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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–886 PDF 2002

S. Hrg. 107–468

CRITICAL SKILLS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND

THE HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL WORKFORCE ACT—S. 1800

HEARING

BEFORE THE

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION AND

FEDERAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 12, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Staff Director and Counsel

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Minority Staff Director and Counsel

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION AND FEDERAL SERVICES

SUBCOMMITTEE

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

Nanci E. Langley, Deputy Staff Director

Mitchel B. Kugler, Minority Staff Director

Brian D. Rubens, Chief Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Opening statements: Page

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1

Senator Thompson ............................................................................................ 3

Senator Cochran ............................................................................................... 6

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 24

Prepared statement:

Senator Durbin ................................................................................................. 39

WITNESSES

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002

Donald J. Winstead, Assistant Director, Compensation Administration, Office

of Personnel Management ................................................................................... 4

Sheri A. Farrar, Assistant Director, Administrative Services Division, Federal

Bureau of Investigation, accompanied by Margaret R. Gulotta, Chief of

the Language Services Unit, and Leah Meisel, Deputy Assistant Director

and Personnel Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation .................................... 7

Ruth A. Whiteside, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Human

Resources, Department of State .......................................................................... 8

Ginger Groeber, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Civilian Personnel Policy,

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 10

Harvey A. Davis, Associate Director, Human Resources Services, National

Security Agency .................................................................................................... 11

Hon. Lee H. Hamilton, Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, former Member of the House of Reprsentatives ................ 20

Susan S. Westin, Managing Director for International Affairs and Trade

Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office .............................................................. 29

Ray T. Clifford, Ph.D., Chancellor, Defense Language Institute ......................... 31

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Clifford, Ray T., Ph.D.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92

Davis, Harvey A.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68

Farrar, Sheri A.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Groeber, Ginger:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Hamilton, Hon. Lee H.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73

Westin, Susan S.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79

Whiteside, Ruth A.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

Winstead, Donald J.:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Page

IV

APPENDIX

Copy of S. 1800 ........................................................................................................ 94

Response for the Record from Mr. Winstead to question asked at the hearing . 124

Response for the Record from Ms. Groeber to question asked at the hearing ... 148

Questions and responses from:

Mr. Winstead .................................................................................................... 129

Ms. Farrar ......................................................................................................... 131

Ms. Whiteside ................................................................................................... 133

Ms. Groeber ....................................................................................................... 142

Mr. Davis ........................................................................................................... 144

Ms. Westin ........................................................................................................ 147

(1)

CRITICAL SKILLS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

AND THE HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL

WORKFORCE ACT—S. 1800

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002

U.S. SENATE,

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION,

AND FEDERAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in room

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel Akaka,

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Akaka, Thompson, Cochran, and Voinovich.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA

Senator AKAKA. The Subcommittee will please come to order. I

want to thank our witnesses for joining us this afternoon. We are

beginning to find that many of our colleagues as well as others in

the community are finding much interest in what we are going to

be talking about today.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 exposed the strengths and

weaknesses of our great country. We saw firsthand the impact of

critical personnel and needed skills in our national security agencies. These events also gave us a preview of the problems we will

face tomorrow if these skills are not strengthened.

Federal agencies did not have the critical personnel with the language capabilities needed to investigate the attacks. Some agencies, like the FBI, were forced to post urgent job announcements

for foreign language speakers to translate and investigate crucial

evidence. According to the President’s Science Advisor, there is not

enough scientific expertise in government to evaluate proposals to

combat terrorism in a timely fashion.

In today’s Washington Post, we are reminded that agencies have

a shortage of analysts to translate and analyze the large volumes

of intelligence data acquired since U.S. forces entered Afghanistan.

This has led some officials to admit that there is a risk that information valuable to our efforts against terrorism could slip through.

The importance of national security critical skills in government

has been recognized for some time. Congress passed a National Defense Education Act of 1958 in response to the Soviet Union’s first

space launch. We were determined to win the space race and make

certain that the United States never came up short again in the

areas of math, science, technology, or foreign languages.

