Latest news with #JanSchakowsky
The Hill
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Hill
Hill staffer appearing on ‘Survivor'
A staffer on Capitol Hill will be a participant on the popular reality show 'Survivor' in its 49th season, which is slated to air this coming fall. Rep. Jan Schakowsky's (D-Ill.) communication director, Alex Moore, appeared in the season's promotional video and identified himself as a Hill staffer. 'I work on Capitol Hill and I think that has prepared me for Survivor because one of my favorite pastimes is kissing butt,' Moore said in the video, reported by Entertainment Weekly. The host of the show, Jeff Probst, described the cast as 'very likable and quirky' in an interview with EW. 'Every season of Survivor is unique, and that is definitely the case for Survivor 49,' Probst told EW. 'This is a very likable and quirky group of players that are going to encounter a Fijian summer so sweltering it feels like the jungle is breathing on you.' Schakowsky recently announced that she would not seek reelection.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Mr. Moore...Mr. Moore?': Lawmakers caught sleeping during committee meetings
The Brief Rep. Blake Moore was shaken awake by Rep. Michelle Fischbach to vote during an all-night Ways and Means Committee hearing. Two other lawmakers, Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Debbie Dingell, dozed off during a 20-hour House Committee meeting. Dingell and Schakowsky joked about their exhaustion while fighting for healthcare access in late-night sessions. WASHINGTON - Seems like even the country's lawmakers know that politics can be a bit of a snoozefest as a few had to be woken up during committee sessions. The backstory On Wednesday, Representative Blake Moore of Utah had to be shaken awake, by Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach, to cast his vote on an amendment during an all-night Ways and Means Committee hearing. The meeting started around 2:30 p.m. local time and continued on through the night. The meeting focused on discussing and voting on amendments to a Republican reconciliation bill. RELATED: Democrats are deeply pessimistic about future of the party, poll finds Footage showed Moore sound asleep in his chair as he was called on to vote on an amendment around 5 a.m. Wednesday local time Two other lawmakers also fell asleep during a marathon U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce markup meeting that lasted for more than 20 hours. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 80, of Illinois, and Rep. Debbie Dingell, 71, of Michigan, each appeared to fall asleep at different points during the meeting that was held to discuss and vote on amendments to the budget bill. What they're saying Dingell commented on the situation in a post on X, saying: "Been up for 31 hours straight fighting Republicans trying to gut Medicaid. Closed my eyes to think about an America where everyone has access to quality, affordable health care." Schakowsky also posted a comment, saying: "We're on hour 25 of our marathon markup where my colleagues and I are fighting all day and night to protect health care access for all Americans." RELATED: Biden's team considered wheelchair amid health concerns: New book The Source Storyful contributed to this report. The information in this story comes from various sources, including footage of Rep. Blake Moore sleeping during a Ways and Means Committee hearing, as well as comments from Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Debbie Dingell shared on X (formerly Twitter). This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Fast Company
14-05-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' could sideline state AI protections for a decade
A few lines of text in a sweeping new bill moving through Congress could have major implications for the next decade of artificial intelligence. Trump is pushing Republicans in Congress to pass 'one, big beautiful bill,' which hinges on deep cuts to popular federal assistance programs like Medicaid and SNAP to drum up hundreds of billions of dollars for tax cuts and defense spending. Among the bill's other controversies, it could stop states from enforcing any laws that regulate AI for the next 10 years. 'No state . . . may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,' the bill stipulates. The proposal to hamstring states' regulatory power popped up in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's portion of the massive budget reconciliation mega-bill. The reason? House Republicans on the committee want to allocate $500 million to modernize federal IT tech, including through the deployment of 'state-of-the-art' commercial AI—but they're worried about regulators getting in the way of federal AI adoption. In order to 'streamline' the federal government's ability to readily adopt AI into its systems, the bill sidelines one potential check on its power: the states. States are effective tech regulators—unlike the federal government The bill's language is broad, protecting AI models and systems through a moratorium on state-level legal challenges, but also including any 'automated decision system'—a catchall category the legislation defines as any computational process 'that issues a simplified output' and replaces human decision-making. That expansive description means the moratorium could prevent states from regulating all kinds of everyday automated processes and algorithms that wouldn't fall under a narrower definition of artificial intelligence. As Trump's political opponents raise alarm over the broader reconciliation bill's proposed cuts to Medicaid, some House Democrats slammed the overlooked AI provision as a 'giant gift' to Big Tech companies. 