Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill clashed this week over who should police artificial intelligence technologies – the Federal government or states – and on what AI regulation should look like no matter which level of government has the upper hand.
Arguments made during a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on May 21 centered on a provision in the GOP-backed reconciliation spending bill which would impose a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulations. The larger reconciliation bill was approved by the full House today by a 215-214-1 vote, and now heads to the Senate for further consideration and possible changes.
“Our task is to protect our citizens and ensure that we don’t cede U.S. AI leadership,” Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., who chairs the subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. “Heavy-handed regulations may ensure that the next great American company never makes it. If we fail in this task, we risk ceding American leadership in AI to China, which is close on our heels.”
Rep. Bilirakis pointed to the European Union AI Act approved by EU lawmakers in May 2024 which landed as the world’s first comprehensive AI regulation and set of rules based on risk levels and banning certain high-risk uses. The law has received criticism from Republicans and members of industry who say it stifles innovation.
Rep. John Joyce, R-Pa., called the E.U. act “overly complex and restrictive,” and compared it to state-level laws introduced and passed across the United States.
“Just since January, there have been over 1,000 AI bills introduced across the United States,” the congressman said. “These measures vary widely in their definitions, in their requirements, their enforcement mechanisms, and in their scope. These emerging patchworks of regulations are creating confusion and inconsistency.”
While Republicans delivered a united front on the House floor in approving the reconciliation spending bill, witnesses at the subcommittee hearing were more divided over how regulations should be approached.
“[We] should be treating these measures as the floor, not receiving a moratorium on the AI-related state laws [which are] working at a time when there are minimal Federal laws in place, would instead set the top back and it would freeze it there,” said Amba Kak, co-executive director of AI Now Institute, a AI-focused research organization, while warning of the social implications of unregulated AI innovation.
“Why … treat these companies with kid gloves at a moment when they need more scrutiny, not less, is what should be in focus today, and we don’t have 10 years to wait,” Kak added.
Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the free-market think tank R Street Institute, supported the GOP’s moratorium on state-level AI regulations and said that it wouldn’t prevent states from regulating on issues not directly related to AI – such as broader civil rights and consumer protection laws.
“Put yourself in the shoes of an entrepreneur who’s wondering how to build the next great application only to face hundreds of different regulatory definitions … a moratorium offers a smart way to address this problem by granting innovators breathing space and helping ensure a robust marketplace to develop,” said Thierer.
Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-Okla., called for striking a balance between innovation and regulation, warning that without AI regulations Congress risks eroding public trust.
“Let’s be honest about what’s really being argued here, that any regulation, Federal or state will slow innovation – that’s the real claim the majority seems to be making, and I believe it’s a false choice, I believe balance is possible,” said Rep. Mullin. He said that Congress should focus on closing gaps in oversight instead of blanket deregulation or preemption.
“Let states continue innovating and leading where appropriate, especially in protecting democracy,” the congressman said.
Other Democrats, including Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, D-N.Y., said that until more Federal law is created on data privacy and AI, Congress should not prevent states from taking up similar legislation. Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Wash., echoed similar sentiments, adding that ten years is too long for a moratorium to be placed on state AI regulation.
“The stakes are so high, this technology is moving so fast – three months is a long time,10 years is an infinity,” said Rep. Schrier. “I want to urge my Republican colleagues to stand up for their constituents. They’re doing this in the wrong order: first pass essential national protections then deal with preemption. We are here to work with you, this is a common goal.”
Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., who chaired the previous Congress’s task force on AI, said that “no one wants this to be 10 years,” saying instead he’d “love to see this be months, not years.”
“It really hurts my heart that it’s being painted in such a divisive, partisan issue, because I don’t think it is,” said Rep. Obernolte.