[Senate Hearing 111-958]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-958
CLOSING THE LANGUAGE GAP:
IMPROVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S FOREIGN LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 29, 2010
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-497 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Lisa M. Powell, Staff Director
Jessica Nagasako, Professional Staff Member
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director
Aaron H. Woolf, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
WITNESSES
Thursday, July 29, 2010
David C. Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 3
Jeffrey R. Neal, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 5
Nancy Weaver, Director, Defense Language Office, U.S. Department
of Defense..................................................... 6
Hon. David S. Chu, Former Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense.......................... 15
Richard D. Brecht, Executive Director, Center for Advanced Study
of Language, University of Maryland............................ 16
Dan E. Davidson, President, American Council for International
Education: ACTR/ACCELS, and Elected President of the Joint
National Committee for Languages (JNCL)........................ 18
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Brecht, Richard D.:
Testimony.................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Chu, Hon. David S.:
Testimony.................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Davidson, Dan E.:
Testimony.................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Maurer, David C.:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Neal, Jeffrey R.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Weaver, Nancy:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 44
APPENDIX
Background....................................................... 98
Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union, prepared statement............................ 106
Phil McKnight, Ph.D., Chair, School of Modern Languages, Georgia
Institute of Technology, prepared statement.................... 110
Questions and responses for the Record from:
Mr. Maurer................................................... 114
Mr. Weaver................................................... 117
GAO report referenced by Senator Akaka........................... 121
CLOSING THE LANGUAGE GAP:
IMPROVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S FOREIGN LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in
Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senator Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. I call this hearing of the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and
the District of Columbia to order.
I want to welcome our witnesses. Aloha and thank you so
much for being here today.
Today's hearing will examine the Federal Government's
foreign language capabilities and needs, particularly at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of
Defense (DOD). We will examine these Departments' language
efforts and explore how best to help meet the challenges of
strengthening foreign language skills.
Foreign language skills are necessary to provide vital
services to people with limited English abilities. Because of
the rich cultural and linguistic diversity in my home State of
Hawaii, I understand well the need to communicate about
disaster relief, social services, and other government programs
in a variety of languages.
Understanding foreign languages is also vital to our
economic security as Americans compete in the global
marketplace. According to the Committee for Economic
Development, American companies can lose an estimated $2
billion each year due to inadequate cross-cultural skills.
Moreover, foreign language proficiency and cultural
understanding are essential to protecting our national
security. Threats to our national security are becoming more
complex, interconnected, and unconventional. These evolving
threats have increased Federal agencies' needs for employees
proficient in foreign languages.
More agencies are coordinating and collaborating with other
countries to advance their missions abroad. Both the
Departments of Homeland Security and Defense partner with other
nations to share information or conduct joint operations. The
Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism as well as the Project on
National Security Reform have concluded that foreign language
proficiency is essential to protecting our Nation.
The shortage of language-proficient Federal workers, as
well as Americans overall, is not a new phenomenon. More than
three decades ago, the President's Commission on Foreign
Language and International Studies recognized it was a serious
and growing problem.
Over the years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
has released several reports revealing language shortfalls that
harm government effectiveness and undermine national security.
In 2002, GAO reported that several key national security
agencies had shortages in translators and interpreters, as well
as diplomats and intelligence specialists with critical foreign
language skills. GAO found that shortages in language speakers
at the FBI hindered criminal prosecutions. Additionally,
diplomatic and intelligence officials' inadequate language
skills weakened the fight against terrorism and drug
trafficking and resulted in less effective representation of
U.S. interests abroad.
In June 2009, GAO found that the DOD had made progress on
increasing its language capabilities, but lacked a
comprehensive strategic plan and standardized methodology to
identify language requirements, which made it difficult for DOD
to assess the risk to its ability to conduct operations.
Additionally, this Subcommittee held a hearing on a 2009
GAO report finding that almost one-third of all State
Department positions abroad are filled by Foreign Service
Officers (FSOs) who do not meet the job's language
requirements. What troubles me is that 73 percent of FSOs
serving in Afghanistan and 57 percent serving in Iraq do not
meet the language proficiency requirements of their positions.
Today, GAO is releasing a report\1\ that finds that the DHS
has done little to understand its foreign language
capabilities. DHS cannot identify its language shortfalls and
does not know how these shortfalls impact its ability to meet
the Department's mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The GAO report referenced by Senator Akaka appears on page 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and the
Administration took action to address language shortages. I
fear that these efforts, while helpful, are not enough to meet
this pressing need, and that we are failing to create a long-
term solution to the Nation's foreign language demands.
I firmly believe that without sustained leadership and a
coordinated effort among Federal agencies, State and local
governments, the private sector, and academia, language
shortfalls will continue to undermine our country's national
security, economic growth, and other priorities. We need to be
more proactive in addressing this issue.
I introduced the National Foreign Language Coordination Act
to implement key recommendations from the 2004 National
Language Conference. This bill would establish a National
Foreign Language Coordination Council, chaired by a national
language adviser, to develop a national foreign language
strategy that is comprehensive, integrated across agencies, and
addresses both long-term and short-term needs. This council
would provide the sustained leadership needed to address
foreign language shortfalls in government as well as academia
and the private sector.
The Bush Administration's National Security Language
Initiative was a good first step toward coordinating efforts
among the Departments of Defense, Education, and State, and the
intelligence community to address our national security
language needs. However, we must do more and expand this
effort.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the
Departments of Homeland Security and Defense are addressing
their language needs and exploring short-term and long-term
solutions to increase the number of foreign language speakers
in the Federal Government.
I again would like to welcome our first panel to the
Subcommittee today: David Maurer, Director of the Homeland
Security and Justice Team at the Government Accountability
Office; Jeffrey Neal, Chief Human Capital Officer at the
Department of Homeland Security; and Nancy Weaver, Director of
the Defense Language Office at the Department of Defense.
As you know it is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear
in all witnesses, and I would ask you to stand and raise your
right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give to the Subcommittee is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Maurer. I do.
Mr. Neal. I do.
Ms. Weaver. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Let the record note that our
panelists answered in the affirmative.
Before we start, I want you to know that your full
statements will be placed in the record.
Mr. Maurer, will you please begin with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF DAVID C. MAURER,\1\ DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY
AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Maurer. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
be here today to discuss our recently completed work on
improving the Federal Government's foreign language
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Maurer appears in the Appendix on
page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, foreign language capabilities are a key
element to the success of diplomatic, military, law
enforcement, and intelligence missions. Over the past several
years, GAO has completed nearly two dozen reports and
testimonies on the Federal Government's efforts to enhance its
foreign language capabilities. My statement today summarizes
the findings from our recent reviews of foreign language
programs at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department
of Defense, and the State Department. While the specifics of
each review varied, a key theme that emerged was the importance
of assessing needs, assessing capabilities, and addressing
shortfalls.
I will start with DHS. Today we are issuing our report on
DHS to you and Senator Voinovich. We found that the men and
women of DHS encounter a wide array of languages and dialects
under sometimes difficult and dangerous circumstances. DHS is
literally on our Nation's borders, so ensuring the Department
has the necessary foreign language skills to carry out its
various missions is crucial.
