Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005 - Repeals Don't Ask Don't Tell"

[paineinthearse]

THIS BILL REPEALS OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

The `Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005' is a bill sponsored by Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA5) "To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

This bill is a direct result of a GAO report that found the current DON'T ASK DON'T TELL policy a waste of human and financial resources.

GAO-05-299, MILITARY PERSONNEL: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to ...
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf - 774.8KB - GAO Reports

The reason for posting again (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3198717) is
1) it is now in Thomas and will be intorduced into the House this week and
2) to be frank, although BradBlog and Nothing Without Hope saw the significance, many others either did not see the post OR the significance.

THIS BILL REPEALS OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 1059 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1059
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 2, 2005
Mr. MEEHAN (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. BERMAN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. CAPUANO, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FARR, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. LEE, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. STARK, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEXLER, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

----------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to institute in the Armed Forces a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

The following provisions of law are repealed:

(1) Section 654 of title 10, United States Code.

(2) Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note).

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Establishment of Policy- (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation

`(a) Policy- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the armed forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the armed forces.

`(b) Discrimination on Basis of Sexual Orientation- For purposes of this section, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is--

`(1) in the case of a member of the armed forces, the taking of any personnel or administrative action (including any action relating to promotion, demotion, evaluation, selection for an award, selection for a duty assignment, transfer, or separation) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation; and

`(2) in the case of a person seeking to become a member of the armed forces, denial of accession into the armed forces in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

`(c) Personnel and Administrative Policies and Action- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not establish, implement, or apply any personnel or administrative policy, or take any personnel or administrative action (including any policy or action relating to promotions, demotions, evaluations, selections for awards, selections for duty assignments, transfers, or separations) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

`(d) Rules and Policies Regarding Conduct- Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, from prescribing or enforcing regulations governing the conduct of members of the armed forces if the regulations are designed and applied without regard to sexual orientation.

`(e) Re-Accession of Otherwise Qualified Persons Permitted- Any person separated from the armed forces for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct in accordance with laws and regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this section, if otherwise qualified for re-accession into the armed forces, shall not be prohibited from re-accession into the armed forces on the sole basis of such separation.

`(f) Sexual Orientation- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.'.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended--

(A) by striking the item relating to section 654; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new item:

`656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation in the armed forces.'.

(b) Conforming Amendments- Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) Section 481 is amended--

(A) In subsection (a)(2), by inserting `, including sexual orientation discrimination,' after `discrimination' in subparagraphs (C) and (D); and

(B) in subsection (c), by inserting `and sexual orientation-based' after `gender-based'.

(2) Section 983(a)(1) is amended by striking `(in accordance with section 654 of this title and other applicable Federal laws)'.

(3) Section 1034(i)(3) is amended by inserting `sexual orientation,' after `sex,'.

SEC. 5. BENEFITS.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent 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' ).

SEC. 6. NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to create a private cause of action for damages.

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall revise Department of Defense regulations, and shall issue such new regulations as may be necessary, to implement section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a). The Secretary of Defense shall further direct the Secretary of each military department to revise regulations of that military department in accordance with section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a), not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such revisions shall include the following:

(1) Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.

(2) Revision of Department of Defense and military department personnel regulations to eliminate procedures for involuntary discharges based on sexual orientation.

(3) Revision of Department of Defense and military department regulations governing victims' advocacy programs to include sexual orientation discrimination among the forms of discrimination for which members of the Armed Forces and their families may seek assistance.

(b) Regulation of Conduct- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall ensure that regulations governing the personal conduct of members of the Armed Forces shall be written and enforced without regard to sexual orientation.

(c) Definition- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' has the meaning given that term in section 656(f) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a).

This bill is important on several levels: Civil Rights, Human Rights, Elimination of Wasteful Spending & National Security.

I urge your support.

[paineinthearse]

1. Meehan Releases New GAO Report on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Source: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ma05_meehan/NR050224DADT.html

Meehan Releases New GAO Report on Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Hundreds of Millions Spent on Discharging Gay Soldiers, Hundreds of Critical Skilled Soldiers Purged

February 24, 2005


WASHINGTON -- Last year, Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA) requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study the costs of the systematic discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) enacted in 1993. Today, we have the results: DADT has cost U.S. taxpayers over $200 million and brought about the discharge of hundreds of servicemembers with critical occupations and important foreign language skills.

Meehan, now a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, has fought DADT for 12 years. His first piece of legislation as a member of Congress was a challenge to the original DADT law in 1993.

