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 re-
quirements 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. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:38 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4902.IH
H4902
tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
SECTION 1. REVISED GUIDANCE, TERMS OF REFERENCE, 
AND OBJECTIVES FOR DEPARTMENT OF DE-
FENSE WORKING GROUP REVIEWING POS-
SIBLE REPEAL OF CURRENT POLICY CON-
CERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED 
FORCES. 
(a) MODIFICATION OF GUIDANCE AND TERMS OF 
REFERENCE.— 
(1) MODIFICATION REQUIRED.—As specified in 
paragraph (2) and subsection (b), the Secretary of 
Defense shall modify the guidance and terms of ref-
erence issued on March 2, 2010, in connection with 
the establishment of the Department of Defense 
working group (in this section referred to as the 
‘‘working group’’) to conduct a comprehensive review 
of the possible repeal of section 654 of title 10, 
United States Code, which codifies United States 
policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed 
Forces (in this section referred to as ‘‘section 654’’). 
(2) EVALUATION.—In making the modifications 
required by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall en-
sure that the final report of the working group pro-
vides a comprehensive and objective evaluation of— 
(A) whether application of section 654 has 
or is undermining military readiness in any sig-
nificant way; 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:38 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4902.IH
H4902
tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
(B) whether repeal or amendment of sec-
tion 654 will improve military readiness in sig-
nificant, measurable ways; and 
(C) what the implications for and effects 
on military readiness, cohesion, morale, good 
order, and discipline are entailed as a result of 
repeal or amendment of section 654. 
(3) SCOPE
OF
EVALUATION.—The evaluation 
described in paragraph (2) shall encompass the reg-
ular and reserve components, military family mem-
bers and dependents, and matters of expanded eligi-
bility of retirees and their families and dependents 
for Federal benefits as a result of military service 
before any repeal of such section. 
(b) EXPANDED OBJECTIVES.—In addition to the re-
quirements established by the terms of reference issued 
on March 2, 2010, the working group shall examine and 
report to the Secretary of Defense on the following mat-
ters: 
(1) Whether the findings contained in sub-
section (a) of section 654 remain valid. 
(2) Whether section 654 has hindered, in a 
measurably significant way, the ability of the Armed 
Forces to recruit and retain a sufficient number of 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:38 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4902.IH
H4902
tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
qualified personnel to meet service manpower re-
quirements. 
(3) Whether section 654 has hindered the abil-
ity of any component, especially the Army, the Ma-
rine Corps, and the Army National Guard, to in-
crease manpower, especially during wartime. 
(4) Whether the discharge of personnel under 
section 654 has had a measurably significant impact 
on military readiness or on the ability of the Armed 
Forces to carry out their wartime missions since 
September 11, 2001. 
(5) Given the numbers of personnel discharged 
under section 654 since enactment of the section on 
November 30, 1993, compared to the total number 
of personnel separated from the Armed Forces for 
all reasons since that date, whether discharges under 
section 654 have been a significant source of attri-
tion for the Armed Forces. 
(6) Whether repeal of section 654 is a military 
necessity for sustaining future military readiness 
and effectiveness. 
(7) The extent to which, and how, repeal of sec-
tion 654 would improve military readiness, cohesion, 
morale, good order, and discipline. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:38 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4902.IH
H4902
tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
(8) The extent to which repeal of section 654 
would have negative impacts on military readiness, 
cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline; the na-
ture and extent of the negative impacts; whether the 
negative impacts would be of short duration or an 
extended duration; and what measures will be nec-
essary to negate or mitigate the anticipated negative 
impacts of repeal. 
(9) Whether, and how, repeal of section 654 
would improve military family readiness, and the 
measures necessary to ensure that a repeal of sec-
tion 654 would not degrade military family readi-
ness. 
(10) The extent to which repeal of section 654 
would affect the propensity of prospective recruits to 
enlist in the Armed Forces and the propensity of 
influencers (such as parents, coaches, teachers, and 
religious leaders) to recommend military service. 
(11) The extent to which repeal of section 654 
would affect retention, especially whether repeal of 
section 654 would significantly improve the ability of 
the Armed Forces to retain personnel to meet man-
power requirements. 
(12) Assuming repeal of section 654, the extent 
to which pay and benefits (such as health care, mili-
VerDate 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
tary housing, and survivor benefits) and other sup-
port (such as spouse employment preferences, edu-
cation and training, and dependent education) cur-
rently provided by the Department of Defense to 
married couples and families should be provided to 
the domestic partners, spouses and dependents of 
gay and lesbian personnel, and the extent to which 
those benefits should be any different than the bene-
fits provided to military spouses and dependents, 
and the extent to which those benefits could be pro-
vided by policy or executive order without statutory 
changes. 