What we found during our review was not encouraging. On the
plus side, DHS has a variety of foreign language programs and
activities. For example, new Border Patrol agents are required
to learn rudimentary Spanish, and the Coast Guard has conducted
a series of foreign language needs assessments. However, on the
whole, we found that DHS has taken limited action to assess its
foreign language needs and capabilities and identify potential
shortfalls. There is no department-wide guidance, no mention of
foreign language in the first Quadrennial Homeland Security
Review, and no reference to foreign language in the
Department's strategic human capital plan. DHS has not
comprehensively assessed its foreign language needs and
capabilities and does not know whether its current array of
programs adequately addresses the Department's various mission
needs. In its response to our report, DHS agreed with our
findings and has actions underway to address these
deficiencies.
I will now briefly summarize the findings from our work at
the Department of Defense and the State Department. Over the
past few years, DOD has placed greater emphasis on improving
the foreign language proficiency of U.S. forces. DOD views
foreign language capabilities as a mission enabler and an
important element of its broader counterinsurgency strategy. In
June 2009, we reported that DOD had made progress in
transforming its language capabilities but lacked a
comprehensive strategic plan to guide its efforts. Some of the
Department's foreign language objectives are not measurable,
linkages between goals and funding priorities are not clear,
and DOD has not identified the total cost of its planned
efforts. DOD also lacked a complete inventory of its foreign
language capabilities and a common approach for determining
requirements. Since our report, DOD has made some progress, but
has not completed its efforts to address our recommendations.
In September 2009, we found that the State Department's
ongoing efforts to meet its foreign language requirements have
yielded some results, but have not closed persistent gaps in
foreign language-proficient staff. As you noted, we found that
31 percent of Foreign Service officers did not meet the foreign
language requirements for their overseas positions, with even
higher shortfalls in such key languages as Arabic and Chinese.
State has several initiatives underway to address the
shortfalls, including language training and pay incentives, but
has been unable to close these gaps, in part due to the lack of
a comprehensive strategic approach. Since our report, State has
made progress but still lacks a plan with measurable goals,
objectives, and milestones.
Looking across all three Departments, there are some common
lessons that can help guide ongoing efforts to improve foreign
language capabilities across the Federal Government: First,
comprehensively assess foreign language needs and capabilities;
second, align and, where appropriate, develop foreign language
programs to address shortfalls; third, ensure that plans are
linked to resources and strategic and workforce planning
processes; and, finally, develop mechanisms for measuring
progress along the way. These efforts will help Federal
agencies enhance their foreign language capabilities and more
efficiently and effectively carry out their missions in an
increasingly interdependent world.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I look forward
to answering your questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Maurer.
Mr. Neal, will you please proceed with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY R. NEAL,\1\ CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Neal. Chairman Akaka, thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you regarding the Department of Homeland Security's
efforts related to the foreign language needs of the workforce.
My name is Jeff Neal, and I am the Chief Human Capital Officer
for DHS. It is a pleasure to appear before you again, and I
continue to appreciate your leadership on this and other human
capital matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Neal appears in the Appendix on
page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS has a variety of foreign language needs, from providing
emergency response services to persons with limited English
proficiency, to leading investigations overseas, and
interviewing foreign nationals on interdicted vessels. The
Department's mission touches many individuals in the United
States who may lack English language skills. In addition, DHS
has some 2,200 employees stationed abroad; as such, the ability
to communicate effectively is a topic of vital importance to
us. Our operating and support components determine their
foreign language needs, requirements, and capabilities and have
taken actions to address gaps in order to meet the many mission
needs of DHS. This issue, like the balanced workforce issue we
discussed in the hearing you conducted in May, reinforces the
need for a consistent and repeatable process for workforce
planning, assessment, and oversight at the Department level.
While each component is best situated to identify its
operational requirements for foreign languages on a regular
basis, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer can help
by coordinating the overall strategy, providing oversight, and
identifying best practices.
Certain components, such as U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, do require proficiency in foreign language, most
frequently Spanish. These components screen candidates for
employment for their proficiency in, or ability to learn,
languages. At the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),
foreign language ability is considered a collateral duty for
transportation security officers, and employees self-certify
their proficiency in language other than English.
Beyond workforce planning, there have been a number of
other department-wide efforts pertaining to foreign language
capabilities. The DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties (CRCL), enforces the provisions of Executive Order
13166, which requires Federal agencies to examine the services
they provide and implement a system by which people with
limited English proficiency can meaningfully access services,
without unduly burdening the fundamental mission of the agency.
Far from burdening the DHS mission, language access for those
with limited proficiency advances homeland security, enabling,
for example, more effective and efficient screening and
immigration processing at our Nation's ports of entry and fair
administration of customs rules and citizenship benefits. It is
also essential in areas such as detention and asylum
adjudication. CRCL provides technical assistance to DHS offices
and components on fulfilling the language access requirements.
I understand the importance of identifying language
requirements and tracking capabilities as outlined in the GAO
report. Going forward, the Department will make the following
actions:
First, I will ensure that DHS-wide language policies and
processes are incorporated into our Human Capital Strategic
Plan. Secretary Janet Napolitano directed a complete revision
of the Human Capital Strategic Plan several weeks ago, and we
anticipate publishing it in early fall.
Second, my staff will work with the DHS Office of
Intelligence and Analysis to identify best practices and to
ensure the coordination of our intelligence community
responsibilities for the management of DHS foreign language
capabilities.
And, finally, I will work with CRCL to establish a DHS
Joint Language Task Force. The task force will identify
component language requirements and assess the necessary
skills; recommend a system so that the Department can track,
monitor, record, and report language capabilities; and identify
the functional office responsible for managing DHS-wide
language capabilities.
This is an overview of the status of our foreign language
capabilities, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Neal.
Ms. Weaver, will you please proceed with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF NANCY WEAVER,\1\ DIRECTOR, DEFENSE LANGUAGE
OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Weaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak with you today on this very important topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Weaver appears in the Appendix on
page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is building a force with the language and
regional proficiency needed to meet the challenges of a complex
security environment. Experience has proven that the ability to
communicate and understand local populations, allies, and
coalition partners while demonstrating respect for their
cultures are key enabling factors for mission success.
The 2005 Defense Language Transformation Roadmap began a
department-wide effort to expand and develop these
capabilities. Through specific actions, we have improved the
oversight and management of the Defense Language Program,
created policies and programs to increase language capability
and enhance training. We have now moved beyond the roadmap.
Today we are finalizing our strategic direction, redefining
processes for generating language and regional requirements,
and adapting policies and programs to ensure we have the right
mix of language and regional skills.
Currently the Department is reviewing a comprehensive
strategic plan that provides a systematic way ahead for
identifying, developing, and sustaining, language and regional
capabilities. The plan builds on the transformational direction
and the priorities laid out with the language roadmap.
One further effort now underway is a capabilities-based
assessment which will provide improved and standardized
processes Combatant Commands can use to determine and
prioritize their language and regional requirements. Knowing
these requirements relative to our existing capability allows
the Department to identify gaps and leverage programs and
resources to fill those gaps. The current efforts span the
entire human capital management system and include heritage
recruiting initiatives, Service Academy and ROTC language
training and immersion programs, monetary incentives, and
increased pre-deployment and sustainment training opportunities
for the language professional as well as the general purpose
forces.
We are also looking beyond the Department of Defense for
creative solutions to build a more language-enabled workforce.
Representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, and
Education and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence meet routinely to share information on new
initiatives and best practices.
Our ongoing challenge is that language and regional
proficiency take time to develop and to sustain. And even when
we devote that time, the next threat to security will likely
require different languages and cultural knowledge in an
entirely different region of the world. While we might not be
able to predict with a high degree of accuracy where we will be
and what languages we will need, we are preparing by building a
program that is flexible and adaptable to meet tomorrow's
challenges as well as today's requirements.