2

Members of this Subcommittee have worked on this issue more

recently. Under the guidance of Senator Cochran, this Subcommittee held a hearing a year and a half ago to define more

clearly the United States’ need for foreign language proficiency and

to examine whether appropriate resources were made available to

strengthen these skills among Federal workers.

At that time, we heard that the intelligence community lacked

individuals with the translating skills needed to respond in times

of crisis. Last March, Senator Voinovich held a hearing on the national security implications of the human capital crisis. Witnesses

from that hearing sent a strong message that strengthening math,

science, and foreign language capabilities in government is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else in our U.S. national

security complex.

Let me thank Senator Cochran and Senator Voinovich for their

leadership in these areas. Senator Voinovich has also asked me to

announce that he thinks this hearing is very important, and although he has been unavoidably delayed, he expects to be here

later.

I also want to thank Senator Thompson who has been one of the

leaders on this issue, and I want to thank him for his leadership.

Our math, science and foreign language capabilities in the Federal Government are at risk and there is no quick solution. It has

taken years of neglect to reach this deficit in trained workers, and

it will take sustained efforts to hire, retain, and retrain employees

with critical skills.

We must use every tool at our disposal to defend America against

present and future threats. To do this, we must ensure that the talented people in government have the right expertise to meet their

changing missions.

Senators Durbin, Thompson, and I introduced S. 1800, the

Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act, as a comprehensive,

long-term approach to addressing these shortfalls in government. I

am pleased that the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, as well as Senators Voinovich and Collins, are cosponsors of S. 1800. This bipartisan approach takes an important

step toward recruiting more people into government with critical

national security skills.

Complementing this legislation is S. 1799, the Homeland Security Education Act, which addresses shortages of those students

pursuing degrees in math, science, and critical foreign languages.

The Homeland Security Education Act proposes several measures

to ensure that government preserves its expertise in matters of national security.

This bill increases student loan forgiveness programs for those

who work in positions of national security and offers fellowships for

existing Federal employees and those who commit to serve in Federal national security positions.

It offers a rotational assignment program for mid-level Federal

employees and provides training and professional development opportunities. We must make certain that those entering Federal

service have the needed skills and that our existing workforce has

the opportunity to acquire specialized training. As we seek new

3

government employees, we cannot ignore the people whose expertise and talents guide agencies daily in meeting their missions.

With our witnesses’ help, we will explore the skills that agencies

need to accomplish their current national security missions and

how the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act can help meet

the challenges of strengthening these skills in the future.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and I look

forward to an interesting and lively discussion. And now I would

like to yield to my friend and colleague and one of the leaders in

this effort, Senator Thompson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON

Senator THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing today. It is becoming more and

more obvious that you are dealing with a very important issue and

one that is vital to our national security.

I think when the Hart-Rudman report came out, for example, we

all became even more acutely aware, and, of course, the events of

last fall, that we cannot be where we need to be without the right

kind of people, and we are losing too many of the right kind of people that we are going to need in the future, especially with regard

to some of these particularly vital areas.

That, of course, is what our bill that you referred to tries to do.

I think some legitimate points have been made concerning overlap

and duplication and how it all fits together, and those are valid

points. We need to work our way through all that. Hopefully, this

will be an opening opportunity, a first step, to start the discussion

as to where we need to wind up. So I am looking forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say, and so with that, I will cease

and desist and ask that my full statement be made a part of the

record.

Senator AKAKA. Without objection, it will be included in the

record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Thompson follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for holding this hearing, and for your

efforts to ensure that the Committee and the Subcommittee both continue to focus

on Federal workforce issues. I can think of few who deserve our consideration more

right now than those are making and will continue to make our country safe.

Clearly, in today’s environment, national security and the battle against terrorism

enjoy substantial attention and support. And it is gratifying to know that many Federal employees who have long toiled in relative obscurity are now getting the recognition they deserve.