'This ban will allow AI companies to ignore consumer privacy protections, let deepfakes spread, and allow companies to profile and deceive consumers using AI,' Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said. A moratorium on state-level AI regulation might not sound like a huge deal, but states are often the only check on the tech industry's power over consumers. From social media algorithms to AI, the federal government has largely failed to regulate emerging technology over the last decade. States have picked up the slack, with powerful laws like the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in Illinois ensnaring Meta over the company's mishandling of facial recognition data. States have already stepped in to regulate AI. Last year, Tennessee became the first state to protect musicians from AI systems that would copy their voice without permission. In Colorado, a new law designed to protect residents from discrimination within systems relying on AI just survived a challenge from opponents. Budget reconciliation offers a fast track for some bills Beyond the small provision on AI, the budget reconciliation bill would deliver on a number of the president's signature priorities, like funding ongoing construction of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico and extending tax cuts from Trump's first term beyond 2025. In its first 100 days, the Trump administration leaned heavily on executive orders and other unilateral actions that didn't require cooperation from Congress. With Trump's early blitz of executive actions—including sharp limits to immigration and deep cuts to the federal workforce—now tangled up in court challenges, the administration has turned to Republicans in Congress to enact other parts of his agenda. In Congress, a special process known as budget reconciliation allows some kinds of legislation to pass with a simple majority vote in the Senate, bypassing the need to whip up 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. For an administration with little interest in the slow, compromise-driven work necessary to craft bipartisan legislation, a budget reconciliation bill offers an alternative path, though one that only applies to some bills related to spending, taxes, and the debt limit. Will the bill pass? With the committee markup sessions wrapped up, House Republicans are aiming to push the mega-bill through its next phase of scrutiny on Friday. With such a large legislative package covering so much ground, disagreements on any one of its component parts could spell the bill's demise. While the relatively tiny piece of significant AI deregulation within the bill is unlikely to be a sticking point, Senate Republicans have expressed concerns over the bill's failure to reduce federal spending. President Trump is likely to dial up the pressure if the bill clears the House, but there are signs that without major changes, the 'big, beautiful bill' could sink before it leaves the harbor.
Gizmodo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Gizmodo
Republicans Pander to Big Tech With Proposed 10-Year Ban on State AI Regulations
Over the weekend, Republicans in the House unveiled a sweeping budget proposal that includes massive cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, climate programs, and more. But buried amongst those cuts, legislators also proposed a decade-long ban on AI regulations at the state level. Although framed as upholding innovation, the attempted moratorium is yet another clear display of the federal government pandering to the desires of Big Tech. Within the House Energy and Commerce Committee's bill, lawmakers proposed that 'no state or political subdivision may enforce any law of regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems' starting from the day that the proposal is enacted. Laws imposing 'a substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement' on listed AI systems would fall under the moratorium. However, there are a few exceptions, like if the above requirements are due to federal regulation or if the law also applies to non-AI systems that 'provide comparable functions'. In addition, the pause isn't applicable to regulations that 'remove legal impediments' or 'facilitate the deployment or operation of' AI systems. The proposal comes shortly after the Commerce Committee's hearing titled 'Winning the AI Race'. During his testimony, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said that allowing states to assemble a patchwork regulatory framework 'will slow us down at a time where I don't think it's in anyone's interest.' And sure, abiding by regulations in 50 different states is hard. But a) that's how the U.S. works, each state can have its own unique laws, and b) there wouldn't be such an amalgamation of AI regulation if the federal government actually put together its own. Regardless of which party holds power, the U.S. is notorious for falling behind when it comes to tech-related legislation. One of the biggest examples is the U.S.'s lack of its own comprehensive federal privacy law. As a result, states have no choice but to enact piecemeal legislation to tackle a rapidly changing environment as new technologies usher in their own unique concerns. Per the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 45 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C., introduced AI bills. On Monday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), a ranking member of the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee, blasted the proposal as a 'giant gift to Big Tech' and 'shows that Republicans care more about profits than people.' Similarly, the Tech Oversight Project's executive director, Sacha Haworth, told the Hill that the 'so-called 'states' rights'' party's provision 'is not only hypocritical, it's a massive handout to Big Tech.' Haworth added that 'it comes as no surprise that Big Tech is trying to stop [efforts to regulate AI] dead in its tracks.' Since taking office, Trump has taken a clear stance on letting AI run wild. In January, he rescinded Biden's executive order for AI regulation and, shortly after, directed the Office of Management and Budget to overhaul its directive on federal uses of AI. Although Trump released his own AI guidance last month that copies Biden's in a few areas, his administration has overall played fast and loose with AI, with no concern for analyzing its civil rights impacts. During his opening statement at last week's meeting, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) summarized the dominant attitude towards AI regulations, stating, 'All of this busybody bureaucracy – whether Biden's industrial policy on chip exports or industry and regulator-approved 'guidance' documents – is a wolf in sheep's clothing. To