Thank you for your continued support.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Weaver.
Mr. Neal, as you know, I have been concerned about DHS's
overall progress on your comprehensive management integration.
Your statement notes that the Department is considering
implementing a broader, more consolidated approach to assessing
and planning for the Department's language needs. Would you
provide more detail about your plans?
Mr. Neal. Mr. Chairman, what we are doing right now is
revising our overall Human Capital Strategic Plan. The document
that we have is a rather voluminous document. It is about 50
pages, which I do not know if everyone had actually even read
who might be interested in human capital issues in the
Department. A lot of folks view it was a very long document
that is long on words and short on action. So what Secretary
Napolitano has directed is a complete revision of the plan. She
wants it reduced to a much more concise document. She wants to
highlight several key areas that are of great interest to her.
And rather than having this plan be a document that is signed
by the Chief Human Capital Officer, she wants to put her name
on it and the strength and authority of her office behind that
Human Capital Plan.
One aspect of it will be foreign language proficiency and a
requirement to do a number of things to improve our oversight
ability and our planning ability regarding language
proficiency.
You may recall from our discussion in May regarding a
balanced workforce strategy that what we perceived as an
overall weakness in the Department is workforce planning. We
really do not have the capacity department-wide for workforce
planning that we need, and this will also be an aspect of this
Human Capital Strategic Plan.
As I said, I think we will issue this plan at the latest in
early fall. We may even be able to have the plan published
under the Secretary's signature in late summer. So I think we
are going to be making some progress there.
We are also attaching specific metrics to the plan, so we
will have a set of measures that we will be looking at on a
regular basis and reporting to the Secretary on a quarterly
basis.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Neal. In your testimony you
stated that you would work with the Department's Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties Office to establish a DHS Language Task
Force to identify language requirements and assess the
Department's language capability. Would you please tell us more
about this task force, including the timeline for setting it
up?
Mr. Neal. The task force has not been established yet.
Margo Schlanger, our Officer for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties, and I are going to be establishing it within the
next few weeks, and we will be giving them a charter to
actually identify component language requirements and the
skills and to see how we should manage this issue from a
department-wide basis. Right now, as I said, it is really
managed at the component level, and we do not necessarily think
that we need to be changing where we identify the requirements,
but how we track them needs to be more consistent. We need to
have some process in place where we are able to determine what
requirements we have and who actually has those language
proficiencies. Right now, if you said identify who can speak
Spanish in the Department of Homeland Security, I could not do
that except by going to components and having them go out and
ask people questions. And that is not really a good way to do
this.
So that is going to be a part of what we will look at with
this task force. How do we manage this? How do we keep track of
it? And when we need to identify who has what language
proficiency, how do we do that quickly and efficiently? Right
now, I do not think we have the capacity to do that.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Maurer, DOD has officials designated as
senior language authorities within the Office of the Secretary,
its military services, and other DOD components to provide
senior-level guidance regarding the Department's language
transformation effort. Do you think it would be beneficial to
have similar language officials at DHS and within its
components?
Mr. Maurer. Mr. Chairman, I think the most important thing
for DHS is to ensure that they have the capability at the
Department level to monitor and assess and bring some coherence
to the capabilities and the needs assessments that are being
conducted at the component or the office level. Whether that
takes the shape of the kind of system that DOD has in place I
am a bit agnostic on, but I think the most important thing is
to make sure that there is accountability built into whatever
structure that DHS is going to be providing, and that this
accountability is grounded in a clear understanding of the
Department's needs as well as what its capabilities are.
If you are going to have accountability, you have to have a
clear understanding of what you have accountability over.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Weaver, despite the numerous challenges
faced by DOD to improve its language proficiency and the
challenges that remain, I am pleased by the efforts the
Department has taken and the importance it has placed on this
problem.
One area I am interested in learning more about is DOD's
efforts to coordinate with other agencies. Can you provide an
update on DOD's coordination efforts with other agencies?
Ms. Weaver. There is a formal working group that has been
established with representatives from the Departments of
Defense, Education, State, and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence. They meet routinely, and they have come
up with goals and objectives that they want to work together
with to push forward this year. There are five objectives, and
that is, to coordinate reporting on outcomes in a single annual
report; develop mechanisms for reporting student participation;
share outreach of programs; resume collaborative efforts from
the National Security Language Initiative; and develop a
research agenda.
By keeping this communication open, we can keep the
initiatives that we started together previously going and add
new initiatives, and this collaboration, we think, is very
important.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. As you know, Ms. Weaver, one of
the key recommendations that came from the 2004 National
Language Conference was to establish a council that could
facilitate coordination and collaboration among all sectors.
Through the National Security Language Initiative, DOD has
experienced this on a smaller scale. Has DOD found coordination
and collaboration with the Departments of State and Education,
and the intelligence community beneficial to increase the
number of language speakers?
Ms. Weaver. The initiatives that we have worked together
and independently on have increased the number of high level
language speakers that are available to all government
agencies. Two programs that we have participated in is the
Flagship Program, which is a program that increases the level
of proficiency level taught among the colleges and
universities. Our goal was to increase participation to 2,000.
We think we are going to make that goal by the end of this
academic year.
The other initiative was the National Service Language
Corps, which is an all-Federal Government initiative. We have a
test program that we completed. The initial program was to set
up 500 participants. We are close to 1,400 participants. These
are Americans with a high level of language proficiency and
cultural background that have volunteered to serve the Nation
in natural disasters, humanitarian reasons, and when their
country calls.
We have already done test programs with the Citizens
Development Corps (CDC) and have deployed people to the Pacific
Command (PACOM), as well as volunteers who have participated in
the disaster at the Gulf Coast, and it is working well.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Neal, are you familiar with DOD's
coordination activities with the Departments of State,
Education, and the intelligence community? And do you believe
the Department could benefit from being part of it?
Mr. Neal. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with that, and so
I really could not answer whether it would be beneficial to be
a part or not.
Senator Akaka. And, of course, the whole idea is to get
other agencies and departments together in dealing with this
language process.
Mr. Maurer, the White Paper from the 2004 National Language
Conference laid out the critical steps needed to address the
Nation's language skills shortfall. The first recommendation
calls for strong and comprehensive leadership. Specifically, it
called for a national language director to develop and
implement a national language strategy and a coordination
council to assist with implementing the strategy.
To what extent do you see Federal agencies coordinating
with each other to address the shortfall in languages? And in
what way can this coordination be improved?
Mr. Maurer. Mr. Chairman, in the field work that we
conducted for the report that is being issued today on DHS
foreign language, I am pleased to report we saw many good
examples at the field level of ongoing coordination in the day-
to-day functions and operations of different components within
DHS and across DHS and other departments. In doing our work at
seven different locations within the United States, we saw that
people who were working for Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), if they knew a
foreign language, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI) or someplace else needed that person's help in an ongoing
investigation or a mission, they would contact that person.
They would work it out at the local level. So it seems to be
functioning at that level, the day-to-day mission
responsibilities.
Once you get into the higher level, you are talking about
working across departments and agencies in Washington, we have
not formally assessed whether or not those coordination
mechanisms are adequate or not. But generally speaking, there
does not seem to be as developed or rich coordination
mechanisms in this particular field as you see in other areas
of interagency coordination. And it is certainly something that
bears some additional review.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Maurer, the GAO report on Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) access to Federal programs found that
the Federal interagency working group on LEP provides
opportunities to enhance collaborative efforts among agencies.
