H.R.2965 -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (A true profile in courage *sarc*)

US House of Representatives ^ | 12/15/2010

[markomalley]

HR 2965 EAH

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

December 15, 2010.

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2965) entitled `An Act to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, and for other purposes.', with the following

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of the Senate, insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654-

(1) IN GENERAL- On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum directing the Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 (section 654 of title 10, United States Code).

(2) OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF REVIEW- The Terms of Reference accompanying the Secretary's memorandum established the following objectives and scope of the ordered review:

(A) Determine any impacts to military readiness, military effectiveness and unit cohesion, recruiting/retention, and family readiness that may result from repeal of the law and recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such impacts.

(B) Determine leadership, guidance, and training on standards of conduct and new policies.

(C) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, facilities, investigations, and benefits.

(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

(E) Monitor and evaluate existing legislative proposals to repeal 10 U.S.C. 654 and proposals that may be introduced in the Congress during the period of the review.

(F) Assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness that support successful follow-through on implementation.

(G) Evaluate the issues raised in ongoing litigation involving 10 U.S.C. 654.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (f) shall take effect 60 days after the date on which the last of the following occurs:

(1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in subsection (a).

(2) The President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:

(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report's proposed plan of action.

(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).

(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

(c) No Immediate Effect on Current Policy- Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.

(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act').

(e) No Private Cause of Action- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.

(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy-

(1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking section 654; and

(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).

Attest:

Clerk.

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H.R. 2965

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT

END

[markomalley]

A real profile in courage above. So when things fall apart as they will, the courageous Dhimmicrat leaders of the 111th Congress can point to subsections (b) and (c) above and disavow any possible responsibility for their actions ("if Gates and Mullen wouldn't have certified that it wasn't going to be a problem, then nothing would have changed with the policy").

Gutless wonders, these Congressweenies.

[manc]

WHY THE f ARE the gop not stopping this, Hell close down Govt do frigging something and for you republicans which vote for this then say good bye to your re-election, you’re nothing but cowards who refuses to mention the homosexuals agenda and it is becasue of cowards like you who refuse to speak out in public that the agenda of their’s is making headway and ruining this country and now our military

[CharlesWayneCT]

I was wondering how they got around the house rule that every bill had to go through committee, or else get a 2/3rds vote.

They did one of their tricks, amending a bill already on the calendar.

The Democrats wouldn’t have gotten away with half of what they did this year if the media had called them on their near-criminal violations of their rules. But the dems know the news people have their backs. If the tables were reversed, every story on the news would be about how undemocratic it was for the republicans to force through their agenda after being thrown out of office.

But because it’s democrats, the media doesn’t even point out that they waited until after the election to try to not lose any MORE seats.

[grayeagle]

So what happen to the original Small Business materal? Does it still exist or was the bill just gutted for the Homo Agenda.

[hoagy62]

DADT, a.k.a. the “America’s Military gets “F’d” Up the Butt, Literally” Act.

We are just about dead as a nation.

[OneWingedShark]

Does it really matter?
I sincerely doubt that the ‘small business’ bill would help small businesses.

[2harddrive]

It will be a Homo Hoedown in the military!