LAWMAKERS against the moratorium
rEP. HANK jOHNSON
“Caveat emptor is effectively what advocates of a moratorium are suggesting we revert to when we talk about an AI moratorium when you preempt an entire field of law, you you're preempting the common law right around right along with it. Supreme Court law has repeatedly found, as it did in regal versus Medtronic, that a federal laws reference to a state's requirements, includes its common law duties, and in plain language, that means, if Congress preempts state AI laws, we also preempt state common law.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin
“I've heard little to suggest that broad preemption is, in fact, the appropriate solution to this problem. Proponents of preemption present Americans with a series of false choices, telling us we must choose, choose a side between AI innovation or state powers and federalism between business and consumers, or national security and safe innovation.”
Rep. Deborah Ross
“Some of the AI companies want this preemption because they know that they can muck up the congressional situation, which isn't that hard to do, you know, and create the inaction so they can do whatever they want to do for as long as they possibly can do it.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
“It came up at the FBI director's hearing this morning, which when Senator Graham, who supports repealing section 230, which I agree with him, asked questions of Kash Patel about that that were good questions with good answers in terms of what we could do going forward, but in the meantime, if we were to prevent states from regulating AI at all, then we would basically have nothing.”