Would you please elaborate on how collaboration among the
participating agencies has resulted in more efficient methods
for ensuring that LEP persons have access to Federal programs?
Mr. Maurer. Sure. I think one example is disaster relief
initiatives. That is an area where Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) within DHS has the lead. Before disasters happen,
there is ongoing collaboration between FEMA and the Small
Business Administration, and to some extent IRS as well, to
make sure that they have collaborated and talked to one another
on the plans and the best way to implement those plans in time
of a natural disaster or some other emergency response
initiative.
Having those discussions in advance of a disaster has
really enhanced their ability to respond on the ground in times
of need. So, for example, in our work we found cases where the
Small Business Administration (SBA) and FEMA were able to
deploy more quickly and be able to reach out to the various
limited English-proficiency customers during their times of
need, and that is critically important.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Weaver, I am just trying to find out
whether there is anyone else that is working on this issue. The
2004 National Language Conference called for a national
language adviser in the Federal Government to lead efforts to
address our Nation's language shortfalls. Is there anyone in
the current Administration who is leading the Federal
Government's language efforts?
Ms. Weaver. No, sir, I am not aware of anyone.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Weaver, the Department provides language
pay incentives to its military personnel. Do you believe
language pay is an effective tool to encourage personnel to
identify, improve, and sustain language capabilities?
Ms. Weaver. The Department of Defense pays foreign language
proficiency pay to both military and civilian, and we have
found this to be a very effective initiative to get individuals
to identify their language capabilities, including those that
do not work in positions that require a language. It is also an
incentive to allow individuals to increase or sustain their
language capabilities.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Neal, as you know, through the Foreign
Language Award Program, DHS provides language pay incentives
for its Customs and Border Protection officers and agriculture
specialists. The Department's fiscal year 2011 budget request
seeks to reduce funding for this program in order to hire
additional staff. While I support this goal, I oppose cutting
language pay funding to do so.
Given GAO's assessment that DHS could better assess its
language programs and activities, could you please explain the
Administration's reason for cutting Foreign Language Award
Program funding in its budget request?
Mr. Neal. There was a reduction in that program in the 2011
budget request. I think that what CBP was trying to do at the
time it formulated that budget request was balance the need for
additional personnel and the need for language proficiency. A
lot of CBP positions require basic language proficiency in
another language--usually in Spanish--Border Patrol agents,
Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs), and
agricultural specialists. And so I think their thinking at the
time was that they needed additional personnel; this was a way
to get resources for additional personnel. And their thinking
was that it would not be adversely affecting the language
capabilities because so many of the jobs actually require them
as a fundamental part of qualifications for the job. And the
basic language instruction is carried out at the academies, and
so they were thinking that would be a way to get additional
resources for staff.
Senator Akaka. This question is for both Mr. Maurer and Mr.
Neal. Foreign Language Award Programs vary by components at DHS
and are limited in ways that do not necessarily relate to
needed language skills. For instance, GAO used the example of
ICE where award payments are limited by statute to employees
who meet the definition of law enforcement officer. Therefore,
for example, intelligence research specialists in ICE are not
eligible to receive award payments for their language skills.
How does this affect the components' ability to meet agency
needs? Mr. Maurer.
Mr. Maurer. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think absent an
assessment of the foreign language needs and the foreign
language capabilities, it is difficult to say what impact the
Foreign Language Award Program has on the Department's overall
ability to perform its mission. In the course of our audit work
and doing this report, we heard a lot of demand for that kind
of pay program in other parts of the Department. But we were
not in a position to assess whether or not the existing program
was adequate or whether or not it should be expanded or be
reduced because we did not have a sense of what the Department
actually needs in terms of its foreign language capabilities.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Neal.
Mr. Neal. I have to agree with Mr. Maurer on this, that
absent more structure in the assessment process and a better
ability to identify what specific language requirements we
have, it is hard to assess whether or not Foreign Language
Award Programs are highly effective in meeting the requirements
or not because we do not have a good handle on all those
requirements.
We do know that in the places where this program has been
used, it does appear to incentivize maintaining language
proficiency, and as Ms. Weaver said, with DOD it incentivizes
folks to actually disclose fluency in languages that they might
not necessarily do because it would not be a requirement for
their everyday work.
But I think that the workforce planning part of this and
knowing as quickly as possible what we need will help us tailor
incentive programs to meet the requirements that we identify.
But we have to identify them first.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Maurer, GAO has recommended that both
the Departments of Defense and State develop a comprehensive
strategic plan with measurable goals and objectives to meet
their foreign language requirements. What are the challenges to
developing comprehensive strategic plans? And what
recommendations would you make on developing strategic plans to
meet agencies' language requirements?
Mr. Maurer. Well, I think the first challenge for the
Defense Department is the size and the breadth of the
Department itself. DOD also has a warfighting mission as its
primary mission, as well as a number of other missions and
responsibility. So trying to get their arms around just the
scope of what they do is a significant challenge.
The State Department faces similar challenges, but one of
the advantages that they have is they have had a longstanding
process in place for building foreign language capabilities
into their workforce planning needs, and that goes back many
decades, because foreign language capability is absolutely
essential to the conduct of foreign diplomacy. So they have the
ability to do that.
In terms of developing a strategic plan, I think one of the
most challenging things is developing outcome-based metrics. In
other words, how do you assess whether or not different aspects
of the programs in place are actually working? It is easy to
measure how much money you are spending on foreign language
award pay programs, for example. It is much more difficult to
come up with ways of measuring how effective those programs are
at pursuing the overall objectives of enhancing foreign
language capabilities. So I would encourage any department or
agency to give a lot of thought of how are you going to measure
that in the end.
The other thing it needs to be tied into, of course, is the
core mission. What are the most important core missions of the
agency or department? And how are you going to structure
foreign languages to help carry out those missions? One of the
things we found in doing the work at DHS and other departments
is that foreign language capabilities are not a separate entity
in and of themselves, but they are, rather, a way to help
enhance departments to carry out their key missions and
responsibilities. So they should not be viewed in isolation.
Senator Akaka. Ms. Weaver, you stated that DOD has drafted
a strategic plan for its language and regional proficiency
transformation, which is undergoing review and approval.
Additionally, the different services within the Department have
completed or are in the process of completing their own
strategic plans.
How is the Department integrating the Department's
strategic plan with its component parts?
Ms. Weaver. The services built their strategic plans based
on the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap. Using the
Defense Language Transformation Roadmap as their starting
document as well as strategic guidance, defense strategic
guidance that supports the national guidance, security
guidance, we walked backwards working collaboratively with the
services to describe the end state the entire Department needed
as far as language and cultural and regional capabilities. And
then we built the defense plan.
The services will go in and always modify their plans
during their review process, and it is an ongoing iterative
process to keep the plans supporting one another.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Maurer, over the years GAO has reviewed many Federal
agencies' language capabilities. You have addressed some of
these, but I want to give you a final opportunity. What are the
common recurring challenges that Federal agencies face? And
what are your key recommendations on how to address them?
Mr. Maurer. I think the fundamental challenge that the
departments face is that, on the one hand, it is an
increasingly interdependent, globalized world. There is an
increasing need to have foreign language-capable staff across
the breadth of the Federal Government. They need this
capability to do a better job of delivering their services or
carry out their missions.
However, at the same time, they all have pretty tremendous
operational responsibilities, and they are facing increasingly
tight fiscal constraints. So trying to balance all of these
things is going to be an increasingly difficult challenge going
forward.
