U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

58–407 PDF 2011

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 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

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 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LISA M. POWELL, Staff Director 

JESSICA NAGASAKO, Professional Staff Member 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Minority Staff Director 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 crosscultural 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 

2 

1The GAO report referenced by Senator Akaka appears on page 121. 

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 report1 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. 

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 

3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Maurer appears in the Appendix on page 29. 

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. 

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 

4 

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 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Neal appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

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. 

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 

6 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Weaver appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

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. 

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. 

7 

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 

8 

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 seniorlevel 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? 

9 

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 backVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Apr 29, 2011 Jkt 058407 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58407.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
10 

ground 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? 

11 

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 acVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Apr 29, 2011 Jkt 058407 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58407.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
12 

tually 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 

13 

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 

14 

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. 

15 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Chu appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

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. 

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 

16 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Brecht appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

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. 

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 

17 

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 departmentand 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. 

18 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson appears in the Appendix on page 82. 

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. 

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. 

19 

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. 

20 

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 

21 

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 

22 

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 

23 

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. 

24 

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 emerVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Apr 29, 2011 Jkt 058407 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58407.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
25 

gent 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. 

26 

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 socalled 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. 

27 

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.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 


58407.001
30 


58407.002
31 


58407.003
32 


58407.004
33 


58407.005
34 


58407.006
35 


58407.007
36 


58407.008
37 


58407.009
38 


58407.010
39 


58407.011
40 


58407.012
41 


58407.013
42 


58407.014
43 


58407.015
44 


58407.016
45 


58407.017
46 


58407.018
47 


58407.019
48 


58407.020
49 


58407.021
50 


58407.022
51 


58407.023
52 


58407.024
53 


58407.025
54 


58407.026
55 


58407.027
56 


58407.028
57 


58407.029
58 


58407.030
59 


58407.031
60 


58407.032
61 


58407.033
62 


58407.034
63 


58407.035
64 


58407.036
65 


58407.037
66 


58407.038
67 


58407.039
68 


58407.040
69 


58407.041
70 


58407.042
71 


58407.043
72 


58407.044
73 


58407.045
74 


58407.046
75 


58407.047
76 


58407.048
77 


58407.049
78 


58407.050
79 


58407.051
80 


58407.052
81 


58407.053
82 


58407.054
83 


58407.055
84 


58407.056
85 


58407.057
86 


58407.058
87 


58407.059
88 


58407.060
89 


58407.061
90 


58407.062
91 


58407.063
92 


58407.064
93 


58407.065
94 


58407.066
95 


58407.067
96 


58407.068
97 


58407.069
98 


58407.070
99 


58407.071
100 


58407.072
101 


58407.073
102 


58407.074
103 


58407.075
104 


58407.076
105 


58407.077
106 


58407.078
107 


58407.079
108 


58407.080
109 


58407.081
110 


58407.082
111 


58407.083
112 


58407.084
113 


58407.085
114 


58407.086
115 


58407.087
116 


58407.088
117 


58407.089
118 


58407.090
119 


58407.091
120 


58407.092
121 


58407.093
122 


58407.094
123 


58407.095
124 


58407.096
125 


58407.097
126 


58407.098
127 


58407.099
128 


58407.100
129 


58407.101
130 


58407.102
131 


58407.103
132 


58407.104
133 


58407.105
134 


58407.106
135 


58407.107
136 


58407.108
137 


58407.109
138 


58407.110
139 


58407.111
140 


58407.112
141 


58407.113
142 


58407.114
143 


58407.115
144 


58407.116
145 


58407.117
146 


58407.118
147 


58407.119
148 


58407.120
149 


58407.121
150 


58407.122
151 


58407.123
152 


58407.124
153 


58407.125
154 


58407.126
155 


58407.127
156 


58407.128
157 


58407.129
158 


58407.130
159 


58407.131
160 


58407.132
161 


58407.133
162 


58407.134
163 


58407.135
164 


58407.136
165 

Æ 


58407.137