Cruz: AI Moratorium ‘Absolutely’ Could Return in Some Form
The proposed AI moratorium could “absolutely” be reintroduced in some form, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told us last week.
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.
Cruz led efforts to pass the Senate version of the moratorium, which originated with House Republicans. The Senate on July 1 voted 99-1 to strip the moratorium from the budget package after a deal fell through between Cruz and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. Opposition from Blackburn and Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine; Josh Hawley, R-Mo.; and Rand Paul, R-Ky., meant Republicans lacked the votes to approve the measure.
Cruz was terse when asked if the Senate could revisit some version of the moratorium. “Absolutely,” he said. “Time will tell” in what form it could return.
The Texas lawmaker's version of the package would have required states to refrain from enforcing their AI-specific regulations for 10 years in order to receive $42.5 billion in federal subsidies under the BEAD program. The House version of the proposal would have imposed a 10-year moratorium without any ties to broadband subsidies (see 2505120067).
Blackburn objected to Cruz’s proposal due to its potential impact on the Elvis Act, an AI-related copyright law in Tennessee (see 2506270059).
Collins told us she agreed with Blackburn’s position from the start. She highlighted the fact that only one senator voted in favor of the proposal and that Cruz himself voted against it. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., was the lone yes vote.
Tillis told us “there were a lot of people that were going to vote yes” before the Senate’s vote-a-rama started. The 99-1 result was a “silly outcome,” he said: “I don’t know what happened. Maybe people got tired, whatever. But I was a yes going into it. I didn’t see any rational basis for changing it.” He said he didn’t buy into the “God-awful” reasoning behind making it a states’ rights issue. “The deal went away, but the issue is still the issue. I mean, we’re going to allow a patchwork of AI laws at the state level hamper innovation?” he said. “There’s clearly a case for federal preemption.”
Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Mark Warner, D-Va., agreed with the need for preemption. However, he said Blackburn “said it brilliantly” when discussing how Congress hasn’t passed anything meaningful in terms of regulating the tech industry. It’s not a good plan to have “no rules” for the next 10 years, and the 99-1 result was a “strong vote,” he said.
Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., said she voted against the proposal because she didn’t think it was “necessary” to freeze state AI regulations for 10 years.
“There were a lot of questions, and we didn’t have time to work it out,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “AI is complicated, and its regulation is going to be complicated, and part of that complication is how we apportion jurisdiction of regulation. It was just too much to swallow in a short period of time.”