PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 23, 2024
Source code Harmonization And Reuse in Information Technology Act or the SHARE IT Act
This act requires federal agencies to ensure that custom-developed code (i.e., source code that is produced under an agency contract, funded exclusively by the federal government, or developed by federal employees as part of their official duties) and certain technical components of the code such as architecture designs and metadata are (1) owned by the agency, (2) stored at no less than one public or private repository, and (3) accessible to federal employees under certain procedures. Agency contracts for custom-development of software must acquire and exercise rights sufficient to allow government-wide access, sharing, use, and modification of any custom-developed code.
The act does not apply to source code that is classified, developed primarily for use in a national security system, or developed by an element of the intelligence community. An agency's office of the chief information officer may exempt source code from being shared or made publicly accessible to protect individual privacy.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Within 120 days of enactment, the Office of Electronic Government shall establish minimum reporting standards for agencies relating to certain topics, such as measuring the frequency of reuse of code. Within one year of enactment, the Federal Acquisition Regulation must be revised to implement the act's provisions.
People & committees
Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 118-187.
Became Public Law No: 118-187.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7093)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6340-6342)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6340-6342)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9566.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6340-6342)
Mr. Langworthy moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 29, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.9566 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.9566 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.9566 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.9566 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.