Reps. Jay Obernolte<\/a> (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan<\/a> (D-Mass.) formally introduced legislation last Thursday with four cosponsors \u2014 two from each party \u2014 that would give the government more oversight over cutting-edge AI models<\/a> as new and potentially dangerous technological advances continue to go largely unchecked.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a considerably reworked version of a discussion draft the two lawmakers unveiled weeks earlier. It was highly anticipated as the most serious cross-party attempt at comprehensive AI regulatory legislation to date \u2014 and almost immediately panned by Republicans and Democrats alike.<\/p>\n

But Trahan and Obernolte both think they\u2019ve now found the sweet spot and are hopeful the Energy and Commerce Committee schedules a hearing or markup on the measure when the House reconvenes in September after the summer recess.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat is the goal,\u201d Trahan said in an interview Friday. \u201cI think that there is real urgency. There\u2019s earth-shattering news practically every week, and that\u2019s only going to get more frequent and more serious as these models get more powerful.\u201d<\/p>\n

Obernolte said in an interview earlier in the week he \u201cabsolutely\u201d thought the bill could move out of committee in the fall. \u201cWe\u2019re certainly going to try and get it done this year.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet when asked last week about whether he would bring up that bill \u2014 or any comprehensive AI legislation \u2014 before the midterms, Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie<\/a> was noncommittal: \u201cI\u2019m not sure if we\u2019ll get there before the election,\u201d the Kentucky Republican said.<\/p>\n

Congress has ultimately done little to legislate on AI under the Republican governing trifecta, as members remain divided on how to tackle the thorny policy area \u2014 particularly the question of how involved the federal government should be in regulating private sector innovation. The Obernolte-Trahan bill is the latest test for whether lawmakers can reach consensus on the issue before the November elections.<\/p>\n

In the 119th Congress so far, lawmakers have managed to send to the president\u2019s desk one bill that criminalizes the sharing of AI-generated deepfakes and \u201crevenge porn.\u201d The Energy and Commerce Committee has passed bipartisan bills on data centers and kids online safety but none have advanced onto in the Senate.<\/p>\n

Across the Capitol, the Senate Commerce Committee was just forced to delay a highly-anticipated markup of AI legislation at least a week as Chair Ted Cruz<\/a> (R-Texas) struggles to put together an agenda of bills that stand a chance of passing on the chamber floor.<\/p>\n

In the House, Obernolte and Trahan are trying to set their proposal up for success despite the odds. In interviews, they both described how they worked hard to respond to the initially negative<\/a> feedback they received from colleagues on their discussion draft.<\/p>\n

They have seriously scaled down provisions in their latest version relating to preemption of state AI laws, seeking to strike a balance for lawmakers who are split between those who want the ability to replace local regulations with a federal framework governing AI, and those who want to leave regulatory action to the states.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe all heard the criticism \u2026 and we narrowed the preemption [provisions] substantially,\u201d Trahan said. \u201cIt now only touches three areas the federal bill actually covers: catastrophic risk transparency, independent verification and incident reporting. That\u2019s it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSo, child safety laws are explicitly protected,\u201d she continued. \u201cSo is the consumer protection, privacy and state procurement. All of that stays with the states.\u201d<\/p>\n

Obernolte acknowledged the topic of preemption makes people \u201cemotional\u201d but the new legislative language more precisely describes exactly \u201cwhat we meant on what we were preempting \u2026 and I think that that\u2019s giving everyone more comfort.\u201d<\/p>\n

Their bill would propose robust emergency shutdown authorities for AI models determined to be major national security risks, replacing the more haphazard nature of the Trump administration\u2019s response in recent months to concerning technological developments.<\/p>\n

It also would require large developers to publish safety reports, report safety incidents and participate in independent safety audits. Those auditors would have to then report any models to the government that pose \u201cimminent catastrophic risk\u201d and the Secretary of Commerce could choose to restrict their deployment.<\/p>\n

Last week\u2019s first documented case of an autonomous AI breach<\/a> helped bolster their case that this kind of legislation is necessary, both lawmakers said, with Trahan pointing out, \u201cwe only know about these incidents because OpenAI chose to tell us \u2014 there\u2019s no law that requires it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trahan, a member of House Democratic leadership, has been working outside the structure of the three-member AI commission overseen by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries<\/a> but was optimistic when asked if the proposal might eventually get their backing.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe feedback has been overwhelmingly positive,\u201d she said, adding she plans to spend recess talking with party leaders and the top Democrats on key committees \u201cwhether there\u2019s a path to make this bill even better and to move it before we break for the midterms.\u201d<\/p>\n

Obernolte said he\u2019s talking to GOP leaders \u201cconstantly\u201d to \u201cmake sure that everyone knew what was going on and what we were doing.\u201d<\/p>\n

But he also added that he hasn\u2019t yet asked Republican leaders for their endorsement, arguing it would be \u201cinappropriate\u201d for them to give the bill their blessing \u201cat this point.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the hours before Obernolte and Trahan released their formal bill text, Majority Leader Steve Scalise<\/a> said in an interview that while he had not spoken to Obernolte about what the two lawmakers intended to introduce, Republican leaders were interested in advancing a regulatory framework that they deemed not overly burdensome.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re trying to get AI preemption \u2026 but we also want to make sure that we don\u2019t impede innovation with heavy regulation from the government,\u201d said Scalise.<\/p>\n

A Scalise spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment about what the Louisiana Republican thought of the latest proposal.<\/p>\n

House Speaker Mike Johnson<\/a> has also not taken a position on the bill. His last comments about the Obernolte-Trahan effort were in June, when he said he was planning to discuss the then-forthcoming regulatory framework<\/a> with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman during the tech giant\u2019s visit to Blue Light News.<\/p>\n

Obernolte is confident his bill with Trahan represents the emerging consensus view about where lawmakers need to go next on AI policy, even within the Republican Party that has long championed limited government regulation.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think that everyone would agree we need food safety inspectors, right? So sometimes the two parties disagree on just how onerous to make those regulations. \u2026 I don\u2019t think anyone\u2019s saying that we shouldn\u2019t have any regulation of AI,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He also suggested perspectives may be shifting.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think everyone\u2019s thoughts on this topic have evolved as the technology itself has evolved, and because AI is such a fast-moving technology, I think that Congress is going to have to stay very engaged on this,\u201d Obernolte said. \u201cSo, even if we succeed in passing [the bill] this year and getting it signed into law, immediately in the next Congress, we\u2019re going to have to dive into the things that have changed.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a sign Obernolte may still have people to convince inside his party, though, Scalise last week rejected the idea that Republican views on the subject have evolved.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo,\u201d Scalise said. \u201cI mean \u2014 our Republicans, by and large, are against heavy regulation that impedes innovation in any industry.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"