So what we would suggest at GAO is that departments and
agencies get their arms around their core mission needs for
foreign language and get a good understanding of that, compare
that with the actual capabilities that exist already within the
departments, develop programs that are going to help address
whatever gaps may exist, and then ensure that you have some
kind of mechanism at the end of the day to know whether or not
the programs are successful.
I think another key element is enhancing collaboration and
coordination both within departments as well as across
departments. You are starting to see some sharing of foreign
language translation capabilities within the intelligence
community as a way to make the most of a scarce resource. There
may be room for that in other parts of the foreign language
realm as well as across the Federal Government. That is worth
exploring.
So at the end of the day, it is really understanding what
do you need, what do you have, and how you are going to fill
the gaps.
Senator Akaka. Well, I want to thank the first panel of
witnesses for their responses, and for trying to improve
foreign language proficiency in the Federal Government. Without
question, we all agree that there is a huge need to improve
this area. We need to have more Americans proficient in other
languages. I urge you to continue to improve foreign language
capabilities at your agencies. I just want you to know that we
stand ready to work with you. If we can do something
legislatively that can help, we will work together to move
forward. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to welcome the second panel of witnesses.
I would like to welcome the Hon. David Chu--it is so good to
see you again--former Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness at the Department of Defense.
Also, Richard Brecht, Executive Director, Center for
Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland.
And Dan Davidson, President of the American Councils for
International Education, and elected president of the Joint
National Committee for Languages.
As you know, it is the custom of the Subcommittee to swear
in all witnesses, so will you please rise and raise your right
hand? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give
this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Chu. I do.
Mr. Brecht. I do.
Mr. Davidson. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Let the record note
that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
I would like you to know that your full statements will be
placed in the record. So, Dr. Chu, will you please proceed with
your statement?
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. DAVID S. CHU,\1\ FORMER UNDER SECRETARY
FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Chu. Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege to appear
before you again as a witness, and I want to thank you for your
leadership on this important issue and the leadership of your
Subcommittee. I am appearing, I should emphasize, in my
personal capacity, attempting to speak from my experience at
the Department of Defense on the ingredients that might argue
for success in this arena. I should emphasize, therefore, that
neither the Department of Defense nor my present institution
necessarily share the views I am about to espouse in this
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Chu appears in the Appendix on
page 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do believe if you look at the Department of Defense
experience as a potential model for how more broadly the
Federal Government might improve its language capabilities,
there are three key ingredients.
First of all, in defense, the top leadership set the goal.
It was the personal goal of the Secretary of Defense, and the
personal goal of his Deputy. They mandated that we develop a
roadmap for how we might change the Department's stance in this
regard. They also provided the resources--a key ingredient, as
I know you would agree. And they had appointed senior language
authorities to ensure the Department could act in this domain--
had a set of career leaders who were able to carry out the
specific provisions of the roadmap to make sure we actually
reach those goals.
The second ingredient in defense success, in my judgment,
was the willingness to think about new tools, new kinds of
programs with which to enhance the Department's language
capabilities. Most important, perhaps, was the commitment to
recruiting native and heritage speakers of the so-called less
commonly taught languages. The Army initiated a program to
recruiting reserve status heritage speakers, the so-called 09
Lima program, very successful in enhancing its Arabic capacity
specifically. The Army also opened the door on other
individuals legally residents in the United States, the so-
called Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest
program, which has allowed it to recruit across a series of
important languages.
And the Department mobilized civil talent through the
National Language Service Corps about which you heard in the
earlier panel. I do think the willingness to think about new
ways with which to secure language capacity is very important
if there is to be broader Federal success.
I think the third ingredient in the success of the Defense
Department in enhancing its language capability was the fact
that the notion of change, the notion of language as an
important tool to military success was embraced by respected
members of the career force, both military and civil. Four-star
officers of the military services spoke up on the importance of
language skill. The U.S. Marine Corps, for example, has now, as
you know, assigned to every new entrant in its ranks a region
of the world, expecting members of its corps to gain some
cultural knowledge and perhaps some linguistic capacity.
If one thinks about expanding to the Federal Government as
a whole the kind of success the Defense Department has enjoyed,
I do think it will be essential--and the Defense Department
recognized this essentiality--to consider a national effort,
not just a Federal effort, to engage the State and local
communities, particularly because it is through K-12 language
instruction that I believe the country can build a much better
base for superior linguistic success.
I do wonder whether it would be useful to include language
as a specific objective, a specific element in the so-called
Race to the Top grants that are now being awarded.
And I also believe that it will be helpful to emulate what
the Congress encouraged the Department to do with the
construction of State roadmaps. Congress provided funds that
DOD used that allowed three States--Oregon, Ohio, and Texas--to
construct State roadmaps that gave the States some view of how
they might improve their situation, why was language important,
how might they do better. And I was very interested that Utah
under then-Governor Huntman's leadership, emulated this
practice at his instigation.
I endorse, Mr. Chairman, the notion that you have advanced
in your legislative proposal that, consistent with the 2004
conference, a Federal council to coordinate Federal efforts
would be an essential ingredient if the Federal Government as a
whole is to do a better job preparing our Nation for the future
linguistic challenges it will face. Thank you, and I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Dr. Chu.
Dr. Brecht, will you please proceed with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD D. BRECHT,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR ADVANCED STUDY OF LANGUAGE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Mr. Brecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege to
be here and speak in my personal capacity but based on over
half a century of work in the government and in academe on
behalf of language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Brecht appears in the Appendix on
page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One frequently hears it is too hard for government
organizations with critical language requirements to fully
succeed in a world with thousands of languages and changing
requirements by the day. This testimony is aimed at undermining
this ready assumption, and as illustration, I would like to
envision a future scenario that I would argue is realistic and
within reach.
A major earthquake rocks San Francisco and the surrounding
area. Buildings are destroyed, power and water supply systems
are damaged, people are panicked, emergency responders are
overextended. Massive State and Federal assistance is deployed,
from DHS--that is, FEMA, TSA, Coast Guard--DOD (National Guard
and Military Reserves, even hospital ships). Adding to this
crisis is the fact that intelligence sources have uncovered
recent communications indicating a terrorist plot linked to the
Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines to attack major transportation
and communication channels.
At the San Francisco and Oakland docks are recently arrived
cargo ships and tankers from the Philippines, from Liberia, and
Mexico. In addition, major drug traffickers are taking
advantage of the situation and dramatically increasing activity
along the Mexican Border, which, of course, brings government
organizations to bear, including National Security Agency
(NSA), National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), FBI, Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), Customs and Border Patrol. I
ask excuse for the alphabet soup.
Communication challenges arise on all sides. The National
Foreign Language Coordinating Council Office in the Nation's
capital has direct contact with the Federal senior language
authorities and immediately alerts all elements to stand by for
support and deployment. In collaboration with California State
and local fusion centers, the office receives requirements from
the affected areas and identifies language resources across the
United States Government (USG), as well as in academe,
industry, and heritage communities.
Deployed are core language capabilities in DHS, DOD,
Department of Justice (DOJ), Intelligence Community (IC), and
other Federal components, all operating under comprehensive
department- and agency-wide strategic plans that have
identified requirements and have built organic capabilities in
languages and cultures of anticipated high and surge
requirements, on demand. Thus, FEMA has designated the San
Andreas Fault as one of the areas eminently prone to natural
disasters and has identified the languages that populations in
the Bay area speak. In addition, permanent employees of the
relevant DHS components have been trained and certified to
proficiency levels required by the professional tasks they
perform.
