PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 3, 2013
Directs the Secretary of Defense to: (1) review practices of the military criminal investigative organizations regarding the investigation of alleged sex-related offenses involving members of the Armed Forces (members), and (2) develop a uniform policy regarding the use of case determinations to record the results of such investigations.
Amends the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 to direct the Secretary to establish minimum standards for: (1) the qualifications necessary for members or civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DOD) to be selected as a sexual assault response and prevention program manager, sexual assault response coordinator, or sexual assault victim advocate; and (2) the training, certification, and status of such members and employees assigned to such positions.
Amends the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to require the Secretary, by June 30, 2014, to develop a uniform curriculum to provide sexual assault prevention and response training for members and civilian DOD employees. Requires such curriculum to include lesson plans to achieve core competencies and learning objectives.
People & committees
Rep. Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD-At Large] · R–SD
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 Military Personnel.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 6, 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.2227 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.2227 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.2227 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.2227 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.