A Bipartisan National Framework for AI is the Key to our Global Leadership
By Chip Pickering, CEO, INCOMPAS
It was great to be back in front of the Energy & Commerce Committee yesterday — it felt like going home. I am grateful to committee members for their substantive engagement on what will be one of the most consequential technological evolutions of our lifetime.
Yesterday’s hearing highlighted the urgent need for a national approach to AI policy for America as well as greater clarity regarding the AI moratorium provision in the budget reconciliation bill. On the latter, I believe several key misunderstandings need to be addressed to move this critical conversation forward constructively.
A Framework for Action
I heard loud and clear yesterday that a ten-year ban on state AI regulation feels too long to wait for congressional action on AI policy. What’s clear is that ten years is absolutely too long to wait for a comprehensive federal framework. The pending legislation doesn’t require Congress to wait before acting, however: it’s merely a catalyst to start the clock for federal policy development.
We believe some time provides lawmakers the breathing room necessary to act thoughtfully. This is a complicated and nationally significant technology. Our lawmakers need some space to negotiate and develop a thoughtful, bipartisan solution — just like the bipartisan approach that built America’s internet infrastructure dominance. My hope and expectation is that Congress will act to establish a national AI framework. We need policies that protect consumers, encourage innovation, and help us win the AI race against China.
Consumer Protection: We’ve Been Thoughtful and Precise
Legitimate concerns were raised about consumer protection laws yesterday, specifically AI in emergency preparedness, employment discrimination, and various state safeguards. I want to assure everyone that the moratorium provision was narrowly and thoughtfully constructed to avoid any impact on these critical protections.
The legislation contains explicit “rules of construction” that preserve the enforcement of civil rights statutes, consumer protection laws, and criminal statutes. The AI moratorium does not disrupt states’ ability to enforce any generally applicable laws, which include existing employment discrimination laws, emergency preparedness protocols, or consumer safety measures. What it prevents is the creation of a confusing web of new AI-specific regulations that could undermine our national competitiveness. What it unlocks is the ambition and urgency we need to build a federal, standardized approach to this unprecedented technology.
I had the honor of being part of early Internet policymaking as a Congressional staffer and an elected official — we were faced with these same profound questions. We debated, we compromised, and we didn’t all agree, but we knew that bipartisan, federal approaches presented the best path to a durable national policy to benefit every American.
The Byrd Rule: This Is About Protecting Taxpayer Investments
Let me be clear: we believe AI moratorium passes the Byrd Rule because its primary impact is fundamentally budgetary. The moratorium is but one element of a national plan, designed to be temporary, and give enough time to Congress to enact a federal plan. This isn’t about enshrining a specific policy philosophy; it’s about protecting the substantial federal investments we’re making to optimize federal systems using AI tools. When allocating any federal resources, I’ve always believed we need to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and ensure resources are spent wisely. That especially applies to the $500 million the House bill dedicates to modernize government systems with AI advancements.
The temporary moratorium is critical to the success of this new federal government program because an initiative of this magnitude will only be successful if it is not hampered by an increasing number of varying state laws on the subject. This creates a short-term window that allows AI to develop while Congress completes its work on a unified federal approach. The moratorium is a catalyst, meant to force Congressional for action. If federal agencies must spend months or years untangling 50 different state AI frameworks, these resources will simply be wasted. A unified federal AI framework would save billions in taxpayer dollars that would otherwise be lost to a regulatory maze.
Learning from History: The Path Forward
I had the honor of being part of early Internet policymaking as a Congressional staffer and an elected official — when we were faced with these same profound questions. We debated, we compromised, and we didn’t all agree, but we knew that bipartisan, federal approaches presented the best path to a durable national policy to benefit every American.
The precedents are clear and successful. The Internet Tax Moratorium, initially temporary, allowed e-commerce to flourish and eventually became permanent as Congress recognized its value. The 1993 spectrum auction preemption enabled the wireless revolution that powers today’s mobile economy. In both cases, federal preemption prevented a patchwork of state rules from stifling transformative technologies.
We’re at a similar inflection point with AI. The choice before us is whether to enable American innovation to flourish under a coherent national framework, or to allow regulatory fragmentation to hand technological leadership to our competitors.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this moratorium for what it truly is: a temporary bridge to bipartisan solutions that will keep America at the forefront of the most important technological transformation of our time. The future of American innovation — and our ability to compete globally — depends on getting this right.