(13) The extent to which Federal laws, includ-
ing those regulating the Department of Veterans Af-
fairs, the Department of Education, and the Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice, and Department of De-
fense and Department of Veterans affairs policies 
would have to be changed in order for a repeal of 
section 654 to be effective in promoting the readi-
ness, morale, cohesion, welfare and discipline of 
members of the Armed Forces and their families and 
dependents. 
(14) Whether a statute prohibiting discrimina-
tion on the basis of sexual orientation, such as pro-
VerDate 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
posed in H.R. 1283 of the 111th Congress, would be 
necessary or desirable as part of the repeal of sec-
tion 654; and, if the nondiscrimination policy set out 
in such bill were enacted into law, given such bill’s 
proposed statutory definition of sexual orientation, 
an evaluation of— 
(A) the Department of Defense and Armed 
Forces polices that would have to be changed 
and the nature of the changes; 
(B) the legal and practical implementation 
challenges associated with such changes, espe-
cially for commanders and leaders; 
(C) the measures required to overcome 
those challenges; and 
(D) the effect such a nondiscrimination 
statute would have on current military billeting 
and housing policies and practices. 
(15) Assuming repeal of section 654— 
(A) whether the Defense of Marriage Act 
(Public Law 104–199; 1 U.S.C. 7) and the as-
sociated provision of such H.R. 1283 would cre-
ate a significant difference in the pay, benefits, 
and other forms of support from the Depart-
ment of Defense, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, and other Federal departments that 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:38 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4902.IH
H4902
tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
could be provided to legally married hetero-
sexual military couples, families and dependents 
and the pay, benefits, and other forms of sup-
port that could be provided to legally married 
military gay couples, families and dependents; 
(B) explain the nature and extent of those 
differences; 
(C) explain the extent to which the limita-
tions on benefits resulting from the Defense of 
Marriage Act would affect military readiness, 
cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline; 
and 
(D) explain the extent to which this diver-
sity of benefits would affect military family 
readiness, morale, welfare, and cohesion. 
(16) To effectively implement a repeal of sec-
tion 654, whether the Defense of Marriage Act 
should be repealed or amended, and explain the 
basis for the conclusion. 
(17) The extent to which, and the nature and 
objectives of, education and training measures and 
programs that would be required, upon repeal of sec-
tion 654, for members of the Armed Forces, their 
families, and dependents. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:38 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4902.IH
H4902
tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
(18) The projected costs of a repeal of section 
654, including costs attributable to changes in mili-
tary barracks, housing policies, and military con-
struction considered necessary to accommodate var-
ious sexual orientations. 
(19) The extent to which, upon repeal of section 
654, gay and lesbian military retirees, their families, 
and dependents should be made eligible retroactively 
for Federal benefits in the same manner as the ben-
efits received by heterosexual military retirees, their 
families, and dependents as a result of service in the 
Armed Forces, and if so, what benefits should be 
provided and at what estimated cost. 
(c) METHODOLOGY.— 
(1) USE OF IN-HOUSE RESOURCES.—The sur-
veys, polling, studies, updates or revisions, and anal-
ysis conducted by or for the working group, and in-
struments designed to conduct such surveys, polling, 
studies, updates or revisions, and analysis, shall pri-
marily, if not exclusively, employ the in-house capa-
bilities of the Department of Defense. 
(2) RESTRICTION.—If the Secretary of Defense 
or the working group determines that required sur-
veys, polling, focus groups, and analysis cannot be 
conducted solely using in-house capabilities of the 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:38 Mar 23, 2010
Jkt 089200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H4902.IH
H4902
tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Department of Defense, the Secretary and the work-
ing group may not for those purposes employ, or use 
the survey instruments or data from, any organiza-
tion that has previously done any survey, polling, or 
analysis work on matters related to a potential re-
peal of section 654 or the Department of Defense 
policy that preceded enactment of section 654. 
(d) REVISED REPORTING REQUIREMENT AND TIME 
LINES.—Not later than six months after the working 
group provides its final report to the Secretary of Defense, 
the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
a report containing— 
(1) the report and recommendations of the 
working group, as modified as required by sub-
sections (a) and (b); 
(2) the comments and recommendations of the 
Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Oper-
ations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps regarding the 
conclusions and recommendations of the working 
group; and 
(3) the conclusions and recommendations of the 
Secretary of Defense, including a comprehensive pro-
VerDate 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