Markup includes contested 10‑year moratorium on state AI laws; members clash on preemption, safety and innovation

One of the most contested provisions in the communications subtitle would bar states and localities from enforcing new laws regulating “artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems” for a ten‑year period. The provision prompted hours of discussion and multiple floor‑level amendments to strike the moratorium.

Supporters of the moratorium, including several Republicans who chair the communications subcommittee, said a federal framework is the only practical way to regulate a technology that operates across state lines. Committee proponents argued that agencies and Congress should develop a coherent, consistent national framework for AI so that interstate commerce and federal operations are not subject to 50 different regulatory regimes. They said a temporary moratorium would provide the breathing room the federal government needs to produce a durable, technology‑neutral approach.

Opponents said a decade‑long moratorium would lock Americans out of protections at a time when harms already are manifest. Democratic members and consumer advocates warned about the immediate harms of unregulated AI in areas such as child safety, health care claims denials, the creation and distribution of sexual exploitation deepfakes and biased automated decision systems in housing and employment. Several Democrats said the federal legislature had been slow to act, and states had stepped in to fill the gap. They urged that states be allowed to continue passing targeted protections — especially those protecting children, privacy and civil rights — while Congress establishes a baseline federal standard. Multiple members cited recent reports alleging that AI tools have been used to produce exploitative materials involving minors and to influence vulnerable people.

Recorded amendments to strike the moratorium were offered and debated. The committee ultimately voted down Democratic attempts to remove the moratorium from the draft reconciliation text during the markup. Several members on both sides said they would continue to pursue a federal AI framework outside reconciliation and urged rapid bipartisan work to produce standing federal guardrails.

Ending: The moratorium language remains in the committee print transmitted to the Budget Committee; members signaled continued efforts to negotiate a federal approach and said they would prioritize more hearings and a potential bipartisan bill in the months ahead.