Capabilities are shared. Each department's and agency's
strategic plan and second language acquisition office has
specific procedures to share resources within and across
departments and agencies. The DOD is able to direct the Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center in Monterey to
provide language cadres of its qualified students to the area
to assist speakers of Mandarin and any of the other two dozen
languages taught at that institution. Watch List and other IC
elements coordinate with TSA and Customs and Border Patrol,
sharing language capabilities in Filipino, Illocano, Cebuano,
in efforts to determine identities and track communications of
new arrivals in San Francisco who are possible Abu Sayyaf
members.
Warehoused capabilities are drawn upon. The National
Language Service Corps provides professionals across a range of
disciplines with languages of San Francisco's smaller
populations, like Hindi, Russian, Filipino, Korean, as well as
even Samoan and Chamorro. The National Virtual Translation
Center is tasked to provide translations of documents and
announcements directed specifically at local non-English-
speaking populations in the area who are in need of, or able to
provide, assistance.
Capabilities are outsourced. Language Line Services, Inc.,
a private company based in Monterey, is contracted to provide
online interpretation for emergency hotlines in the dozens of
languages spoken in the city.
Reach-back capabilities are brought to bear. The University
of California-Berkeley National Heritage Language Resource
Center is contacted by the National Council Office for advice
on the heritage communities in the San Francisco area, their
languages, available resources, and leadership.
Such a scenario as this is within the realm of possibility,
I would argue, and the capabilities it presupposes are largely
available and within reach, if and only if, however, they can
be brought to bear in the time of an emergency.
Finally, a key player in this scenario, I would argue, is a
national coordinated entity like the National Foreign Language
Coordinating Council, which you have proposed. I believe that
is a key element to bring these resources together in a
national emergency.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Dr. Brecht.
Dr. Davidson, will you please proceed with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF DAN E. DAVIDSON,\1\ PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COUNCIL
FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: ACTR/ACCELS, AND ELECTED PRESIDENT
OF THE JOINT NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LANGUAGES (JNCL)
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for
the opportunity to appear before you today and present views,
experiences, and research results on the current state of
foreign language learning in the United States and on improving
the Federal Government's foreign language capabilities in the
year 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson appears in the Appendix
on page 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As President of American Councils for International
Education, I oversee programs focused on advanced and
professional-level language acquisition at overseas
universities and immersion centers funded both by the U.S.
Department of State and the National Security Education Program
of DOD, which contribute to the preparation today of more than
1,750 Americans annually at the school, undergraduate, and
graduate levels through programs sponsored by the State
Department and the flagship DOD programs. These include work in
languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Indonesia, Japanese, Korean,
Turkic languages, Persian, Hindi, Russian, Swahili, Yoruba, and
other languages. These are important programs, and they have
been the target of research, which is reflected in two referee
journal articles which I would take the liberty of leaving with
you and your staff today so that I do not have to reiterate
their contents right now but, rather, with your permission, I
would like to turn directly to the research results and the
recommendations that flow from that.
The research has shown that language learning in the
overseas immersion environment holds enormous potential for
meeting the linguistic and cultural training needs for the
government workforce of the 21st Century. But to function
effectively, it must be properly integrated into K-12 and
undergraduate curricula and adequately supported by faculties,
administrators, policymakers, and funders. A sustained effort
across government and the academy in support of world languages
and cultures will necessitate a commitment at once to overseas
language immersion as well as a strong focus on our domestic
training capacity. The research data which I make available
today makes it clear that a concerted effort in this area,
first, is possible and, second, it can succeed and it is
succeeding. That is the good news, and from that I would like
to turn to the recommendations that flow from these two
studies.
The second study is the first-ever census of K-12 programs
in the United States--not a survey, an actual census with a
91.8-percent return rate. We established that there are 3,500
K-12 programs in the United States as of May 2009 focused on
the critical languages alone. That number exceeds by twice what
experts in the field believed was the case, and, hence, I turn
to the recommendations that flow from that research.
The latest research provides us stronger and I think more
optimistic assumptions about the role that U.S. education can
play and should play in addressing the language gap in the
Federal Government workforce capability:
One, the assumption that Americans, in fact, are achieving
professional-level proficiency--ILR-3 or higher in multiple
skills--in these languages thanks to the National Security
Education Program Flagship Program and its several feeder
programs funded by more than one agency.
Two, that young Americans are interested as never before in
learning the critical languages, as is evidenced by the notable
growth in K-12 programs that is documented here, especially in
Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, Russian, and Korean across the 50
States and the District of Columbia; and a corollary to that,
that entering university freshmen are more internationally
connected than ever before and have been reported in the
College Board American Council on Education (ACE) Survey of
2008 of having quite robust expectations of learning a foreign
language, studying overseas, and pursuing an internationally
focused career. What is needed then is a mechanism for growing
greater public attention to the successes and proof of concept
for U.S. success in this area which now exists. More U.S.
students in institutions of all kinds can pursue long-term
study of world languages, just as their counterparts do, as you
mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, whenever you go overseas, just
as other nations are investing in the same thing. That
mechanism is both informational and also financial.
The general lack of knowledge, unfortunately, at the State
and local levels of how to plan and implement these programs
needs to be addressed.
The need for Federal support of proven models of long-term
language proficiency also need to be addressed, such as the
National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) complex of
programs.
And continued increased Federal support is necessary for
essential overseas immersion.
Your own legislation calling for the creation of a National
Coordinating Council would be a robust and effective way of
addressing that, as would be recent legislation that is being
drafted by Congressmen Holt, Chu, and Tonko on the House side
looking at a new reauthorization for the ESEA.
Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond
to your questions later.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Dr. Davidson.
Dr. Chu, the GAO report revealed that the Department of
Homeland Security has not taken steps department-wide to
address its language capabilities. In your testimony you stated
that one of the valuable lessons learned from DOD's experience
is that change requires strong leadership from the top.
What recommendations would you make to Federal agencies
like DHS on what is required to sustain and institutionalize
continued leadership in language education?
Mr. Chu. Mr. Chairman, I do believe, as you suggest, that
it is critical that the Cabinet Secretary speak personally to
this issue, not simply once but repeatedly, to make clear both
publicly and inside the agency that this is a goal of
importance to him or her.
I further believe that it is important that he or she hold
appropriate sub-Cabinet officers responsible for developing a
specific plan of action, against which, of course, Cabinet
resources must be applied.
I think those three steps together will change the outcomes
in any agency.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. I appreciate that we have three
panelists here who have extensive knowledge and experience on
this issue and can probably give us the best answers as to how
we should proceed.
Dr. Chu, it is well known that effectuating change across a
large Department like DOD is difficult. I am sure that during
the time you served at DOD there were some challenges in
pushing for increased foreign language, cultural awareness, and
regional expertise capabilities. DOD has made great strides
over the past several years, and yet there is still much to be
done.
What recommendations do you have for agencies that face
similar challenges?
Mr. Chu. I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that being flexible
about how you achieve these goals will enhance the chances for
success. Simply expanding existing programs may not be the best
way to proceed, and certainly that was our conclusion at
Defense--that we needed both some new program and some new ways
of applying old programs.