But as experts have noted and as common sense will tell you, these sentiments

are not enough to guarantee a robust, capable national security workforce. Instead,

it is our job to make sure that the right incentives, programs, and laws are in place

to give this workforce the people it needs to get the job done. As the frightening

events of last fall highlighted, there are critical shortages among our national security employees, and these will get worse—not better—with inaction. This is the

thrust of the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Bill.

We should also realize that, despite the rapt focus by all Americans on serious

events here and overseas, any successful workforce strategy must address the long

term. And in the long term, the Federal Government must worry about its ability

to attract employees who can be romanced away by higher salaries and better opportunities for advancement.

Therefore, this bill takes an important step in providing the incentives to make

careers in national security appealing. Young people may be attracted to help defend the country because of patriotism, and I hope they are. But we realize that

4

1The prepared statement of Mr. Winstead appears in the Appendix on page 40.

exactly because they are some of the best and brightest, they are presented with

attractive and lucrative offers from private business, and will weigh financial concerns and the potential for advancement in their final decision. Our bill does not

just look to new hires, because they constitute an investment in the distant future.

In the near future, the national security workforce will depend on retaining the experienced people already on the job. That is why the bill establishes the National

Security Service Corps, which will provide an exciting and professionally rewarding

opportunity for middle managers. And finally, because the inability of agencies to

set goals and to drive towards those goals is a chronic problem, the bill tells agencies to address their national security human capital needs in their performance and

strategic plans. I believe that, if agencies are pushed in the planning direction long

enough, some of them may eventually get it.

This bill really is just the first step in a long march, because the Federal

workforce’s national security problems are truly disturbing. The General Accounting

Office, in a report released 2 months ago, found that ‘‘all four of the agencies it surveyed reported shortages of translators and interpreters as well as shortages of

staff, such as diplomats and intelligence specialists, with foreign language skills

that are critical to successful job performance. Agency officials stated that these

shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law

enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.’’

But our problems are not confined to the area of language expertise. The specter

of nuclear terrorism looms, but we face it with an Nuclear Regulatory Commission

and an Energy Department with that are having human capital problems. Bioterrorism directed at the food chain would be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture, which is also in the midst of personnel shortfalls. For example, the GAO

found that ‘‘food safety, in which USDA plays a major role, continues to suffer from

inconsistent oversight, poor coordination, and inefficient deployment of resources.’’

At the same time, it is important to get the answer right. Though the issues I’ve

outlined are real, I’m not sure the solution is to pile new programs on top of existing

programs if these have not been successful. Before we throw dollars at these workforce problems, we need to look at whether we should consider blending our initiatives with the other proposals—legislative and otherwise—that are currently in

play.

After all, the issue of personnel reform is not new. True, this is a serious problem,

and we don’t have the luxury of endless debate. But I suspect that if you could tear

away some of the layers here, you would see an age-old discussion about how to attract the best talent to government.

So today, I’m looking forward to beginning a process. We have representatives

from some of the agencies this bill would affect, and I’m eager to hear from them

about the health of their national security workforces and what it may take to fix

them. We’ll also hear science and language experts tell us, governmentwide, where

the shortcomings are in our most important jobs. And I look forward to listening

to the Office of Personnel Management, which will ultimately bear responsibility for

implementing our plan.

Senator AKAKA. I would like to welcome our first panel. I want

to thank Donald Winstead from the Office of Personnel Management, Sheri Farrar of the FBI, Ruth Whiteside of the Department

of State, Ginger Groeber of the Department of Defense, and Harvey

Davis of the National Security Agency for being with us this afternoon.

Mr. Winstead, you may proceed with your statement and your

full statements will be included in the record. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF DONALD J. WINSTEAD,1 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Mr. WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. I am Don Winstead. I serve as Assistant Director for Compensation Administration for the Office of Personnel

Management. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

5

today to discuss S. 1800, the Homeland Security Federal Workforce

Act.

