Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of servicemembers serve with distinction and honor, and are never subjected to disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But when disciplinary action is necessary, the UCMJ and the military justice system provide a high degree of protection for the accused. In many cases, these protections extend well beyond those provided by the civil justice system.

But from time to time, policymakers ought to review and contemplate proposals for change. I am told the particular section of the code this bill would amend has not been altered or subjected to a congressional review in a quarter of a century. And yet the bill before us proposes far-reaching and significant changes in terms of expanded appellate rights for servicemembers convicted of wrongdoing.

I would support consideration of this measure in the regular order. But the regular order requires a review and consideration of the relative merits of the legislation by subcommittee and committee members with subject matter expertise; a hearing with witnesses who can present expert testimony and offer guidance as to the necessity, effect and scope of any proposals in the bill; a markup or markups after notice to the public and the stakeholders most likely to be impacted by changes; and a committee report that is written and made available to the public and future Congresses that explains the intent and rationale of the proposed changes.

Regrettably, the committee and House leadership have decided to short-circuit the process and dispense with every single one of these steps. This is despite the fact that the bill was introduced by its sponsors and referred to the Courts Subcommittee, with no action, more than a year ago.

The regular order did not fare any better in the other body where the committee of jurisdiction took up the measure just 2 weeks ago and reported it without a hearing, a report, or any other substantial process or record.

Because of the haste with which this proposal is being considered, one might infer there are no questions that ought to be addressed or there are questions that might expose this bill as bad policy if Congress wasn't rushing to judgment.

The truth is when a similar measure was introduced last Congress, the general counsel of the Department of Defense raised major questions about the wisdom and necessity of that bill, as well as its likely impact on the department.

In a letter dated February 6, 2006, General Counsel William J. Haynes, II, wrote that the Department of Defense ``opposes the proposed legislation.''

He noted the department's view that ``there is demonstrable inequity that needs to be rectified''; that ``opening this additional avenue of Supreme Court appeal will require legal reviews and briefs from numerous counsel on the military departments' Government and Defense Appellate Divisions, the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel, as well as within the Office of the Solicitor General and the Supreme Court,'' and that the legislation provides no ``clear safeguards'' to preclude the possible abuse by petitioners of this new avenue for appellate review.

I am particularly concerned by this last point as well as the fact that the bill is written to permit an appellant to repeal the case to the Supreme Court even when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has declined to review it on the merits, let alone to issue a final decision.

Unfortunately, by refusing to permit the subcommittee and committee members to study the issues and properly discharge their responsibilities, the House leadership is forcing Members to make assumptions without any evidence. Just as a court should not convict someone of an offense without due process and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, Members of Congress should not be placed in the position of changing long-standing policies without some formal process and actual consideration of the evidence for and against the proposal.

The Democratic leadership increasingly has resorted to extraordinary tactics to move legislation. In so doing, they do a disservice to the Members of the House and of the people we represent.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the unasked questions and lack of process compel me for the time being to oppose this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3174) to amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow for certiorari review of certain cases denied relief or review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act amends the Federal judicial code to allow members of the United States Armed Services to petition for review by the United States Supreme Court in certain cases when they have been denied relief by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Many Americans would be shocked to learn that soldiers serving their country in uniform are blocked from equal access to the Supreme Court.

But the truth is that current law provides virtually no avenue through which active service members who have been convicted by court- martial of certain serious offenses, or who face discharge or dismissal, to ask our Nation's highest court to review their case.

Currently, the Supreme Court can only hear cases where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the highest court of the military justice system, has either conducted a review of a court-martial, or has granted a service-member's petition for extraordinary relief.

What this means is that when the court of appeals denies review, which it does nearly 90 percent of the time, the Supreme Court is barred from reconsidering the case at the request of the servicemember.

Adding insult to injury, while a servicemember is not able to obtain Supreme Court review if he or she loses at the court of appeals, if the court of appeals rules against the government, the Government can seek review in the Supreme Court.

And a former servicemember who is tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act in civilian court for crimes committed while on active duty also has full right to petition for Supreme Court review.

The Equal Justice for Our Military Act corrects this unfair one- sidedness by allowing an active servicemember to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in any case where the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review of a court-marital conviction or has denied a petition for extraordinary relief.

I would like to commend the author of this bill, our colleague Susan Davis of California, for her leadership in working to correct this ongoing injustice, so that our active servicemembers have the same fundamental protection that Americans take for granted.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our troops by urging passage of H.R. 3174, the Equal Justice For Our Military Act, a bill giving our servicemembers equal access to the United States Supreme Court.

We all know when American men and women decide to serve their Nation in the Armed Forces, they make many sacrifices, from lost time with their families to irreplaceable loss of lives. Servicemembers also sacrifice one of the fundamental legal rights that all civilian members enjoy.

Members of the military convicted of offenses under the military justice system do not have the legal right to appeal their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. After exhausting their appeals through the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, they have no recourse. In fact, the playing field is weighted in favor of the military, granting the automatic right of Supreme Court review to the Department of Defense when a servicemember wins a case. But servicemembers are denied the same right in nearly every case the government wins against them.

It is unjust to deny the members of our Armed Forces access to our system of justice as they fight for our freedom around the world. They deserve better.

As the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, a long time advocate for servicemembers and a Representative from San Diego, one of the largest military communities in the Nation, I feel an obligation to fight to ensure that the members of our military are treated fairly.

I introduced, along with Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, H.R. 3174 to correct this inequity. This bill has been endorsed by the American Bar Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and many other legal and military advocates. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that this bill does not affect direct spending.

It is fundamentally unjust, Mr. Speaker, to deny those who serve on behalf of our country one of the basic rights afforded to all other Americans. I hope that all of my colleagues will stand with me in strong support of this legislation to attain equal treatment for those who fight for us.