H.R. 5136, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (8 comments ↓ | 9 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This bill has been mooted by the passage of another bill on the same subject or by other events. Check 'Related Bills' below to see if other bills on this subject have been passed into law. Mooted: 1/7/2011.
  • This item is from the 111th Congress (2009-2010) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 5136 would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year.

(

From the Blog

WashingtonWatch.com Digest – May 24, 2010

This is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week of May 24, 2010. Subscribe here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the Blog: “The Contract” on Earmarks The Contract From America...

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Going Away?

The House has voted to get rid of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy which has unevenly governed the status of gays in the military since 1993. Lots of background on it is on Wikipedia. Here’s a New York Times ar...

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Bob Sawyer

June 1, 2010, 10:36am (report abuse)

It sems that Congress is paying the Gay's and Medical Staff in the Military Bribes to "Don' Ask Don't Tell", Otherwise it wouldn't cost Taxpayer's any extra or is it that Congress just want the Extra to line their Pocket's ?


June 1, 2010, 1:28pm (report abuse)

People voting against this bill may only be looking at the cost per family. I'm guessing many or most of them do not have a family member or close friend in the military. Voting against the defense budget could very well cause the death of many of our troops due to inadequate resources and insufficient strength.

Lainie B

June 2, 2010, 12:22am (report abuse)

What I object to is the fact the Democrats know the majority of military leaders and Americans object to homosexual's being open about their sexuality so they have to sneak in an amendment to pay their big donors back in a bill that is essential to our military.

Disgusting is not a strong enough word for these people.

Jim Lynch

September 21, 2010, 11:51am (report abuse)

I understand that this bill also includes changes to Obamacare that will allow vet hospitals to fund abortions. Somebody better read the entire bill!

Allan Higgins

September 21, 2010, 1:04pm (report abuse)

I am ex marine & believe in A strong Military,,,but we are way

overkill now. We can start by cutting our forces in 1/2 along

with our bases. Sell them & give

the retires back there s.s.

All we are doing now is paying back political favors to A very few

rich defence contractors.

Jennifer G

October 12, 2010, 6:23pm (report abuse)

I'm not a service member, but the daughter of a retired naval rear admiral. My opinion in this matter is very biased. I see mainly section 702, about extending the age of dependent health care. I'm a college student undergoing chemotherapy. I can't afford to lose coverage in February. Voting this bill down could affect more than someone like me. This affects dependents who want to be officers but need their degrees, mentally disabled dependents and so much more. Don't look at this as a battle of sexual preference, honestly how does that truly matter when it comes to the safety and well being of not only the troops but their families too? We need the research funds, and we need defense contractors. It's not just free money, they present ideas and those *chosen* get funding.

a high school freshman

October 18, 2010, 3:47pm (report abuse)

Lainie B, you say that the government knows that most people in our country are not comfortable with homosexuals being open about their sexual orientation, but that is not necessarily true. Maybe the people you know are not open with it, but many people in the U.S. have realized that sexual orientation is a personal choice. By being aware of someone being gay, will that make you the same way and/or poison your mind? Absolutely not. Let people live freely, as it is there right as stated in the Constitution. We all have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Leave them be.

George B

December 1, 2010, 5:29pm (report abuse)


The issue I believe is one of relative judgement. I firmly understand that denying someone the right to serve impinges on their ability to make a living,& their freedom to pursue happiness. However, any group/act that impinges on unit coheisiveness, places those that we have placed in harm's way to foster our foreign policy goals in greater danger. This may not be nice, but my experience in combat (commanded six companies, two in combat, & a third company sized unit in a combat theater, plus a training unit & units from seven different countries) makes me look at the hard choices. If we insist on defending the country, then we must cease to make the military a vehicle for social change. & recognise that we owe those that serve those hard choices. PLease note that the widely touted DOD survey, demonstrates that those who are farthest from combat,find that more acceptable:think AF ground personel in separate rooms & Marines/Army combat units w/one poncho liner per two men.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)