The events of September 11 forever changed the Federal Government’s personnel requirements. Every agency must now consider

its work and mission in a new context, one that was nearly unimaginable before. The skills needed by agencies to fulfill their expanded homeland security missions are diverse and in many cases

unique to the particular mission of the agency.

The administration is committed to addressing the human capital needs of the national security agencies, working with this Subcommittee, and supports the concept underlying S. 1800.

We strongly support efforts to ensure that the Federal workforce

has the people it needs to fulfill homeland security missions and

we stand ready to work with the sponsors of this legislation to

achieve our mutual goals.

S. 1800 would provide special new programs for those components of the Executive Branch that have traditionally been designated as national security agencies. For those agencies, it would

provide an enhanced student loan repayment program, a fellowship

program comparable to the recently implemented Scholarship for

Service Program, and a program to encourage details of employees

between national security agencies. These are all concepts worth

studying further.

We would urge consideration of these concepts within the context

of existing programs and flexibilities. For example, the current program for the repayment of student loans for Federal employees has

been operating only for a relatively brief period. As agencies become more familiar with the program and its framework, we expect

to see greater and more effective use. We believe any consideration

of enhancements to the program should reflect those experiences.

The administration is concerned about the establishment of a

separate fund for this worthy purpose. We are continuing to work

with agencies to assist them in using their individual salaries and

expenses funding to target the recruitment and retention incentives

that will be most effective for their specific needs. We believe allowing agencies to make these decisions is appropriate since we are ultimately holding them accountable.

Title II of S. 1800 creates a fellowship program for graduate students to enter Federal service in national security positions. While

we question the necessity and effectiveness of creating a new board

to administer the program, we support the concept of this title,

which resembles that of the Scholarship for Service Program currently operating to bolster the government’s information assurance

infrastructure.

The National Security Corps concept also parallels existing authorities. The option of broadening an employee’s perspective

through rotational assignments among organizations is one we include in many of our current programs including the highly regarded Presidential Management Intern Program.

Typically, the programs that include such opportunities are not

limited to a particular area such as national security. However, it

is important to note in turn that the administration’s concept of national security is a broad one. Every agency must be concerned

with how its role and mission links to national security concerns.

6

Personnel in the Centers for Disease Control working on bioterrorism solutions, Customs inspectors developing new strategies to

assure the safety of containers imported into the United States,

and Federal Emergency Management Agency personnel working on

improving evacuation procedures and fire safety precautions—these

are just a few of the Federal employees whose work involves national security, but who have traditionally not been thought of as

part of the national security workforce.

We believe S. 1800 should be considered within the context of

other human resource management proposals such as those in the

administration’s Managerial Flexibility Act. That act offers a number of initiatives that would help address the human capital needs

related to national security in the broader sense.

Senators Thompson and Voinovich have introduced bills containing these important governmentwide proposals, which will benefit all Federal agencies, even those whose roles in national security matters have not previously been given recognition.

The administration looks forward to the upcoming hearings to be

held on the President’s legislative proposal. As a package, these

new and expanded authorities will empower Federal managers to

make the decisions and cultivate a workforce that can lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness in Federal programs and which

can respond to the changing dynamics of the economy and the challenges of a changing world, and we believe all of this can be accomplished without changing the veterans’ preference laws that have

long been a cornerstone of the civil service.

This concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer any

questions.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Winstead. Before I

call on Ms. Farrar, I would like to yield to my friend, Senator Cochran.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I especially appreciate your kind remarks during your opening statement. I welcome the witnesses who are testifying before our Subcommittee today. I think this legislation will provide some needed

incentives to help deal with the problems we have in foreign language education and recruitment, training of people who are essential if we are to achieve success in our effort to provide security for

our citizens.

Following the tragic events of September 11, I think our earlier

concerns that we had discussed in previous hearings and efforts to

attract attention to this serious problem have been magnified, and

the reality has set in now, and we need to get busy and do something. I think the time for talking about the problem is over. We

need action and your presence here and your support for our efforts

are deeply appreciated. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Ms. Farrar, will you

please give your statement.

7

1The prepared statement of Mr. Farrar appears in the Appendix on page 46.