Meehan said: "It is more apparent than ever before that, as we conduct a Global War on Terror and face tremendous personnel shortages, that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law is undermining our military readiness."

"The conventional justification for Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been that allowing gays to serve undermines miltary readiness. Now we have the numbers to prove that the policy itself is undermining our military readiness.

"By discharging competent servicemembers at a time when our troops are already stretched thin, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary costs and purges highly skilled, critical personnel from the service. It is as senseless and counterproductive as it is un-American. The policy of the United States should be to fight the war on terror, not to advance the agenda of discrimination."

LINK TO GAO REPORT:

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-05-299


SUMMARY OF GAO REPORT:

A. GAO Finds at Least $200 Million In Costs, Additional Costs Hidden

1. Recruiting Costs To Replace Soldiers Discharged Under DADT Cost $95 Million. “Over the 10-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers separated under the policy."

2. Training Costs To Replace Soldiers Discharged Under DADT Cost $95 Million. “Also, the Navy, Air Force, and Army estimated that the cost to train replacements for separated servicemembers by occupation was approximately $48.8 million, $16.6 million, and $29.7 million, respectively."

B. GAO's Analysis Excluded Numerous Additional Costs

1. Excluded Commissioned Officer Recruiting And Training Costs Including Military Academies. “To determine the estimated financial costs associated with DOD's homosexual conduct policy, we obtained information on the estimated costs to recruit enlisted personnel from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003... DOD does not include per-capita recruiting costs associated with commissioned officers in its procurement resources report."

2. Excluded Marine Corps Training Costs. “The Marine Corps was not able to estimate occupation-related training costs."

3. Excluded Costs For Discharges By National Guard, Reserves, And Coast Guard. “This exclusion is consistent with DOD's reporting practice in this area, which reports only active duty personnel separated for homosexual conduct."

4. Excluded Investigation, Counseling, And Administrative Costs. “Other types of costs such as those related to inquiries and investigations of cases, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews are not estimable because DOD does not collect data necessary to develop such estimates."

C. Critical Soldiers Discharged For No Reason But Homosexuality

1. 757 Soldiers With "Critical Skills" Discharged. Approximately 757 servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct "held critical occupations, identified by DOD as those occupations worthy of selective reenlistment bonuses."

2. 322 Soldiers With Skills in "Important Languages" Discharged. 322 separated servicemembers had skills in "an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or Korean."

D. Volunteers To The All-Volunteer Military Turned Away

1. 9,488 Men And Women Proudly Serving Their Country Discharged. “In 1993 Congress enacted a homosexual conduct policy statute... During the 10 years following this declaration, the military services separated about 9,500 servicemembers for homosexual conduct under the statute."

###

[paineinthearse]

2. Video from NECN - Meehan speaks about the GAO report & need for reform

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/necn /

(2/24/05 6:30 p.m.) Massachusetts Rep. Martin Meehan says he's hoping to reverse the military's 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Meehan can now use a congressional report to his advantage -- as a new study Thursday suggests the military's policy on gays is cause for the departure of hundreds of highly skilled troops...


Go to http://www.boston.com/news/politics/necn / and scroll down.
Search: Video Clip('plV360410')

[katsy]

6. Okay...

But if gays aren't afforded their civil rights, including their right to marry, a marriage with all the rights, perks and responsibilities, why should they be called into service for this country?

[Walt Starr]

3. Donning my tinfoilhat

Although removing the descrimination is a good thing, but this could be a pre-emptive move to take out the possibility of simply claiming you are homosexual to avoid a draft.

:tinfoilhat:

[Yosie]

8. Too many escapes from the draft during VietNam

If the draft is not going be a divisive tool of oppression - where rich kids hide in graduate school or the Texas Air National Guard -- and poor kids serve -- why exclude gays?

Gender orientation doesn't excuse gays from jury duty or paying taxes.

[BR_Parkway]

4. I wonder if this paragraph means that it's voluntary or not for those

of us who got booted out? They didn't want me THEN, they damn sure don't need me NOW.

(e) Re-Accession of Otherwise Qualified Persons Permitted- Any person separated from the armed forces for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct in accordance with laws and regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this section, if otherwise qualified for re-accession into the armed forces, shall not be prohibited from re-accession into the armed forces on the sole basis of such separation.

And why doesn't it mention modifying the UCMJ specifically, it certainly references enough other codes and bodies of regulations.

