PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 11, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10315 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10315 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10315 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10315 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-08 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed AI LABS Act would create competitive federal grants for States to establish or expand artificial intelligence education in elementary and secondary schools. States receiving grants would develop student lessons and provide teacher training on understanding and using artificial intelligence. The Department of Education would study how the grants are used and report to Congress.
This Act may be cited as the AI Learning, Advancement, and Building Skills Act or the AI LABS Act.
The Secretary of Education (referred to in this section as the Secretary) shall carry out a program under which the Secretary makes grants to States, on a competitive basis, to support the establishment and expansion of educational programs on artificial intelligence in elementary and secondary schools as described in subsection (c).
(1) the development of dedicated curricula to teach students how use and understand artificial intelligence; and (2) professional education for teachers to help teachers better understand artificial intelligence and incorporate it into teaching workflows.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Education and Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1).
The Secretary of Education would be required to administer the grant program. States would compete for awards rather than receive an automatic allocation.
The Secretary of Education (referred to in this section as the Secretary) shall carry out a program under which the Secretary makes grants to States, on a competitive basis, to support the establishment and expansion of educational programs on artificial intelligence in elementary and secondary schools as described in subsection (c).
To qualify, a State would have to apply. The Secretary could set the application timing, format, and required information.
To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a State shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
Grant recipients would have to use the money for both dedicated student curricula on using and understanding artificial intelligence and professional education helping teachers understand it and incorporate it into their teaching work.
A State that receives a grant under this section shall use such grant to establish or expand educational programs on artificial intelligence in elementary and secondary schools, through— (1) the development of dedicated curricula to teach students how use and understand artificial intelligence; and (2) professional education for teachers to help teachers better understand artificial intelligence and incorporate it into teaching workflows.
The Secretary would have to study which States receive grants and how they use the money, then recommend future student and teacher training programs. Maintaining United States leadership in artificial intelligence education is the stated aim of those recommendations, not an established outcome.
The Secretary shall conduct a study on the grant program under this section. As part of the Study, the Secretary shall— (A) identify the States receiving funds under the program; (B) analyze how States are using such funds; and (C) based on such analysis, develop recommendations for future programs to support the training of students and teachers in artificial intelligence to ensure the United States remains a world leader in artificial intelligence education.
If enacted, the bill would require the Secretary to report the study results within one year after enactment to the House Committee on Education and Workforce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Education and Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1).
The bill would use existing statutory definitions of artificial intelligence, elementary school, secondary school, and State. Those definitions are incorporated by reference rather than reproduced.
The term artificial intelligence has the meaning given that term in section 5002 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (division E of Public Law 116–283; 15 U.S.C. 9401).
The terms elementary school, secondary school, and State have the meanings given those terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 11, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on September 8, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-11T14:57:35Z. 2026-09-08: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-09-08: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-08. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status and accompanying materials cannot be assessed from this bundle.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI