The House Office of Legislative Counsel is grappling with a growing influx of legislation drafted using generative artificial intelligence, much of it containing errors and imprecise language.

Congressional lawyers reported that the volume of AI-assisted bill proposals has increased the time required for review and revision. Officials familiar with the office said many drafts require more effort to correct than would be needed to create the text from scratch.

The OLC, which provides nonpartisan drafting assistance to House members, prepared over 30,000 bills in the previous Congress. Requests have risen sharply, with 5,623 submissions in the first 60 days of the current Congress, a 72 percent increase from two years prior.

Experts noted that AI tools often fail to capture critical nuances in legislative language, such as distinctions between tax credits, deductions, exclusions, or grants. Drafts have also included incorrect statutory citations and incomplete definitions that could exclude territories or tribal nations from federal programs.

Former OLC head Wade Ballou stated that AI misses essential details in complex statutory drafting. Lawyer Ari Hershowitz warned that erroneous references to the U.S. Code introduce systemic risks.

House Administration Committee members, including Rep. Joe Morelle and Rep. Norma Torres, emphasized that responsibility for legislation rests with members and staff, not chatbots. They cautioned against over-reliance that could produce unintended legal consequences.

Some staffers described AI use as commonplace yet concerning, with one calling the trend "terrifying." Reports indicated that AI-generated text tends to be wordier and that users sometimes struggle to articulate policy goals without drafting themselves.

The OLC has formed a working group to explore limited AI applications for research efficiency.

No AI-drafted bills have advanced to a vote in either chamber, but the trend raises questions about the quality of future statutes and the workload on institutional experts.

Daniel Schuman of the American Governance Institute said commercially available AI lacks the precision needed for binding law. He noted that the technology multiplies existing pressures on the small office of about 80 attorneys and support staff.