PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 22, 2010
Recognizes the hearing of the Senate Committee on Armed Services on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (concerning sexual orientation in the military), and the testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael G. Mullen, as an important first step in bringing about the repeal of such policy and in permitting gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the policy, as codified under federal law, should be repealed in 2010 and that repeal legislation should be promptly brought to a vote.
Expresses the hope that President Obama will continue his leadership on this issue.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Urges the Pentagon working group to deliver a repeal implementation plan to Congress as soon as possible while ensuring that the needs and concerns of members of the Armed Forces (members) are taken into consideration.
Pledges that the House will do its part to move the repeal planning and implementation process forward in a timeline that is best for all members.
Recommends that the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Personnel Management of the House Armed Services Committee include members, regardless of their sexual orientation, in the upcoming hearings regarding the policy.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-23] · D–FL
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E189)
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.Res.1090 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.Res.1090 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.Res.1090 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.Res.1090 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.