The House's bill drafters now spend longer fixing AI drafts than writing from scratch

The lawyers who turn political intent into statutory text are now spending more time repairing AI-drafted bills than it would take them to write those bills from scratch, according to a person who has advised the House Office of Legislative Counsel on the technology and who spoke to Politico ^[2]. Owen Dahlkamp's report, published Monday and drawn from interviews with eight current and former officials connected to the office, is a clean instance of a pattern operators keep rediscovering: unreviewed model output does not remove work, it relocates it to whoever signs off ^[1]. The relocation lands somewhere with no slack. "When we talk about Congress's ability to legislate, we are talking about this office," Marci Harris of the POPVOX Foundation told Politico ^[7]. In the 118th Congress it prepared 30,494 bills, 188 percent more than the 10,564 that were actually introduced, per March testimony from legislative counsel Warren Burke ^[8]. So roughly 19,930 drafts, about 65 percent of the total, never reached the floor ^[1]. It also prepared 21,484 amendments, up 46 percent on the 114th Congress ^[9]. Doing that work were 78 attorneys and 23 support staff in the first session of this Congress ^[10]. Attorney headcount is up 59 percent since the 116th, but average experience has fallen 22 percent and 58 percent of attorneys now have under a decade of service ^[11]. Four congressional staffers involved in drafting told Politico that AI use is becoming routine ^[4]. Staffers and outside groups are using Claude and ChatGPT to write the legislative language itself ^[6]. "It's absolutely terrifying," one House staffer said, "and no one is thinking about it yet" ^[5]. The failure modes are the expensive kind: cheap to generate, slow to find. Wade Ballou, who led the office from 2016 to 2024, said AI struggles to determine whether a pot of money should be a tax credit, tax deduction, tax exclusion or a grant ^[12]. A person who works with the office described drafts defining a state as only the 50 states, which would exclude Washington DC and tribal nations from a federal programme ^[13]. Ari Hershowitz, a lawyer and technologist who has worked with the office, called incorrect statutory references "a guaranteed way of introducing thousands of bugs into our legal system" ^[14]. Daniel Schuman of the American Governance Institute put it plainly: AI "is not capable of drafting legislation that you would want to enact into law" ^[15]. The aggregate demand numbers do not yet show a flood, and that is worth stating. The 72 percent rise in requests cited from last year's testimony covers the first 60 days of this Congress, 5,623 against 3,271, a 71.9 percent increase over a narrow window ^[16][2]. Burke's most recent testimony covers 13 months: 23,239 requests against 21,979, a 5.7 percent rise, or about 1,260 extra requests ^[17][3]. Gizmodo rendered the same 72 percent as requests up in 2025 versus two years earlier ^[18]. The pressure described is per-document review cost, not raw intake. Burke wrote in March that the office is "bracing for AI to expand our workload" and that text produced by outside entities, human or computer, often takes significantly longer to review and revise; he declined to comment to Politico ^[19]. Meanwhile the tooling is inverted. The office has a working group evaluating Microsoft Copilot as authorised by the House ^[20], and already runs the Comparative Print Suite, which uses natural language processing to show how a bill changes the US Code and returns an error when it cannot place a change with confidence ^[21]. "Members and interest groups get to write things with AI, but then leg counsel themselves can't use [commercially available] AI," Charlotte Lee of Granicus, who helped design that tool, told Politico ^[22]. Watch whether Burke's next testimony separates AI-origin drafts from the rest, since intake counts alone will not surface this.