TESTIMONY OF SHERI A. FARRAR,1 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MARGARET R. GULOTTA,

CHIEF OF THE LANGUAGE SERVICES UNIT, AND LEAH

MEISEL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND PERSONNEL

OFFICER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Ms. FARRAR. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I, too, want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to talk about the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act. My name is Sheri Farrar, and I am the

Assistant Director of the Administrative Services Division of the

FBI.

I am here today representing Director Mueller. I am joined today

on my left by Margaret Gulotta, who is the Section Chief of our

Language Services Section, and sitting directly behind me is Leah

Meisel, who is the Deputy Assistant Director and Personnel Officer

for the FBI.

You have my written statement before you. Today I only want to

take a few moments to highlight some of the points in that statement.

First, there is no question that the critical skill needs of the FBI

have changed over the last several years, and those critical needs

have been further heightened by the events of September 11. The

FBI faces the same challenges of all agencies in keeping pace with

advances in technology. Our challenge is twofold: To support our

day-to-day computer and information technology needs, and to advance our technical and scientific programs to ensure our ability to

exploit the advances in technology that confront us in our investigative and intelligence collection and exploitation initiatives.

We have always needed foreign language capabilities, but the

languages deemed most critical have certainly changed. Obviously,

Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages have now become our

highest priorities. We have emphasized these skill needs in our recruiting strategies. For agents we have placed at the highest priority for both recruiting and processing those who have computer

science and information technology abilities, physical and natural

sciences, engineering, and foreign languages.

For our support employees, we are seeking to recruit individuals

who have the analytical capability to serve in our intelligence research specialist positions. Again, those with foreign language capabilities and with computer and information technology skills.

The FBI has an aggressive hiring recruiting plan this year. We

are seeking to bring over 900 agents and over 1,400 support employees on board this year. Now, as never before, our recruitment

strategies are focused on hiring people with the critical skills I

have mentioned.

We are cautiously optimistic. At our recruiting results so far, we

have received an extraordinary number of applications, and as we

review those, we are finding highly qualified candidates. Of course,

we still need to get them through our background process.

Let me speak briefly about S. 1800. Like all agencies confronting

today’s new challenges, we welcome any program that enhances

8

1The prepared statement of Ms. Whiteside appears in the Appendix on page 53.

our competitiveness in attracting and retaining talent so that we

do certainly support the concept of the legislation.

In that regard, I would like to make a few observations concerning the student loan repayment provisions in the bill. As you

know, the FBI is in the excepted service. Consequently, as drafted,

we are concerned that many of our employees may not be eligible

under the provisions of the bill.

The FBI is fortunate to already have existing guidance allowing

for repayment of student loans, and it is not limited to solely national security positions. Although we have just recently received

this ability, therefore it has made it difficult for us to tell whether

or not it is going to help us to recruit and retain individuals.

We also remain concerned that the bill as written creates additional levels of bureaucracy to include the administration of the

funding, which may have the tendency to inhibit the use of these

flexibilities. We are grateful, however, that the Subcommittee is interested in supporting our national security mission by developing

programs to enhance our ability to attract the skills we need to be

successful. And we look forward to working with you as these programs are developed.

In that regard, we strongly encourage you to also consider the

flexibilities available under the administration’s proposed Managerial Flexibility Act. This act as written provides agencies with

greater ability to address today’s complex workforce issues.

I thank you again for the opportunity to address you. This concludes my formal testimony. Mrs. Meisel, Mrs. Gulotta and I are

happy to answer your questions at the appropriate time. Thank

you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Farrar. Ms. Whiteside, please present your statement.

TESTIMONY OF RUTH A. WHITESIDE,1 PRINCIPAL DEPUTY

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF HUMAN RESOURCES,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Ms. WHITESIDE. Thank you, sir. I welcome this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on behalf of the Department of

State. A year or so ago I was privileged to appear before a similar

hearing chaired by Senator Cochran on language issues in my

former job as the Deputy Director of the Foreign Service Institute

at the State Department, and we are keenly aware of the need to

emphasize languages and the leadership shown well before September 11 and certainly the interest of the Congress now.

