1.Revised guidance, terms of
reference, and objectives for Department of Defense working group reviewing
possible repeal of current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed
Forces
(a)Modification of
guidance and terms of reference
(1)As specified in
paragraph (2) and subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall modify the
guidance and terms of reference 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)In making the modifications required by
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that the final report of the working
group provides a comprehensive and objective evaluation of—
(A)whether
application of section 654 has or is undermining military readiness in any
significant way;
(B)whether repeal or
amendment of section 654 will improve military readiness in significant,
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)The evaluation described in paragraph (2) shall
encompass the regular and reserve components, military family members and
dependents, and matters of expanded eligibility of retirees and their families
and dependents for Federal benefits as a result of military service before any
repeal of such section.
(b)In addition to the requirements 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 matters:
(1)Whether the
findings contained in subsection (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 qualified personnel to meet service manpower
requirements.
(3)Whether section 654 has hindered the
ability of any component, especially the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Army
National Guard, to increase 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 attrition 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
section 654 would improve military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and
discipline.
(8)The extent to which repeal of section 654
would have negative impacts on military readiness, cohesion, morale, good
order, and discipline; the nature and extent of the negative impacts; whether
the negative impacts would be of short duration or an extended duration; and
what measures will be necessary 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 section 654 would not degrade military family
readiness.
(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 manpower requirements.
(12)Assuming repeal of section 654, the extent
to which pay and benefits (such as health care, military housing, and survivor
benefits) and other support (such as spouse employment preferences, education
and training, and dependent education) currently 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 benefits provided to
military spouses and dependents, and the extent to which those benefits could
be provided by policy or executive order without statutory changes.
(13)The extent to which Federal laws, including
those regulating the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of
Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services, the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, and Department of Defense 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 readiness, morale, cohesion, welfare and discipline
of members of the Armed Forces and their families and dependents.
(14)Whether a statute
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, such as proposed
in H.R. 1283 of the 111th Congress, would be necessary or desirable as part of
the repeal of section 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, especially
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 associated
provision of such H.R. 1283 would create a significant difference in the pay,
benefits, and other forms of support from the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and other Federal departments that could be
provided to legally married heterosexual military couples, families and
dependents and the pay, benefits, and other forms of support 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 limitations 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 diversity of benefits would affect military family readiness,
morale, welfare, and cohesion.
(16)To effectively
implement a repeal of section 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 section 654, for members of the Armed Forces, their
families, and dependents.
(18)The projected costs of a repeal of section
654, including costs attributable to changes in military barracks, housing
policies, and military construction considered necessary to accommodate various
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
benefits 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)
(1)Use of in-house
resourcesThe surveys,
polling, studies, updates or revisions, and analysis conducted by or for the
working group, and instruments designed to conduct such surveys, polling,
studies, updates or revisions, and analysis, shall primarily, if not
exclusively, employ the in-house capabilities of the Department of
Defense.
(2)If the Secretary of Defense or the working
group determines that required surveys, polling, focus groups, and analysis
cannot be conducted solely using in-house capabilities of the Department of
Defense, the Secretary and the working group may not for those purposes employ,
or use the survey instruments or data from, any organization that has
previously done any survey, polling, or analysis work on matters related to a
potential repeal of section 654 or the Department of Defense policy that
preceded enactment of section 654.
(d)Revised
reporting requirement and time linesNot 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 subsections
(a) and (b);
(2)the comments and recommendations of the
Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, 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
proposal for all Federal legislation required to be enacted or amended should
section 654 be repealed.