I'm glad to see the overall policy get killed off, but it's a damn shame that it has nothing to do with our contributions, patriotism, competence or eagerness to serve our country - if they didn't need more cannon fodder, we wouldn't be hearing one word about this.

[paineinthearse]

9. This bill is in a very formative state, has yet to have committee hearings

Let's discuss issues here, but if you have specific concerns, contact your Representative.

[Yosie]

11. The MCM will have to be amended

to require interpretation of Article 125 to be in accordance with the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005. I.e., excluding "consensual sexual acts between adults" from "unnatural carnal copulation" as defined in the UCMJ.

The UCMJ provides

10 United States Code 925.
ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The issue is to give prosecutors several hooks for forcible rape and pedophilia while excluding "consensual sexual acts between adults" and you know how the "Rapture Right" will mangle this.

[AllegroRondo]

18. "shall not be prohibited"

that seems to mean its at the discression of the former service member. If you were separated due to homosexuality, and want to re-join, they can't stop you on that basis.

[Don1]

19. Warning: Explicit Subject Matter

These are some very good questions. As you and I are aware (both being former military), there are plenty of military regulations which effect these types of issues both directly and indirectly. One example is the military ban on sodomy (which is defined as oral or anal sex). Sodomy according to the military definition (which is the same as the fundamentalist Christian definition) can be between a man-man, man-woman, or woman-woman. It need not be "homosexual."

So how does making homosexuality legal in the military really effect sodomy regulations? Heterosexuality has been legal all this time, yet it never effected sodomy regulations, right? So why would making homosexuality legal cause an automatic disqualification of sodomy regulations?

I believe that it should and here's why. The military definition of homosexuality has much more to do with concrete sexual acts and not sexual identification or lifestyle or any other more abstract things. The military defines a homosexual as a person who has ever had same-sex sex or who might have same-sex sex in the future. So if the military is forced to state that homosexuality is legal by Congress and the Commander-in-Chief signing the bill, it should mean that the associated sexual acts themselves have been legalized.

The potential disqualification of sodomy regulations is just one example of a side effect of the M.R.E. Act. However, my interpretation of military regulations and laws can be incorrect. So, I believe that we all should follow up with legislators to get a very explicit answer to your question in writing.

[Yosie]

5. As an honorably discharged veteran

I believe that this is long over due.

When (not "If" but "when") the "Command Structure" (from SecDef down to NCO's) fall in line - this will be as smooth a transition as Harry Truman's Racial Integration of the Armed Services.

The services will fall in line -- because the "Command Structure" has the force of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to make things happen.

[Nordmadr]

7. So homosexuality would not be a basis for avoiding the

draft if it gets implemented as I understand it. I think that it is fantastic thing to eliminate discrimination of homosexuality in the military. I just hope that it is being done for the right reasons.

Olaf

[CoffeeCat]

10. Is this positive or negative?

I agree that homosexuals should not be discriminated against--ever.

However, I am unsettled by this bill. Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but this is about the military gathering more warm bodies, as opposed to the military becoming more enlightened and tolerant.

Sure, the military will gladly open its arms when they need more boots on the ground. They'll happily accept untapped resources to avoid the political fallout from a draft. However, do they truly care about gay rights, acceptance and ending discrimination?

I think not.

This makes me terribly uneasy. Progressives may be sold on this idea--because it appears to promote gay rights. However, I feel that it only demonstrates this administration's desperation and willingness to exploit anyone for their sickening unHoly War.

I'm very concerned about the administration's true motivations.

[Yosie]

12. Do you really think the military ever cares about anybody's rights?

It takes a crisis to make them move forward --

Do you think they really cared about racial minorities when Truman integrated the military?

[AndyTiedye]

13. Getting Rid of Discrimination is Good, But...

...Does anyone feel a draft in here?

[Coastie for Truth]

14. "Rights" = "Responsibilities"

With "Equal Rights" come "Equal Responsibilities."

I think, to some extent, this is a reasoned response to the "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" Discharges of the Arabic Language and Farsi Language translators.

I also think that to a great extent this is a long delayed recognition of the contributions of Gay military people to our military services.

But, to answer your concern, if a draft is coming -- I do not think private, consensual sexual conduct should be a way to avoid service.

[AndyTiedye]

15. No, But It Does Mean That a Draft is Coming

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Only if the GOP-

gets behind it, and only if the real "Red State Rapture Repubs" don't oppose it (and don't threaten their gambit of refusing to serve in units with Gays).

[Avalux]

17. They need BODIES

Gay or straight, makes no difference when it comes to cannon fodder.