[Senate Hearing 111-958] [From the U.S. Government Publishing 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]