An unexpected issue has emerged as the House-passed “big, beautiful bill” is debated in the Senate—whether or not states will lose the ability to regulate artificial intelligence in the future.
Since Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., called out a provision in the House’s “big, beautiful bill” that blocks states from regulating AI, the Senate is increasingly scrutinizing the provision.
On Tuesday, Greene spoke against the bill’s 10-year moratorium on states “limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models,” calling it a “violation of state rights” and pledging not to vote for the bill with that provision.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., however told The Daily Signal that the deregulation was here to stay to help the United States compete with adversaries on AI, adding that the federal government could fill in the gaps with needed regulations.
Greene later told The Daily Signal that this was a “red line” issue for her.
She added that she had been told it might be removed due to the Senate’s Byrd Rule, which forbids provisions in reconciliation packages that are not primarily budgetary. The rule is named after the late longtime Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
“What I have heard is that it—the Byrd Rule—it might be taken out in the Senate,” she said. “I’ve heard that, but we’ll see if it happens. That’s what they’ve said, but it’s yet to be seen.”
Some important decision-makers in the Senate are similarly questioning the bill’s eligibility for consideration.
Asked if the provisions could survive the Byrd Rule, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said, “We’ll see.”
The Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released its committee text Thursday for its version of the bill and notably altered those deregulation provisions, possibly in an attempt to make them Byrd-compliant.
The new text requires that states follow the provisions if they wish to receive broadband funding from the federal government.
We’re trying to rewrite it,” Cruz said in an interview Thursday. “I fully expect next week to be in front of the parliamentarian litigating this issue.”
The Senate parliamentarian is essentially the referee who decides on whether or not provisions follow Senate rules.
In order to bring a provision to be put in the “Byrd bath,” as it is colloquially known, a senator has to raise a point of order.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., plans to do just that.
Republicans “would tie the hands of governors, tie the hands of state legislators who are stepping up to protect their constituents from the unchecked harms of AI without any plan of their own to regulate these technologies,” Markey said Tuesday.
“If Senate Republicans keep the House language in their reconciliation bill, I will raise a point of order against it,” he said.
Even beyond the procedural obstacles to including the AI regulation moratorium, the provision butts up against many senators’ goals of regulating Big Tech.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., will draft an amendment to strike the provision if it is not removed under the Byrd Rule, according to Punchbowl’s Andrew Desiderio. Hawley also said that the moratorium “better be out.”
Hawley is probably not alone in that view as a Republican, either. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who has consistently pushed for regulation of Big Tech, said last month in a hearing, “We certainly know that, in Tennessee, we need those protections,” referring specifically to regulation of AI “deepfake” images.
“Until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium,” she said.
Given these developments, it appears the moratorium provision’s very survival is threatened. House leadership can ill-afford to lose Greene’s vote, as they passed their initial bill by a one-vote margin.
Senate Republicans similarly have a tight 53-47 majority, and leadership is handling other fundamental disagreements on spending and benefits reforms, which must be resolved in order for the bill to pass.
If the AI regulation moratorium is either thrown out by senators or by the Parliamentarian, though, it could upset the White House, which has championed AI innovation.
House Speaker Mike Johnson told The Daily Signal that “the president supports it in its current form,” and White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks has defended it against Greene’s criticism as well.
“The America First position should be to support a moderate and innovation-friendly regulatory regime at the federal level, which will help rather than hobble the U.S. in winning the AI race,” he wrote on X.
Speaking to The Daily Signal on Wednesday, Greene speculated on the source of the provision.
“I really question where that came from,” she said. “The White House literally worked hand in hand with the committees of the House to write that bill. Congress did not write that bill by themself. The White House legislative affairs team wrote the bill with the committees of the House.”
This article was originally published at www.dailysignal.com