lead in AI, the U.S. cannot allow regulation, even the supposedly benign kind, to choke innovation or adoption.' Currently, the proposed moratorium's full scope is unclear. David Stauss, an attorney with Husch Blackwell, told the International Association of Privacy Professionals, 'A lot would depend on how the terms are defined.' Legally speaking, AI is a nebulous term. Stauss noted that while Colorado's AI Act uses a broad definition based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's own, other states are more limited. But if federal legislator's definition is broad, Stauss said, 'all sorts of laws could be implicated, even product liability and medical malpractice laws as extreme edge cases.' It's entirely possible that this proposal gets removed down the road. If it stays, its language will likely be adjusted one way or the other. But its very inclusion in House Republicans' budget bill suggests that the U.S. will continue hurtling down the AI-or-be-damned pathway with no regard for the consequences.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Tech safety groups slam House GOP proposal for 10-year ban on state AI regulation
A host of tech safety groups and at least one Democrat are blasting House Republicans' proposal to block states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) models for the next 10 years, arguing consumers will be less protected. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the ranking member on the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee, said on Monday the proposal is a 'giant gift to Big Tech.' 'The Republicans' 10-year ban on the enforcement of state laws protecting consumers from potential dangers of new artificial intelligence systems gives Big Tech free reign to take advantage of children and families,' she wrote, adding the proposal, 'shows that Republicans care more about profits than people.' The Republican tax bill, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Sunday night, proposes barring states from enforcing laws or regulations governing AI models, AI systems or automated decision systems. The proposal includes some exemptions for laws that intend to 'remove legal impediments' or 'facilitate the deployment or operation' of AI systems, as well as those that seek to 'streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement or reporting procedures.' State laws that do not impose any substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement' on AI systems would also be allowed under the proposal. Schakowsky claimed the proposal would give AI developers a green light to 'ignore consumer privacy protections spread,' let AI-generated deepfakes spread, while allowing them to 'profile and deceive' consumers. The bill underscores the Trump administration's focus on AI innovation and acceleration over regulation. President Trump has rolled back various Biden-era AI policies that placed guardrails on AI developers, arguing these were obstacles to the fast development of AI. The Tech Oversight Project, a nonprofit tech watchdog group, pointed out Congress has failed to pass most AI-related legislation, prompting action on the state level. 'The so-called 'state's rights' party is trying to slip a provision into the reconciliation package that will kneecap states' ability to protect people and children from proven AI harms and scams. It's not only hypocritical, it's a massive handout to Big Tech,' Tech Oversight Project Executive Director Sacha Haworth said. 'While Congress has struggled to establish AI safeguards, states are leading the charge in tackling AI's worst use cases, and it comes as no surprise that Big Tech is trying to stop that effort dead in its tracks,' Haworth added. It comes amid a broader debate over federal preemption for AI regulation, which several AI industry heads have pushed for as state laws create a patchwork of rules to follow. Last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman testified before Congress, where he expressed support for 'one federal framework,' and expressed concerns with a 'burdensome' state-by-state approach. The Open Markets Institute, a DC-based think tank advocating against monopolies, called it a 'stunning assault on state sovereignty.' 'This is the broligarchy in action: billionaires and lobbyists writing the laws to lock in their dominance, at the direct expense of democratic oversight, with no new rules, no obligations, and no accountability allowed. This is not innovation protection—it's a corporate coup,' wrote Courtney C. Radsch, director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty at Open Markets Institute. U.S. states considered nearly 700 legislative proposals last year, according to an analysis from the Business Software Alliance. Nonprofit Consumer Reports also came out against the proposal, pointing to the potential dangers of AI, such as sexually explicit deepfakes. 'This incredibly broad preemption would prevent states from taking action to deal with all sorts of harms, from non-consensual intimate AI images, audio, and video, to AI-driven threats to critical infrastructure or market manipulation,' said Grace Geyde, a policy analyst for Consumer Reports, 'to protecting AI whistleblowers, to assessing high-risk AI decision-making systems for bias or other errors, to simply requiring AI chatbots to disclose that they aren't human.' Commerce and Energy Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) defended the committee's reconciliation proposal later Monday. 'This reconciliation is a win for Americans in every part of the country, and it's a shame Democrats are intentionally reflexively opposing commonsense policies to strengthen the program,' he wrote. Meanwhile, some tech industry groups celebrated the proposal. NetChoice, the trade association representing some of the largest tech firms in the world like Google, Amazon and Meta, said the 'commendable' proposal will help American 'stay first in the research and development' of emerging tech. 'America can't lead the world in new technologies like AI if we tie the hands of innovators with overwhelming red tape before they can even get off the ground,' said NetChoice Director of Policy Pat Hedger. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