My prepared statement, sir, is also a part of the record, but the

most important point I would like to make today is to underscore

our view that our diplomats and our diplomacy all around the

world are indeed, as this legislation indicates, a part of the national security strategy of the United States as well as our foreign

policy strategy.

Secretary Powell has provided us terrific leadership on these

issues over the last year. With his very strong support, the strong

support of the administration, and of the Congress, we are in the

first year of what we hope will be a 3-year diplomatic readiness iniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Nov 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 79886.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
9

tiative which will allow us to begin to fill the personnel gaps we

have across the board at the State Department in all of our categories.

We have a very aggressive recruiting campaign underway now,

and we are already eagerly using the tools available to us, the current student loan program, and we are interested in the concepts

that underlie this legislation and an increased use of those tools.

For the current student loan repayment program, we are only now

designing our program under the new legislation, but I think I

would simply underscore the fact that agencies will want to have

as much flexibility as we can in designing these programs so that

we can be sure that they focus on our particular recruitment and

retention needs.

We would also want to be sure that the legislation allows us a

way to include the Foreign Service in this. Currently our student

loan program will address both Foreign Service and civil service requirements, and so we would hope that would be the case with any

new legislation.

We were also very interested in the various fellowship concepts

that are in this legislation. We have some excellent experience with

fellowship programs now. On the Foreign Service side, we have a

Pickering Fellows Program which does underwrite undergraduate

and graduate education for promising Foreign Service candidates.

We are using the National Security Education Program as a recruitment pool for very talented young men and women who have

done studies in languages or other national security areas. These,

I think, are exactly the kinds of programs we need to identify the

best and the brightest for our Nation’s foreign service.

On the student loan program, I would simply say one of the

things that is clear to us since September 11, sir, is interest in public service and interest in the Foreign Service and the civil service

at the State Department has never been higher.

When we gave the Foreign Service written exam in September,

13,000 people showed up on a Saturday morning to take the test,

just a few weeks after the tragic September 11 events. That was

the largest number of takers of the Foreign Service exam in recent

years. We are giving that exam again in April. The registration

closes today, and we have an even greater registration than we had

in September. So I think the point is young men and women are

very interested in careers in public service, careers in foreign affairs, or in the other agencies.

They do arrive on our doorstep in many cases with a terrific education, but one that they have paid a very high price to get, and

I think the tools that helps us offset those loans, the tools that help

us give them some competitive ability for us to reach them—one of

the problems with the National Security Education Program is

these young men and women have an obligation to work in the

Federal Government, but they must apply and come into the Federal Government through the normal application procedures, and it

would be great to find some ways that we could reach them more

quickly.

In all of these areas, we are very eager to work with the Congress, to work with OPM and our other colleagues to design as

10

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

many tools as we can to meet these critical national requirements.

Thank you, sir.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for your statement, Ms. Whiteside.

Ms. Groeber, you may give your opening statement now.

TESTIMONY OF GINGER GROEBER,1 ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Ms. GROEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to appear before you and the Subcommittee today to discuss your legislation. I have limited my remarks to 5 minutes and ask that my

prepared testimony be included in the Subcommittee’s record.

At this pivotal time, we certainly share the Subcommittee’s interest in ensuring that this and other Federal agencies have language,

science, mathematics, and engineering expertise that is needed to

support our national security.

We appreciate the strategic approach that you and your cosponsors and the Subcommittee have taken on this issue. We also appreciate the persistent and collaborative efforts of Senator

Voinovich and his staff in addressing human resource management

issues.

Mr. Chairman, your legislation is timely. As you know, the Department of Defense is emerging from a decade of downsizing. Our

workforce is smaller and better educated. While the number of employees in science, mathematics, and engineering occupations has

decreased since 1989, their percentage measured against other occupational disciplines is increasing. The challenge of building and

maintaining a diverse language proficient workforce continues.

