A study of AI workforce effects starting from November 22, 2022 — the start date itself says what is being measured
H.R.9427, the AI Workforce Impact Study Act of 2026, directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on the impacts of artificial intelligence on the United States workforce for the period beginning November 22, 2022 and ending on the date of enactment, disaggregating jobs lost and created by geography, industry, occupation and demographics.
Bill overview (primary data)
- Bill numberH.R. 9427
- TypeHouse Bill
- Congress119th Congress
- Latest actionReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.（2026-06-24）
Key points
- H.R.9427 directs the Comptroller General to study AI workforce impacts from November 22, 2022 to the date of enactment and report to Congress.
- The start date written into the text indicates a definite view about which change is to be measured.
- The study covers jobs lost, jobs created, and the ways jobs have been substantially altered including monitoring and replacement of workers.
- Data is disaggregated by geography, by industry and occupation, and by demographics including sex and race.
- The limitations of federal data collection are themselves an object of study — confirming what cannot be measured is part of the purpose.
1What the start date says
The text fixes the study period as beginning November 22, 2022 and ending on the date of enactment. That a specific start date is written in tells you something about the bill. That moment is when generative AI began to be widely used, and it appears chosen as the line dividing before from after. Writing a date into statute means the drafters had a definite view about which change is to be measured.
2What gets broken apart
- 1Jobs lostEstimated number and percentage of individuals who lost jobs as a result of AI
- 2Jobs createdEstimated number and percentage hired into jobs created as a result of AI
- 3Jobs alteredThe ways jobs have been substantially altered, including how AI is used to monitor and replace workers
- 4DisaggregationBy geographic area, by industry and occupation, and by demographic characteristics including sex and race
The third item matters. Counting only gains and losses drops the case where the job title stays and the content changes. That the text says used to monitor and replace workers rests on a recognition that AI operates not only by taking jobs but by changing the nature of the ones that remain.
3Measuring what cannot be measured
The other object of study is the limitations of the data the federal government collects and reports, and of its collection methods. Alongside how large the impact is, the study must report how far current practice can measure it at all. Confirming that an answer cannot be produced is part of the purpose, and it supplies the basis for judging whether statistical machinery needs building.
4Four instruments for one problem
Several bills this site covers try to measure the relationship between AI and employment: one requiring quarterly disclosure by employers, one creating a fund and a board, one adding items to an existing survey, and this one directing a single study by the Comptroller General. Obligation, funding, statistics and study — four different instruments proposed in parallel for the same problem.
Of the 120 bills this site holds as of 2026-09-02, 94 (78 percent) remain referred to committee.
Why it matters
Making job alteration an object of study alongside gains and losses is a frame usable for evaluating AI adoption internally. That four different instruments are proposed in parallel for the same problem is also material for reading where policy goes.
FAQ
Why November 22, 2022?
Why study the limits of data collection?
Sources (primary)
Source: Congress.gov (Library of Congress; U.S. legislative materials, public domain). Links go to the official site.
- Congress.gov (bill page, original)
- H.R. 9427（119th Congress）