PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3] · D–NV
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 Armed Services.
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: Apr 10, 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.1573 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.1573 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.1573 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.1573 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 · 2025-02-25 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 proposal would require a process for state education agencies to access military-related records about people who graduated from high school in their state and add those records to state data systems. Records could include education and military-service information, plus education and test results for people whose applications to join the military were denied. Sharing would have to protect confidentiality, individual privacy, and data security.
establish a data sharing process that enables a State educational agency to— (1) access data described in subsection (b) attributable to individuals who graduated high school in the State of such State educational agency; and (2) integrate such data into— (A) such State’s statewide longitudinal data system; or (B) an alternate data system operated by such State.
The data described in this paragraph may include the following information: (1) With respect to an individual who is a member of an Armed Force who graduated from secondary school: (A) The highest level of education attained.
(E) The date the member joined an Armed Force. (F) The Armed Force of the member. (G) Rank. (H) The area of expertise or military occupational specialty. (I) The date of separation, if applicable.
(2) With respect to an individual who graduated from secondary school and whose application to join an Armed Force was denied: (A) The highest level of education attained. (B) The name and location of the school where the individual received education described in subparagraph (A). (C) The name and location of the secondary school from which the individual graduated. (D) Score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test.
Data transmitted through the data sharing process under subsection (a) shall be transmitted confidentially and using the most current standards for data security at the time of transmission.
The Secretaries concerned shall carry out subsection (a) in a manner that protects individual privacy and data security, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local privacy laws.
Section 1 would name the legislation the Military and Educational Data Integration Act.
This Act may be cited as the Military and Educational Data Integration Act.
The responsible secretaries—defined as the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security—would have to establish the sharing process within 18 months after enactment. They would consult the Secretary of Education, state and local education agencies, and student-data and privacy experts.
The Secretaries concerned, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and experts in student data and privacy, shall, not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, establish a data sharing process
The term Secretary concerned means— (A) the Secretary of Defense; or (B) the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The proposed process would enable each state education agency to access records about people who graduated from high school in that state. It would enable integration into either the state's longitudinal data system—a system that tracks information over time—or another state-operated data system.
establish a data sharing process that enables a State educational agency to— (1) access data described in subsection (b) attributable to individuals who graduated high school in the State of such State educational agency; and (2) integrate such data into— (A) such State’s statewide longitudinal data system; or (B) an alternate data system operated by such State.
For service members who graduated from secondary school, the proposed data could include their highest education level, the name and location of the institution where they received that education, their secondary school's name and location, and their Armed Forces Qualification Test score. The bill permits these data fields; it does not require every listed field to be included.
The data described in this paragraph may include the following information: (1) With respect to an individual who is a member of an Armed Force who graduated from secondary school: (A) The highest level of education attained. (B) The name and location of the educational institution where the member received education described in subparagraph (A). (C) The name and location of the secondary school from which the individual graduated. (D) Score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test.
Service-member records could also include the date they joined, their branch of the military, rank, area of expertise or military job specialty, and departure date if applicable. The responsible secretary could also determine that other information is appropriate to include.
The data described in this paragraph may include the following information:
(E) The date the member joined an Armed Force. (F) The Armed Force of the member. (G) Rank. (H) The area of expertise or military occupational specialty. (I) The date of separation, if applicable. (J) Any other information determined appropriate by the Secretary concerned.
For secondary-school graduates whose applications to join the military were denied, the proposed data could include their highest education level, the name and location of the school where they received that education, their secondary school's name and location, and their Armed Forces Qualification Test score.
The data described in this paragraph may include the following information:
(2) With respect to an individual who graduated from secondary school and whose application to join an Armed Force was denied: (A) The highest level of education attained. (B) The name and location of the school where the individual received education described in subparagraph (A). (C) The name and location of the secondary school from which the individual graduated. (D) Score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test.
Data would have to be transmitted confidentially using the most current data-security standards at the time of transmission. The responsible secretaries would have to protect individual privacy and data security in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local privacy laws.
(1) Confidentiality Data transmitted through the data sharing process under subsection (a) shall be transmitted confidentially and using the most current standards for data security at the time of transmission. (2) Protection of individual privacy and data security The Secretaries concerned shall carry out subsection (a) in a manner that protects individual privacy and data security, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local privacy laws.
Each responsible secretary and each state education agency accessing the data would have to establish, implement, and maintain reasonable security practices. These practices would have to protect confidentiality, accuracy and completeness, availability, and protection against unauthorized access.
Each Secretary concerned and each State educational agency that accesses data under subsection (a) shall establish, implement, and maintain reasonable data security practices to protect— (A) the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data; and (B) data against unauthorized access.
The proposal would use the definitions of local education agency, secondary school, and state education agency from section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
The terms local educational agency, secondary school, and State educational agency have the meanings given such terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated April 10, 2026, records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services on February 25, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-04-10T16:59:41Z. 2025-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2025-02-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-25. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover 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 congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
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. Its ordinary coverage and administrative responsibilities do not warrant a targeted-benefit finding. This conclusion is limited to this version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 10, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI