[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   REAL JUSTICE AND MILITARY JUSTICE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SPEIER. Today, I'd like to highlight two very important topics: 
real justice and military justice. As a recent case of sexual abuse 
illustrates, they are far from one in the same.
  Last fall, Lieutenant Colonel James Wilkerson was convicted of sexual 
assault by a military jury. The assault took place in Wilkerson's own 
home, as his wife and child slept upstairs. The all-male jury--four 
colonels and one lieutenant colonel--was unanimous in their ruling: 
guilty. Wilkerson was sentenced to 1 year in prison, a less than 
honorable discharge, and a loss of benefits. Three months later, 
General Craig Franklin, a three-star general who had originally called 
for the court-martial, overturned the punishment. General Franklin has 
no legal training. Wilkerson was free and clear and reinstated on 
Active Duty.
  Now, that's quite a reversal, you'd say. There must have been some 
ironclad, watertight, slam-dunk evidence for a general to negate a jury 
of five officers, right? Some silver-bullet testimony? Sorry, no. In 
this case, the reasoning for the general's stunning intervention was 
``character.'' The general simply felt that Wilkerson was a ``doting 
father and husband.'' You know, a family man.
  Okay, you say. Maybe the general considered solid evidence that calls 
the entire night into question. Sorry, no. It turns out General 
Franklin relied on evidence that was ruled inadmissible in court. 
Evidence like letters of support from Wilkerson's wingmen, who had his 
back. On the other hand, he ignored the results of a polygraph test 
that Wilkerson had failed.
  Wait a minute, you say. Maybe this one terrible act was an isolated 
incident, horrible as it was. Sorry, no. Earlier this month, the Air 
Force acknowledged that Wilkerson had previously fathered a child 
through an extramarital affair. Adultery is a crime in the military, 
but only inside a 5-year statute of limitation. This crime from 8 years 
ago is no longer punishable. And it was kept quiet by the Air Force. 
Why? Because they say the Privacy Act prevented the disclosure of those 
actions without Wilkerson's permission. Can you believe that?
  Those are the facts of the case. Currently, Wilkerson is slated to 
receive full military benefits, including a pension and health care, 
for life. And this is what military justice currently looks like. If 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows for such negligence and 
obstruction, then the Code is more than just outdated and ineffective; 
it's broken. It's damaging the military itself.
  It's also obvious to any legal expert that General Franklin was out 
of his depth and overmatched in this situation. Is he a lawyer? No, 
he's not a lawyer. But you keep these proceedings in the chain of 
command and you get bias. You get a travesty. You get no justice at 
all.
  Today, I'm demanding real justice. The Air Force needs to redeem 
itself. I call on the Air Force to convene an involuntary discharge 
board. For Wilkerson's gross misconduct, the Secretary of the Air Force 
should also do a grade determination and assess whether Wilkerson 
should be demoted to his rank at the time of his first offense. I've 
sent a letter to the Secretary demanding these actions. Twenty-five of 
my colleagues in the House have joined me and signed the letter.
  We've heard repeatedly how bad this problem is. There are 26,000 
cases of sexual assault a year. A tiny fraction of those are reported. 
It's rare that a case like the Wilkerson one ever gets to this stage. 
And when it does, look what happens. Zero tolerance evaporates and 
becomes zero accountability. Victims suffer all over again. The 
military continues to look inept, incompetent, arrogant, and unjust to 
everyone but to themselves.
  In the meantime, we are left to describe this ongoing problem in any 
number of ways: a plague, a cancer, or simply a national embarrassment. 
Should we even consider this type of justice--this sham of military 
justice--worthy of our country and our values? I say ``no.'' I believe 
the American people would say a resounding ``no'' as well.

                          ____________________