During a House Armed Services Committee markup meeting before the Congressional recess, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) spoke about academic standards for military academies.
00:00We will now bring up Ms. Mace's amendment number 550, log number 4821.
00:09For what purposes does General Lady seek recognition?
00:12Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
00:14Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection to reading amendments dispensed with?
00:17The chair recognizes General Lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.
00:20Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:21This amendment would reinstate the rigorous standards which have long defined our nation's prestigious military academies.
00:27The ongoing decline in those standards is a serious crisis, one which undermines our strength, erodes our credibility, and jeopardizes the future leadership of our armed forces.
00:37Our service academies are not just colleges.
00:39They are a crucible where America's future military leaders are forged.
00:44These institutions must remain elite, uncompromising, and relentless in their pursuit of excellence.
00:50This amendment restores those high standards.
00:53It ensures our academies admit only the most qualified candidates, judged primarily on merit, academic performance, and objective testing, not on social engineering experiments or identity politics.
01:05This is not about eliminating opportunity.
01:07It's about restoring fairness, restoring transparency, and restoring excellence in one of the most important pipelines for military leadership.
01:14This amendment codifies a rigorous, transparent scoring system with at least 60% of a candidate's score based on academic achievement and standardized tests.
01:24This is how you maintain excellence.
01:26This is how you build leaders who can think critically, perform under pressure, and make split-second decisions to save lives.
01:33Our warfighters need and deserve the best qualified leaders, and it's critical Congress ensures they get them.
01:39For years, we've lowered standards, allowed widespread use of waivers, and placed an unfair emphasis on subjective criteria.
01:46My amendment reduces this emphasis and would ensure objective measurements of performance.
01:52Merit and character matter most.
01:55The academies are currently turning away highly qualified candidates who are scoring as much as 30% higher than marginally qualified candidates who, quote, earn admission.
02:03We're talking about the future leadership of our armed forces.
02:07In the military, leadership literally saves lives.
02:12Even small differences in leadership quality can determine mission success or failure, and life or death on the battlefield, at sea or in the air.
02:20The men and women wearing the uniform deserve the best leadership this country can produce.
02:24If we want a military capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must start by restoring standards at our service academies.
02:31And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
02:34I yield back.
02:35The chair does acknowledge that he does support this amendment.
02:39Does anybody else seek recognition?
02:40General Lee from Washington, Mr. Klind.
02:42Thank you, Chairman.
02:43I'm going to repeat what I said in a previous remark.
02:47At least for five years since I've been here, the U.S. military has been described as the most lethal fighting force in the world.
02:54When the U.S. Supreme Court came out against college admissions in DEI, they intentionally exempted the U.S. military academies.
03:04Now, one of the cool things that we get to do as members of Congress every year is that we actually have military academy night.
03:11And we recruit students.
03:12We have open houses.
03:14We work with school counselors.
03:15And we talk about what an honor it is to serve in these military academies.
03:20And make no mistake.
03:21As someone who represents the 10th Congressional District of Washington State, I am incredibly proud of the diversity of the candidates that we recommend for the academies.
03:30And I guarantee you that every one of these students can stand up to anyone who is serving in the military academies and go on to have great careers.
03:38One of the reasons that the Supreme Court said that the military academies were exempt from the rule about anti-DEI is that you have to have leaders around the world with very different life and lived experiences, experiences in language, experiences in their parents' lived experience.
03:56All those different things matter.
03:58And so this whole idea that we are somehow compromising qualifications to our U.S. military academies is absurd.
04:05These are the most prestigious colleges in the entire world.
04:08The kids who apply to go there have to have their act together.
04:12And they're smart.
04:13And they're capable.
04:14And they're good to defend us at home and around the world.
04:17So again, as we talk about what's important and how we build a fighting force that continues to build them on how good they are, we must be inclusive.
04:25We are grossly underrepresented when it comes to seeing people of color in upper ranks and military.
04:31Allowing folks to come to the military academy, following the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that says that they are exempt from this, makes sense.
04:38It's good for us at home.
04:39It's good for our defense.
04:41And it's good for us to keep the world safe.
04:42I yield back.
04:43Generally, he yields back, Chair.
