor said this change should lower the fiscal note and concentrated the department’s work on planning rather than a single event.

Representative Ryu, sponsor of the amendments, said the changes refine advisory‑committee membership and reduce unnecessary fiscal impacts. Representative Barnard supported the bill as a long‑overdue statewide planning effort that will coordinate economic development across programs. Committee members agreed the plan will help align state resources and economic strategies.

The committee adopted both sponsor amendments and reported the bill out with an 11‑aye voice vote; two members were excused. Staff recorded the final tally as 11 ayes and 2 excused. The bill will proceed in the legislative process with the adopted amendments and departmental direction to follow the “Nothing About Us Without Us” act (as added in amendment text).

Committee members said the plan is intended to create an overarching framework for existing and future economic development programs across the state and to coordinate industry, regional and community perspectives as the Department of Commerce crafts the five‑year roadmap.","House Bill 1595 would require the Department of Commerce to develop a five‑year statewide economic development plan. The committee adopted two sponsor amendments adjusting advisory‑committee membership and removing a required summit; the bill was reported out with a do‑pass recommendation (11 ayes, 2 excused).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee Advances Data‑Privacy Bill After Lengthy Amendments Debate

Committee Hears Bill to Create Washington Supply‑Chain Competiveness Infrastructure Program

Committee Backs Bill Directing Commerce to Develop Five‑Year Statewide Economic Plan