HR-10118-119
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Sponsored by Tom Barrett (R-MI)
What it does
This bill would prohibit Members of Congress from signing nondisclosure agreements with state or local governments or private entities as a condition of receiving information about data center planning or development, including investment plans, site selection, construction designs, and water or energy use. It would also bar the use of federal funds to implement or enforce any such nondisclosure agreement, and directs the House and Senate ethics committees to write implementing regulations.
Who benefits
Members of Congress and congressional staff who want to publicly discuss data center projects without contractual restriction; constituents and local communities near proposed data centers who could gain more information through their representatives about water and energy consumption, tax incentives, or land use; journalists and advocacy groups seeking transparency on large infrastructure deals; and taxpayer watchdog groups.
Who is hurt
Data center developers and technology companies that use NDAs to protect proprietary siting, construction, or investment information during negotiations with local governments; state and local economic development officials who may rely on confidentiality to attract investment before deals are finalized; and potentially local governments that could find it harder to secure data center investment if companies view congressional involvement as a disclosure risk.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Members of Congress should never be contractually silenced about matters affecting their constituents, particularly on issues like water and energy consumption from data centers, which have drawn scrutiny in many states amid rapid data center expansion. They contend that NDAs used by private companies or local governments to limit what elected federal officials can disclose undermine oversight and public accountability, especially since taxpayer-funded incentives are often involved in attracting these facilities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that companies and local governments often require confidentiality during early-stage negotiations to protect competitive business information, such as investment amounts or site selection criteria, and that barring Members of Congress from agreeing to any such terms could reduce their access to sensitive briefings altogether. They contend the bill may not meaningfully improve transparency if companies simply decline to share information with Members rather than risk public disclosure, potentially leaving constituents less informed rather than more.
Constitutional context
This bill falls within Congress's authority under Article I, Section 5 to regulate the conduct of its own Members, similar to existing ethics rules on gifts, travel, and financial disclosures; it does not implicate Commerce Clause limits since it restricts Member conduct rather than regulating private economic activity directly.
Checks and balances
Congress would restrict its own Members' conduct through internal ethics rules enforced by the House Ethics Committee and Senate Select Committee on Ethics, with no expansion of executive or judicial authority.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously restricted Members from accepting gifts, travel, or other benefits with strings attached through chamber ethics rules, though no directly analogous prior law specifically addressing NDAs tied to data center information has been identified.