04:45I recognize as a ranking member.
04:47Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
04:49I think there is a very simple question to ask on this.
04:52And that is, do you believe that bigotry and bias exist slash have existed in America?
04:59If you do, then that is a problem.
05:03And I think most people would acknowledge that it certainly does exist.
05:07Now, I will also acknowledge that the way, the manner in which some people across this country have tried to address that bigotry and bias, think of it as the bad DEI, has been problematic.
05:20I've never personally witnessed that at the Department of Defense.
05:22I've certainly witnessed it back in my home state and in some other places.
05:27So bad DEI, DEI is bad.
05:29But if you then come out and say, we're just not going to think about it, we're not going to consider bigotry and bias whatsoever, I think that is equally wrong in its approach.
05:39And if you admit that bigotry and bias do exist, particularly against people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, then you have to acknowledge that that bigotry and bias leads to one very bad outcome, bad outcome that everyone would agree on.
05:57You're missing talent.
05:58Now, because of bigotry and bias in many, many different aspects of our society, talent goes unrecognized because we've set up a set of standards that just naturally skew in one direction.
06:11So the reason to oppose this amendment, and I agree with the maker of the amendment about how important who serves at our service academies is, the incredibly important role they play, and how important it is to make sure that we have the best and the brightest.
06:26If you agree with that, then you should want to try to address the bigotry and bias to make sure that we are not missing out on an unbelievable amount of talent in this country, as we have discovered.
06:40Bottom line, that's the reason to oppose the blanket opposition to any effort whatsoever to try to address bigotry and bias.
06:48Now, if you want to argue that bigotry and bias don't exist, somehow we've magically wiped them out from the human psyche and from America.
06:56I guess we can have that discussion.
06:58I think it's a tough argument for the other side to win.
07:01But if you acknowledge that, to then say, nope, we're going to wipe it all out, we're not going to pay any attention to it, we're not going to try to make sure the talent that has been buried beneath that bigotry and bias is worth our time to try to bring out and give a chance,
07:17that I think you're really missing something.
07:19And as Ms. Strickland pointed out, you see in the people who are at the service academies, the people who have served for the last decade, an unbelievable amount of talent, diversity of a talent, all across the board.
07:32So this notion that our military has been weakened by these people who are serving in it, I think is slanderous and wrong.
07:41And again, let's not miss out on talent because of bigotry and bias.
07:46That's why the Supreme Court made the decision it made, certainly for the service academies.
07:52And we should oppose this amendment.
07:54I yield back.
07:55Gentleman yields back.
07:56Chair, I'll recognize the gentleman.
07:57Mr. Crank.
07:58Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
08:00So I'm proud to co-sponsor this amendment to protect the United States Air Force Academy in my district.
08:06Our service academies exist to turn the best and brightest 18-year-olds into exceptional officers leading the most lethal fighting force the world has ever seen.
08:17And I'm proud to co-sponsor the amendment to ensure that our service academies aren't straying from that mission in their admission strategies.
08:25And this amendment ensures that appointments to our nation's military academies are based on objective academic achievement and aptitude.
08:35And the composite scoring method applies a clear uniform formula across applicants, creating a level playing field for all candidates, regardless of their background.
08:45Our military is not served by selecting candidates who cannot meet the academic rigors required of them.
08:53And under this amendment, the service secretaries must report annually to Congress with details on admission standards, waivers, and student outcomes.
09:01And this gives Congress and our constituents insight into whether the system is working and whether exceptions are being misused.
09:10No one is made safer by needlessly relaxing standards in our military or at our service academies.
09:18I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
09:23Gentleman yields back.
09:24Chair, I recognize a gentleman from Hawaii.
09:26Mr. Kuda.
09:27Thank you, Mr. Chair.
09:28May I rise in opposition to this amendment?
09:31This amendment is 23 pages long, 23 pages of unnecessary micromanagement of the admissions process of the service academies that we are all talking about today.
09:43But for being so long, it is very narrow and myopic in defining merit.
09:49Under the MACE Amendment, grades and test scores will not be 90% of the decision of who goes to the service academy.
09:55And oddly enough, as speaking out against this, I'm speaking against kids like my son, quite frankly, who rates number one in his class and scores very well in his tests.
