I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4902 

To establish additional research, study, and reporting requirements for the 

Department of Defense working group reviewing the possible repeal of 

current United States policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed 

Forces, referred to as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and codified as section 

654 of title 10, United States Code. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2010 

Mr. MCKEON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To establish additional research, study, and reporting requirements for the Department of Defense working 

group reviewing the possible repeal of current United 

States policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed 

Forces, referred to as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and codified 

as section 654 of title 10, United States Code. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4902 IH

1 SECTION 1. REVISED GUIDANCE, TERMS OF REFERENCE, 

2 AND OBJECTIVES FOR DEPARTMENT OF DE3 FENSE WORKING GROUP REVIEWING POS4 SIBLE REPEAL OF CURRENT POLICY CON5 CERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED 

6 FORCES. 

7 (a) MODIFICATION OF GUIDANCE AND TERMS OF

8 REFERENCE.— 

9 (1) MODIFICATION REQUIRED.—As specified in 

10 paragraph (2) and subsection (b), the Secretary of 

11 Defense shall modify the guidance and terms of ref12 erence issued on March 2, 2010, in connection with 

13 the establishment of the Department of Defense 

14 working group (in this section referred to as the 

15 ‘‘working group’’) to conduct a comprehensive review 

16 of the possible repeal of section 654 of title 10, 

17 United States Code, which codifies United States 

18 policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed 

19 Forces (in this section referred to as ‘‘section 654’’). 

20 (2) EVALUATION.—In making the modifications 

21 required by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall en22 sure that the final report of the working group pro23 vides a comprehensive and objective evaluation of— 

24 (A) whether application of section 654 has 

25 or is undermining military readiness in any sig26 nificant way; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4902 IH

1 (B) whether repeal or amendment of sec2 tion 654 will improve military readiness in sig3 nificant, measurable ways; and 

4 (C) what the implications for and effects 

5 on military readiness, cohesion, morale, good 

6 order, and discipline are entailed as a result of 

7 repeal or amendment of section 654. 

8 (3) SCOPE OF EVALUATION.—The evaluation 

9 described in paragraph (2) shall encompass the reg10 ular and reserve components, military family mem11 bers and dependents, and matters of expanded eligi12 bility of retirees and their families and dependents 

13 for Federal benefits as a result of military service 

14 before any repeal of such section. 

15 (b) EXPANDED OBJECTIVES.—In addition to the re16 quirements established by the terms of reference issued 

17 on March 2, 2010, the working group shall examine and 

18 report to the Secretary of Defense on the following mat19 ters: 

20 (1) Whether the findings contained in sub21 section (a) of section 654 remain valid. 

22 (2) Whether section 654 has hindered, in a 

23 measurably significant way, the ability of the Armed 

24 Forces to recruit and retain a sufficient number of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 4902 IH

1 qualified personnel to meet service manpower re2 quirements. 

3 (3) Whether section 654 has hindered the abil4 ity of any component, especially the Army, the Ma5 rine Corps, and the Army National Guard, to in6 crease manpower, especially during wartime. 

7 (4) Whether the discharge of personnel under 

8 section 654 has had a measurably significant impact 

9 on military readiness or on the ability of the Armed 

10 Forces to carry out their wartime missions since 

11 September 11, 2001. 

12 (5) Given the numbers of personnel discharged 

13 under section 654 since enactment of the section on 

14 November 30, 1993, compared to the total number 

15 of personnel separated from the Armed Forces for 

16 all reasons since that date, whether discharges under 

17 section 654 have been a significant source of attri18 tion for the Armed Forces. 

19 (6) Whether repeal of section 654 is a military 

20 necessity for sustaining future military readiness 

21 and effectiveness. 

22 (7) The extent to which, and how, repeal of sec23 tion 654 would improve military readiness, cohesion, 

24 morale, good order, and discipline. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 4902 IH

1 (8) The extent to which repeal of section 654 

2 would have negative impacts on military readiness, 

3 cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline; the na4 ture and extent of the negative impacts; whether the 

5 negative impacts would be of short duration or an 

6 extended duration; and what measures will be nec7 essary to negate or mitigate the anticipated negative 

8 impacts of repeal. 

9 (9) Whether, and how, repeal of section 654 

10 would improve military family readiness, and the 

11 measures necessary to ensure that a repeal of sec12 tion 654 would not degrade military family readi13 ness. 

14 (10) The extent to which repeal of section 654 

15 would affect the propensity of prospective recruits to 

16 enlist in the Armed Forces and the propensity of 

17 influencers (such as parents, coaches, teachers, and 

18 religious leaders) to recommend military service. 

19 (11) The extent to which repeal of section 654 

20 would affect retention, especially whether repeal of 

21 section 654 would significantly improve the ability of 

22 the Armed Forces to retain personnel to meet man23 power requirements. 

24 (12) Assuming repeal of section 654, the extent 

25 to which pay and benefits (such as health care, miliVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:38 Mar 23, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4902.IH H4902

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
6 

•HR 4902 IH

1 tary housing, and survivor benefits) and other sup2 port (such as spouse employment preferences, edu3 cation and training, and dependent education) cur4 rently provided by the Department of Defense to 

5 married couples and families should be provided to 

6 the domestic partners, spouses and dependents of 

7 gay and lesbian personnel, and the extent to which 

8 those benefits should be any different than the bene9 fits provided to military spouses and dependents, 

10 and the extent to which those benefits could be pro11 vided by policy or executive order without statutory 

12 changes. 

