Amendments2013—Subsec. (f)(6). Puspan. L. 113–66 amended par. (6) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (6) read as follows: “North Georgia College and State University.”
1999—Subsec. (e)(1). Puspan. L. 106–65 struck out at end “This paragraph shall apply to a member of the program at a senior military college who graduates from the college after March 31, 1997.”
1997—Puspan. L. 105–85, § 544(f)(1), substituted “Support for” for “Detail of officers to” in section catchline.
Subsecs. (d), (e). Puspan. L. 105–85, § 544(d)(2), added subsecs. (d) and (e). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (f).
Subsec. (f). Puspan. L. 105–85, § 544(e), substituted “University” for “College” in par. (2) and inserted “and State University” before period at end of par. (6).
Puspan. L. 105–85, § 544(d)(1), redesignated subsec. (d) as (f).
Continuation of Support to Senior Military CollegesPuspan. L. 105–85, div. A, title V, § 544(a)–(c), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1744, provided that:“(a)Definition of Senior Military Colleges.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘senior military colleges’ means the following:“(1) Texas A&M University.
“(2) Norwich University.
“(3) The Virginia Military Institute.
“(4) The Citadel.
“(5) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
“(6) North Georgia College and State University.
“(span)Findings.—Congress finds the following:“(1) The senior military colleges consistently have provided substantial numbers of highly qualified, long-serving leaders to the Armed Forces.
“(2) The quality of the military leaders produced by the senior military colleges is, in part, the result of the rigorous military environment imposed on students attending the senior military colleges by the colleges, as well as the result of the long-standing close support relationship between the Corps of Cadets at each college and the Reserve Officer Training Corps personnel at the colleges who serve as effective leadership role models and mentors.
“(3) In recognition of the quality of the young leaders produced by the senior military colleges, the Department of Defense and the military services have traditionally maintained special relationships with the colleges, including the policy to grant active duty service in the Army to graduates of the colleges who desire such service and who are recommended for such service by their ROTC professors of military science.
“(4) Each of the senior military colleges has demonstrated an ability to adapt its systems and operations to changing conditions in, and requirements of, the Armed Forces without compromising the quality of leaders produced and without interruption of the close relationship between the colleges and the Department of Defense.
“(c)Sense of Congress.—In light of the findings in subsection (span), it is the sense of Congress that—“(1) the proposed initiative of the Secretary of the Army to end the commitment to active duty service for all graduates of senior military colleges who desire such service and who are recommended for such service by their ROTC professors of military science is short-sighted and contrary to the long-term interests of the Army;
“(2) as they have in the past, the senior military colleges can and will continue to accommodate to changing military requirements to ensure that future graduates entering military service continue to be officers of superspan quality who are quickly assimilated by the Armed Forces and fully prepared to make significant contributions to the Armed Forces through extended military careers; and
“(3) decisions of the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department that fundamentally and unilaterally change the long-standing relationship of the Armed Forces with the senior military colleges are not in the best interests of the Department of Defense or the Armed Forces and are patently unfair to students who made decisions to enroll in the senior military colleges on the basis of existing Department and Armed Forces policy.”
