PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 7, 2003
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team Implementation Act of 2003 - Directs the Secretary of Defense to fully implement, by September 30, 2004, requirements under the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 that the Secretary: (1) establish 23 additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, for a total of 55; and (2) ensure that at least one such team is established in each State and territory. Increases the authorized end strengths for full-time Army and Air National Guard personnel as of September 30, 2004, in order to meet such requirements. Provides funding through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
People & committees
Rep. Gibbons, Jim [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Total Force.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. 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.2012 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.2012 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.2012 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.2012 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.