13 (13) The extent to which Federal laws, includ14 ing those regulating the Department of Veterans Af15 fairs, the Department of Education, and the Depart16 ment of Health and Human Services, the Uniform 

17 Code of Military Justice, and Department of De18 fense and Department of Veterans affairs policies 

19 would have to be changed in order for a repeal of 

20 section 654 to be effective in promoting the readi21 ness, morale, cohesion, welfare and discipline of 

22 members of the Armed Forces and their families and 

23 dependents. 

24 (14) Whether a statute prohibiting discrimina25 tion on the basis of sexual orientation, such as proVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:38 Mar 23, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4902.IH H4902

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
7 

•HR 4902 IH

1 posed in H.R. 1283 of the 111th Congress, would be 

2 necessary or desirable as part of the repeal of sec3 tion 654; and, if the nondiscrimination policy set out 

4 in such bill were enacted into law, given such bill’s 

5 proposed statutory definition of sexual orientation, 

6 an evaluation of— 

7 (A) the Department of Defense and Armed 

8 Forces polices that would have to be changed 

9 and the nature of the changes; 

10 (B) the legal and practical implementation 

11 challenges associated with such changes, espe12 cially for commanders and leaders; 

13 (C) the measures required to overcome 

14 those challenges; and 

15 (D) the effect such a nondiscrimination 

16 statute would have on current military billeting 

17 and housing policies and practices. 

18 (15) Assuming repeal of section 654— 

19 (A) whether the Defense of Marriage Act 

20 (Public Law 104–199; 1 U.S.C. 7) and the as21 sociated provision of such H.R. 1283 would cre22 ate a significant difference in the pay, benefits, 

23 and other forms of support from the Depart24 ment of Defense, the Department of Veterans 

25 Affairs, and other Federal departments that 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
8 

•HR 4902 IH

1 could be provided to legally married hetero2 sexual military couples, families and dependents 

3 and the pay, benefits, and other forms of sup4 port that could be provided to legally married 

5 military gay couples, families and dependents; 

6 (B) explain the nature and extent of those 

7 differences; 

8 (C) explain the extent to which the limita9 tions on benefits resulting from the Defense of 

10 Marriage Act would affect military readiness, 

11 cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline; 

12 and 

13 (D) explain the extent to which this diver14 sity of benefits would affect military family 

15 readiness, morale, welfare, and cohesion. 

16 (16) To effectively implement a repeal of sec17 tion 654, whether the Defense of Marriage Act 

18 should be repealed or amended, and explain the 

19 basis for the conclusion. 

20 (17) The extent to which, and the nature and 

21 objectives of, education and training measures and 

22 programs that would be required, upon repeal of sec23 tion 654, for members of the Armed Forces, their 

24 families, and dependents. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
9 

•HR 4902 IH

1 (18) The projected costs of a repeal of section 

2 654, including costs attributable to changes in mili3 tary barracks, housing policies, and military con4 struction considered necessary to accommodate var5 ious sexual orientations. 

6 (19) The extent to which, upon repeal of section 

7 654, gay and lesbian military retirees, their families, 

8 and dependents should be made eligible retroactively 

9 for Federal benefits in the same manner as the ben10 efits received by heterosexual military retirees, their 

11 families, and dependents as a result of service in the 

12 Armed Forces, and if so, what benefits should be 

13 provided and at what estimated cost. 

14 (c) METHODOLOGY.— 

15 (1) USE OF IN-HOUSE RESOURCES.—The sur16 veys, polling, studies, updates or revisions, and anal17 ysis conducted by or for the working group, and in18 struments designed to conduct such surveys, polling, 

19 studies, updates or revisions, and analysis, shall pri20 marily, if not exclusively, employ the in-house capa21 bilities of the Department of Defense. 

22 (2) RESTRICTION.—If the Secretary of Defense 

23 or the working group determines that required sur24 veys, polling, focus groups, and analysis cannot be 

25 conducted solely using in-house capabilities of the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
10 

•HR 4902 IH

1 Department of Defense, the Secretary and the work2 ing group may not for those purposes employ, or use 

3 the survey instruments or data from, any organiza4 tion that has previously done any survey, polling, or 

5 analysis work on matters related to a potential re6 peal of section 654 or the Department of Defense 

7 policy that preceded enactment of section 654. 

8 (d) REVISED REPORTING REQUIREMENT AND TIME

9 LINES.—Not later than six months after the working 

10 group provides its final report to the Secretary of Defense, 

11 the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed 

12 Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate 

13 a report containing— 

14 (1) the report and recommendations of the 

15 working group, as modified as required by sub16 sections (a) and (b); 

17 (2) the comments and recommendations of the 

18 Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Oper19 ations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the 

20 Commandant of the Marine Corps regarding the 

21 conclusions and recommendations of the working 

22 group; and 

23 (3) the conclusions and recommendations of the 

24 Secretary of Defense, including a comprehensive proVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:38 Mar 23, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4902.IH H4902

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
11 

•HR 4902 IH

1 posal for all Federal legislation required to be en2 acted or amended should section 654 be repealed. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS