PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 12, 2013
Military Judicial Reform Act of 2013 - Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to require a convening authority (the person taking action on the findings of a court-martial), as soon as practicable after receipt of the findings and sentence of a court-martial, to approve the sentence in whole. Prohibits such authority from modifying such findings or sentence. (Under current law, modifying findings or a sentence is a command prerogative involving the sole discretion of such authority.) Allows certain other officials to act in place of the convening authority.
Allows the accused in a court-martial to submit to the convening authority matters for inclusion in the final record of trial. (Under current law, such accused may submit matters for consideration with respect to the findings and sentence.) Removes the requirement that a convening authority obtain and consider the recommendation of his/her staff judge advocate or legal officer.
Repeals the authority of a convening authority to suspend the execution of any sentence or part thereof other than a death sentence.
People & committees
Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1079 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1079 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1079 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1079 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.