National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.

As a 31-year veteran of the Army Reserves and National Guard, I fully appreciate the need for an age limitation. What we ask our young men and women to do is nothing short of incredible. The physical and mental toughness that is instilled in them as they enlist is something that becomes more challenging over time.

I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Georgia, that there are always exceptions, and I applaud those who maintain a high level of physical fitness and desire to serve their country, but that is only one requirement that the military provides. I know firsthand that age limitation will expand opportunities for younger servicemembers to serve in command positions.

I urge defeat of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana. I oppose the amendment because it intrudes on the inherent responsibility of commanders to assess the fitness for promotion of servicemembers under their command. As a former president myself of the Mid-Carolina Mental Health Association, I appreciate mental health issues. Our commanders strive to be fair, and the service policies prevent prejudicial consideration of mental health treatment that carries no implications for performance and promotion qualification.

This amendment would require our commanders to withhold evidence of behavior that is clearly inconsistent with promotion. I am concerned whether it is even ethical to demand our commanders to ignore such information that they see as a risk to force readiness. A commander must make a recommendation on every individual regarding promotion eligibility. Once aware of facts that would clearly cause a commander to question a servicemember's fitness for promotion, it would seem impossible for a commander to render a recommendation that supports the member's promotion. It is unfair to ask our commanders to be so disingenuous.

The risk is that this amendment would routinely eliminate important factors from the promotion process that will result in the promotion of unqualified members over more deserving members. This provision attempts to replace the commander's judgment with that of an artificial standard that cannot account for the complexity of cases.

The role of commanders is pivotal in the promotion systems operated by the Armed Forces. The Nation invests immense trust in our military commanders in the most challenging of circumstances, and we must not betray that trust by limiting their responsibility to choose future leaders.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana. I oppose the amendment because it intrudes on the inherent responsibility of commanders to assess the fitness for promotion of servicemembers under their command. As a former president myself of the Mid-Carolina Mental Health Association, I appreciate mental health issues. Our commanders strive to be fair, and the service policies prevent prejudicial consideration of mental health treatment that carries no implications for performance and promotion qualification.

This amendment would require our commanders to withhold evidence of behavior that is clearly inconsistent with promotion. I am concerned whether it is even ethical to demand our commanders to ignore such information that they see as a risk to force readiness. A commander must make a recommendation on every individual regarding promotion eligibility. Once aware of facts that would clearly cause a commander to question a servicemember's fitness for promotion, it would seem impossible for a commander to render a recommendation that supports the member's promotion. It is unfair to ask our commanders to be so disingenuous.

The risk is that this amendment would routinely eliminate important factors from the promotion process that will result in the promotion of unqualified members over more deserving members. This provision attempts to replace the commander's judgment with that of an artificial standard that cannot account for the complexity of cases.

The role of commanders is pivotal in the promotion systems operated by the Armed Forces. The Nation invests immense trust in our military commanders in the most challenging of circumstances, and we must not betray that trust by limiting their responsibility to choose future leaders.

Don't tie the hands of our commanders as they assess their subordinates' fitness for promotion. Continue to put our trust in commanders and defeat this amendment.

I urge defeat of the amendment.

Don't tie the hands of our commanders as they assess their subordinates' fitness for promotion. Continue to put our trust in commanders and defeat this amendment.

I urge defeat of the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source