PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 22, 2010
Directs the Secretary of Defense to modify the guidance and terms of reference issued in connection with the establishment of a Department of Defense (DOD) working group tasked to conduct a review of the possible repeal of federal law containing the U.S. policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces (commonly referred to as the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy). Requires the final report of the working group to include an evaluation of: (1) whether the current policy is significantly undermining military readiness; (2) whether its repeal will significantly improve military readiness; and (3) what implications for and effects on military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline are entailed as a result of its repeal or amendment. Outlines expanded report objectives, including determining the policy's effect on recruitment and manpower requirements.
Requires the Secretary, after the final report of the working group, to report to the congressional defense committees on the working group's report and recommendations, the Secretary's conclusions and recommendations, and the comments and recommendations of the chiefs of staff of the military departments.
People & committees
Rep. McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [R-CA-25] · R–CA
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.4902 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.4902 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.4902 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.4902 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.