Senate Opens Vote-a-Rama, Braces for Potential Floor Action on AI Moratorium
If Senate opposition pushes hard enough against the AI moratorium proposed by Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, it could potentially lead to a floor vote on the provision itself, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and a Republican Senate staffer told us Monday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
Blumenthal, working in opposition with Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told us he’s reviewing a compromise on the AI proposal from Cruz and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-S.C., but he "would much prefer that that provision be stripped from the bill.” There’s a possibility of a floor vote on the moratorium but the "likelihood" of that is unclear, he added.
The Republican staffer said a floor vote depends on “how hard” the opposition pushes. “I wouldn’t rule it out.”
The Senate on Monday initiated a vote-a-rama on the chamber’s budget package, opening the process to an unlimited number of amendments. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., has said he intends to raise a point of order that could trigger a series of votes leading to a floor vote on the moratorium. Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Markey on Monday filed an amendment seeking to strip the moratorium text from the package.
Cruz on Monday announced a compromise with Blackburn. It would cut the moratorium from 10 years to five and include exemptions for states to enforce AI-related laws governing kids' online safety, consumer protection and copyright. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in an interview last week, mentioned the possibility of Cruz and Blackburn collaborating on a compromise (see 2506270059).
Cruz, in a statement Monday, said that the latest text “preserves the rights of states to protect consumers and content creators without giving the Left a backdoor to push their woke social agenda through AI regulation. I’m hopeful Republicans will stand strong, and see through the Left’s Trojan Horse, to make sure this bill defends freedom, fuels innovation, and ensures America continues to lead globally.”
Blackburn, who opposed the moratorium for its potential impact on a music-related AI law in Tennessee, didn’t comment Monday.
Cantwell’s office on Monday argued the moratorium could prevent states from enforcing certain AI-related provisions in their privacy laws. Specifically, she said it could block enforcement of laws that provide users a right to opt out of data collection used for profiling and from requiring impact assessments related to AI systems.
“The Blackburn-Cruz amendment does nothing to protect kids or consumers,” Cantwell said in a statement. “It’s just another giveaway to tech companies. This provision gives AI and social media a brand-new shield against litigation and state regulation. This is Section 230 on steroids. And when [Commerce Secretary] Howard Lutnick has the authority to force states to take this deal or lose all of their BEAD funding, consumers will find out just how catastrophic this deal is.”
Her office highlighted opposition from the National Conference of State Legislatures, Common Sense Media, Consumer Federation of America, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Writer’s Guild of America East, among others.
Meanwhile, Texas Sen. Angela Paxton (R) sent a letter Monday to Cruz and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asking for the removal of the AI moratorium language. Paxton, wife of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), highlighted her state’s recent passage of the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA). She asked that Congress allow states to lead in striking a balance between AI-related safety issues and AI innovation.
Ken Paxton in May didn't join a bipartisan group of 40 state attorneys general opposing the moratorium (see 2505160057), but he is currently relying on Texas privacy law in an AI-related investigation against DeepSeek (see 2502140053).