To take a specific example, the Department had long had a
fine language instruction facility, the Defense Language
Institute (DLI), but we found with demands post-September 11,
2001, that simply ensuring a good flow of students to that
institute was not enough, that we needed to take training to
units, that DLI needed to help us make training portable, so to
speak. So we brought the training to the soldiers, the marines,
etc., who would need it. It is both improving or changing the
nature of existing programs that will be helpful, in my
judgment, as well as being willing to imagine new programs,
different ways of achieving the same ends. I particularly
praise the U.S. Army for its flexibility in finding new ways to
recruit native and heritage speakers.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Brecht, you paint a vivid and optimistic
picture of what Federal language skills should be. In your
testimony you envision a globalized workforce as the end state
for the Federal workforce and discussed how this workforce
should be comprised. How do we engage other Federal leaders to
make them better aware of the importance of language and
cultural proficiency and be willing to work toward this
globalized workforce?
Mr. Brecht. Optimism is in my nature, Mr. Chairman. Fifty
years of work in this area, though, does not exactly encourage
optimism. But I believe we have reached a point where making
arguments for the need for language basically is old-fashioned.
The Department of Defense did not launch the transformation
roadmap out of a sense of altruism or a belief in languages for
the good of all. It was a pragmatic decision based on clear
needs that they did that. And, frankly, looking at the
Department of Homeland Security, I view it the same way.
If you actually stand back and ask each component to look
at what its language requirements are, how do you do a language
audit--and industry, by the way, has different models for doing
audits of major industry corporations. If you actually look at
your language requirements and you look at what your
capabilities are and you saw that delta, and any leader looking
at a rigorous way to assess the requirements and the
capabilities and looking at that delta, it does not make much
sense to me to stand back and say we have to make an argument
for that. A leader has to recognize that. And in this case, I
do not know very many elements of the U.S. Government, State
and local included, that do not see the need for language. What
I fear is they often view it as difficult or impossible to
address, and that is a prioritization issue, to be sure, but in
my view, if you just look at the requirements and you look at
them carefully, the notion that, for instance, the African
command in the Department of Defense, when they look at 2,000
languages in Africa, they look at what they have to address in
areas of counterterrorism or humanitarian assistance or
professionalization of security forces and so on, if you talk
to the commander of the African command, he will tell you, ``My
language needs are incredible.'' He does not have to be hit on
the head with it at this stage. And so it is, for example, with
the Department of Justice and across the Federal Government. It
is clear that need has emerged now in this century. English is
not the answer. Most people understand that. English is an
immense capability. It is not the answer.
And so what I would like to be candid about is your
legislation: Putting all of the departments in one room so that
the people who clearly see and have made this assessment can
share that vision or at least the methodology to arrive at that
vision, I think that is exactly the right way to go.
Senator Akaka. Well, since I have asked that question, let
me ask Dr. Chu whether he would want to comment on how to
engage other Federal leaders as well. And I will ask Dr.
Davidson as well. Dr. Chu.
Mr. Chu. I think as Dr. Brecht has suggested, there is
enormous interest at different levels in each agency in
improving our language capacity. The challenge is how to get
the agencies together to provide a forum. As you heard from the
previous panel, there are some informal mechanisms, but it is
very helpful to have a more formal mechanism, especially one
endorsed by senior levels of the Federal Government.
You, sir, in your opening statement praised the National
Security Language Initiative of the last Administration. I do
think, as Ms. Weaver indicated, it would be terrific to give
that new impetus and energy. I think the fact that you are
holding this hearing is succeeding in connecting the Department
of Homeland Security with the Defense Department and those that
are already its partners.
I do believe, however, some formal convening of Federal
agencies, whether a few, as the National Security Language
Initiative sought to do, or many, as your Coordinating Council
would imply, would be very powerful in improving the Federal
effort as a whole.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Davidson, any comments?
Mr. Davidson. Yes. The need to mobilize support across
government agencies is really very evident, even beyond those
that you have discussed here today. In particular, if one looks
at the statement of President Obama reflected in the important
National Security Strategy document released at the end of May
2010, as well as Secretary Duncan's statements in the Education
Department on the importance of language, there is a sense
almost of disconnect between the rhetorical direction of our
President's National Security Strategy, which is very
consistent with the National Security Language Initiative we
have been discussing here today, and the actual implementation
and fair share in all of this that our own Department of
Education should be playing.
There are some important programs like Foreign Language
Assistance Program (FLAP). They are quite small compared to
what other agencies have done, and we are distressed, for
example, that in the President's version of the reauthorization
of elementary and secondary education, we see language again
shunted off a bit like others here today as sort of a well-
rounded--something you might have for a well-rounded education
along with other frills, but not as something core and central
to American national security going forward, our
competitiveness and our ability to communicate with one
another.
So I think there is a need for a strong voice here that
would bring on the implementation level the work of the
Department of Education with what clearly the President, I
think, envisions.
Senator Akaka. As you know, the National Foreign Language
Coordination Act, which I originally introduced in 2005, is
based on the recommendations that came out of the 2004 National
Language Conference, and some of you have commented on my bill.
I would like to hear more about your views on that bill, in
particular any changes that you would recommend be made. Dr.
Brecht.
Mr. Brecht. Yes, I would like to take the opportunity in
that regard. Dr. Davidson made it very clear that the future of
our language capabilities in the Federal Government at this
stage seem to be envisioned as the responsibility of those
agencies. In fact, the future of language capability in the
United States is a responsibility of education, K-12 and higher
education. And so it is very clear to me that education itself
and academe have to be included in any coordination.
I will say also that some of the finest technologies, some
of the finest language preparation materials and so on,
industry is honing. And so I believe as well that industry
should be represented in any coordination effort. It has to
take all of us together, and so the only thing I would
respectfully submit is that having all the Federal agencies
represented is excellent, but some way to bring in the academic
enterprise as well as industry would make--it would make it
even a stronger initiative.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Chu.
Mr. Chu. Mr. Chairman, I would raise two issues that you
may wish to consider to strengthen the bill.
First, are there any authorities that you want to give the
council besides the general responsibility of coordination
across Federal agencies, whether that is authority to review,
authority to approve certain initiatives, etc.?
Second, I think it would be very useful, without
necessarily specifying in the law what the metrics are, to
insist that metrics be established against which to measure
progress. I think certainly if I look to the Defense
experience, that was very powerful in the roadmap that the
Deputy Secretary directed be prepared, that we had benchmarks
we had to meet, timelines, quantitative outcomes we had to
achieve. And I think that will help drive progress further--
simply, for example, inviting the council or the President to
establish those metrics may be sufficient in the bill that you
are proposing.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Davidson.
Mr. Davidson. I wholeheartedly concur with what my
colleagues have said. In my written testimony I do offer five
possible areas where the national strategy might be elaborated
somewhat more. I think the direction is exactly the right way
and that a national strategy is exactly what is called for
here. I think I will leave it at that and just refer to the
five points I make in the written testimony.
Senator Akaka. I want to ask the panel to respond. As you
know well, one of the key recommendations that came from the
conference recommended that a national language authority be
appointed by the President to serve as a principal adviser and
coordinator in the Federal Government and to collaborate with
the public and private sectors. My bill would place the
national language adviser in the White House to facilitate this
type of coordination and collaboration.
Could you address why a coordinator who is able to reach
across the government and work with all sectors is needed?
Mr. Chu. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have, I think,
eloquently emphasized--and certainly that is the experience of
Defense--that if we are going to make major progress, we need
to address the degree of language effort at the K-12 level. And
I think that is really the issue that you are inviting be
confronted by proposing a national language authority. It is
not just a Federal function. In fact, in some respects, it is
not even principally a Federal function. It is a national
necessity that we do better on this front, and only with the
partnership of State and local authorities in my judgment are
we likely to succeed. So my view of the vision you have
outlined is that where we are very powerful is in mobilizing
that national constituency.