10:06And yet, having interviewed many service academy nominees, I can say that there is much more our students are offering their country than just their grades.
10:16Let's think about what gets crammed into 10% of what is to be considered and is virtually ignored.
10:24Important factors like leadership ability, accomplishment in the community or on the athletic field, their record of prior military service, work experience, overcoming challenges like poverty, childhood trauma, unstable home life, not to mention evidence of moral courage and character.
10:44Success in life and career has a lot more to do with those things.
10:49And a successful military career demands people who have more than a single dimension on their resume.
10:57Our service academies already have a merit-based admission process that considers all aspects of what a young person brings to a potential military career.
11:05Our academies are meant to produce warriors and leaders, last I checked, not academics, scholars.
11:13And let's also be clear, a computer or AI-generated program can ace a test, can get great grades.
11:20That 10% of what we are arguing needs to be recognized today, that this amendment discounts, that's actually what makes us human and what is foundational and fundamental for a good and just leader.
11:36You don't build the next generation of military leaders by looking only at their test scores.
11:44You build it by identifying character, courage, and commitment.
11:48And a test can't measure any of that.
11:52This amendment would jeopardize everything we are seeking to build as a country and as a Department of Defense.
11:59And I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
12:01Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
12:03General Lee yields back, Chair, and I recognize a gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros.
12:09Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12:11I've had the pleasure of serving with a number of individuals, both in the military and as an Undersecretary of Defense, that had tremendous careers.
12:21And those careers started out as enlisted personnel, rising through the ranks.
12:27Now, somewhere along the way, somebody saw something in them and said,
12:30I think you can do more, and I think you should become an officer.
12:35Now, they may not have been the best students, and maybe for some of them, I know, too,
12:40the academic light bulb didn't come on until later on in their life, after high school,
12:47where they said, okay, this is probably something I should focus on and put my attention on academics.
12:53But this bill would have kept so many individuals out from moving from enlisted to the officer rank to attending the academies.
13:04And these individuals that I've known and met have gone through and have been successful and they've been able to navigate the academy.
13:12They achieved and they graduated and they've gone on to have great military careers rising through the officer ranks.
13:19And some of them even becoming, putting on, you know, going into the flag and general officer corps.
13:28You know, there is so much more that goes into who we want as officers and who should be attending the service academy than just grades.
13:38We want well-rounded individuals.
13:42We want individuals who are physically fit.
13:45We want individuals who are leaders and have shown leadership throughout their high school career
13:51or their military career as the enlisted if they're going to go on and transfer to the academy
13:56after going from the enlisted ranks into the officer ranks.
14:00We want these well-rounded individuals who have gone and proven themselves.
14:05And it's not all academics.
14:07Now, academics is a big part of it, but it should not be the sole criteria or 90% of the criteria that we look at
14:14when we are selecting these individuals.
14:16We want well-rounded individuals.
14:19Now, whenever you have somebody...
14:21Now, I remember meeting the dean of the University of California, Irvine.
14:26He had told me he had a 5.0 student and a person who scored perfectly on the SAT score
14:33who did not get into that university.
14:35Because they did not have anything else that they were bringing to, you know, to them, with them.
14:44We want to make sure we have individuals that are well-rounded, that can lead, that are going to be physically fit,
14:51that are able to go and meet the criteria and the demandings of what being an officer is.
15:00And we need to make sure that we have them who are well-rounded.
15:03Like John Paul Jones said, and it's inscribed at the Naval Academy, right?
15:09We want officers, you know, who are gentlemen and have a background of a liberal education.
15:15We want these individuals to be well-rounded and well-read,
15:19and we need to make sure that we continue to put the focus on there
15:22and not just have it solely about what the academic criteria is.
15:26So I will not be supporting this bill, and with that, I yield back.
15:30Gentleman yields back.
15:31Does any other members seek recognition?
15:33Seeing none, there's no further debate.
15:35The question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace.
15:38Those who are in favor, say aye.
15:40Aye.
15:41Those opposed, no.
15:42No.
15:42Oppenative chair, the ayes have it.
15:44The recorded votes requested.
15:45The recorded votes postponed until a later date.
Be the first to comment