I do think in doing so this notion of roadmaps that the
States construct could be a very helpful particular step, and
so one possible function for a national language authority
would be to encourage the preparation of such roadmaps and to
provide a forum in which the progress against the goals they
set could be reviewed.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Brecht
Mr. Brecht. I think there is a nice model, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy in the White House. Its mandate,
it seems to me, is broader. Now, I will not testify to its
efficiency because I am not entirely sure how the science
community views it, but the fact that it is a bully pulpit,
first, is very important; the fact that it has education as
part of its mandate; the fact that research itself is part of
its mandate, together with how the U.S. Government adopts and
how technology transfer takes place--all of that strikes me as
a very broad mandate. And if I were in power, an Office of
Language and Global Communications with the same power and
mandate would be a very fine thing.
Again, though, your council strikes me as an implementation
of that, and then the national language coordinator is the
science adviser, the equivalent of the science adviser.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Davidson.
Mr. Davidson. I strongly agree with that. I think in
looking at the way that John Holdren functions as National
Science Adviser, you see a strong voice and a mobilizing factor
there that does reach across private, public, and various
sectors. The difference, I think, is that science on some level
has a face validity across the country. It is not hard to get
up in front of a local board of education and argue that we
need to strengthen science and technology. Every businessperson
in the room would rise. But with language, we have a tougher
argument because of America's long-time landlocked status that
outside the Beltway, once we get beyond the foreign affairs
international community, we have a somewhat different discourse
to deal with. And the sort of level of public awareness is not
as sharp for language as it is for science and math. So I think
that there is a strong public awareness factor that we have to
bring in. In Hawaii, it is not a problem for obvious reasons,
but in other parts of the country, we have a lot of work to do.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Dr. Davidson, let me ask you, what
suggestions do you have for what the Federal Government can do
to encourage foreign language education at all levels?
Mr. Davidson. A strategy for foreign language education
that includes two things that has a strong informational
component, as we have just been speaking, so that people
understand better on the local level and on State levels, too,
and on the institutional level how a foreign language learning
career might look. Just as we might have an understanding of
what a well-defined mathematics education might look like, we
need something similar for foreign language, which, in fact, is
known by specialists but less understood locally. So the first
Federal role is most certainly to disseminate an information
model.
The second one, I think, is a strong model for support of
those key junctures in an educational career where the need to
get overseas, the need to experience the other culture
firsthand in an emergent setting, particularly at an early age,
can be critical in shaping that career in a successful way.
Again, we know the models. They are multiple. They work
well. The practices are well defined. They are not well known.
But there is a role for Federal intervention here, both on the
information side and on the funding side. The Flagship Program
exists right now only on about 22 campuses across the country,
including Hawaii, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, and so forth. We have
no more than two programs per campus, most of them fewer than
that. And yet those programs are already producing right now
people who go--65 percent of whom go right into government
service with three level qualifications or better.
So even as the educational system is retooling and getting
stronger, we have a mechanism in place that will make sure that
the government also has qualified people this year and next
year and then the year after that. And the problem is it is a
tiny model of 22 institutions that could easily be scaled up,
at least to the size of Title VI, and give us the numbers we
need now.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Brecht.
Mr. Brecht. May I comment on that question?
Senator Akaka. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Brecht. If I may. That is exactly right. The Flagship
Program is doing amazing things in higher education. It is sad
that this is a Department of Defense initiative and not a
Department of Education initiative. And so the first thing that
has to be done is that language has to become part of the
education mandate, not national security mandate. And right
now, frankly, language is a national security issue not an
education issue.
The second point I would make is that Secretary Riley and
President Clinton--Secretary Riley in the last few months of
his tenure recognized dual language immersion programs as one
of the most remarkable things that could happen in this
country. If we have schools, elementary schools where children
are learning in English for half the day and Hawaiian for the
second half the day, and half the students have a native
language in English and, God willing, even in Hawaiian, if we
have dual language immersion programs across the country to
demonstrate that children actually can learn a language, they
can learn a language effectively, you do not have to add
language teachers, you simply have to find teachers who teach
elementary education who know language--if we launched that in
50 States with $40, $50 million and showed that it can be done,
that is a way to feed into the flagship programs where they
could even do better.
And so there are models out there, though it does require
that education be the home of language in the United States.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. If there were only three things
that we could accomplish this Congress that would address the
Nation's overall language needs as well as Federal agencies'
language shortfall, what should those three things be? This
will be the final question. [Laughter.]
Mr. Brecht. That is a good final question.
Mr. Chu. We get three wishes.
Senator Akaka. Dr. Chu.
Mr. Chu. I do think bringing your bill to a successful
conclusion would be one of them.
Second, I think, as my colleagues have implied, funding K-
12 so-called pipeline programs as an education initiative would
be a second element.
Third, I think the Federal Government would help the
country if it signaled in some fashion the importance of high-
level language accomplishment as a national goal. And perhaps
the establishment of some prizes that identified successful
Americans of the types that Dr. Davidson and Dr. Brecht have
described might be one way to send to the Nation the kind of
message that you are attempting to impart.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Dr. Brecht.
Mr. Brecht. It is kind of a difficult question. I am going
to have to go with the notion that if the Federal Government
had a bully pulpit at a coordinating council, that would be a
major statement--that had education and industry on it, that
would be a major statement to the country, where real needs are
present and recognizable.
The second thing--and I am afraid it is going to sound
rather repetitious--is we have to do something to get the
Department of Education to fund major programs, preferably at
the K-12 level, and I frankly think dual language immersion is
one of the most remarkable things we could do.
And, third, I will say in education, again, the Flagship
Program of the National Security Education Program is one of
the most remarkable things I have ever seen because it is
accountable, it is reaching levels that we have never reached
before, and it is getting language into the hands of
professionals, not just language and literature majors. That is
an amazing statement to the higher education and education in
general and very much needed by this country.
So those are my three wishes.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Dr. Brecht. Dr.
Davidson.
Mr. Davidson. I am afraid we sound a little similar here,
but the research would similarly point to something like this,
that the innovation in language draft legislation that
Congressman Holt and Congressman Chu from California and Paul
Tonko from New York have put together reflects some of the best
thinking in the field right now in terms of what the language
component of a reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education
Act might look like. As Dr. Brecht and Dr. Chu have said, it is
not terribly pricey, but it would address in a fundamental way
the K-12 issue, including dual immersion. And we have to do
something in any event there.
Second, I think a scale-up of Flagship that would enable
our undergraduate programs to begin to refocus their training
in anticipation of the new flows of K-12 students coming in and
not starting language all over again in college but, in fact,
would begin their work at the advanced level and move up from
there. And I think that is what I mean by a scale-up of
Flagship. Move it to a number that meets government needs.
And, third, enact the Senator Akaka bill for a national
strategy and coordination so that the whole thing would be
managed and coordinated as necessary. I think that is all you
need to do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses. As I
said, we are so fortunate to have this panel of witnesses who
have the experience in this area. I want to thank you immensely
for your responses.
It is clear that the Federal Government cannot resolve its
need for employees proficient in critical foreign languages on
its own. We need a coordinated effort among all levels of
government, private sector, and academia to address our
language needs. We have a lot of work to do in this area, and I
remain committed to this issue.
The hearing record will be open for one week for additional
statements or questions other Members may have. This is a
critical issue and I want to tell you that for me your
responses have been valuable, and it is going to help us move
forward.
Mr. Chu. Thank you.
Mr. Brecht. Thank you.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