With respect to the legislation, we support increases in the

annual loan for the repayment amount and in the overall cap on

repayment of student loans. We believe that proposals for loan payments and graduate fellowships are very useful incentives in recruiting and retaining a highly qualified workforce.

We are concerned that a centralized program of loan repayment

and a single authority for determining positions eligible for graduate fellowship would diminish the flexibilities we need to implement these programs.

In addition, we want to harmonize any new programs with those

career development activities the department now operates. We

would also strongly urge the Subcommittee and indeed the Congress to provide favorable consideration to the expanded and

streamlined improvements in the administration’s Managerial

Flexibility Act.

While I am not an expert in science, mathematics, engineering,

and language disciplines, I would like to respond in general to the

questions posed by the Subcommittee.

Expertise in science, math, and engineering skills is a cornerstone of our national security capabilities. These skills are needed

to ensure the quality of the work performed in our laboratories as

well as our interaction with the industrial base.

Foreign language expertise is an essential factor in the national

security readiness. With respect to the future, there will be an inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Nov 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 79886.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
11

1The prepared statement of Mr. Davis appears in the Appendix on page 68.

creasing demand in all areas of electrical engineering and computer

science. All key service platforms, ships, planes, and tanks are

using more complex systems. System engineering will be an increasingly important skill for both technical and non-technical positions.

Translation and interpretation skills and knowledge are increasingly important combat force multipliers and mission enhancers.

Financial assistance is always helpful when competing for the

best and the brightest and in retaining them in our workforce.

There is some question as to whether financial incentives can fully

ensure the quality of science and engineering employees we seek.

Often truly innovative scientists and engineers are driven by

strong intellectual curiosity rather than economics. In addition, we

have found that the flexibility in hiring these scientists expeditiously is equally important.

With respect to language proficiency, we believe that a more coordinated approach in providing financial assistance and career development would be very useful.

There have been a number of changes over the last several years.

Prior to the year 2000, the military departments generated their

requirements for language and skill areas based upon two major

theater war scenarios, largely focusing on language and area tasks

within the intelligence services.

Requirements in special operations, foreign affairs, and field

units will now be incorporated. The Department of Defense’s foreign language program strategy is changing the way we recruit,

the list of languages that we train in, and the language task to be

performed in our management of these valuable assets.

In summary, we look forward to working with the Subcommittee

to address these critical challenges in a strategic, flexible, and balanced approach. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

This concludes my remarks and I would be glad to answer any

questions.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Groeber. Mr. Davis,

you may proceed with your statement.

TESTIMONY OF HARVEY A. DAVIS,1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,

HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of

the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Harvey Davis. I am Director of Human Resources at

the National Security Agency.

The NSA is the Nation’s cryptologic organization, and as such

employs this country’s premier codemakers and codebreakers. A

high technology organization, NSA is on the cutting edge of information technology. Founded in 1952, NSA is a separately organized

agency within the Department of Defense and supports military

customers and national policymakers.

I would like to begin my statement by addressing the significance

of strong math, science, and foreign language expertise at NSA,

how the events of September 11 have affected our need for technical and analytic skills and the skills required for the future.

12

NSA’s workforce possesses a wealth of critical skills and expertise and is composed of mathematicians, intelligence analysts, linguists, computer scientists, and engineers.

In the spring of 1999, the Director of NSA initiated transformation of our workforce designed to focus our employees on the

mission, change our ethos, and maintain staffing levels in critical

areas. The events of September 11 reinforced our need to transform

the agency, confirmed that we were on the right path, showed that

we must increase the pace of that transformation, and ultimately

underscored the value of people and their contribution to producing

intelligence.

If nothing else, the events of September 11 highlighted the fact

that there is no single solution to the threats facing our Nation.

Therefore, a balanced multidisciplinary approach is the only answer. Teams of individuals with varied skills working together employing the latest technology in a collaborative and creative manner are our best defense against the threats of the 21st Century.

To create collaborative teams, NSA relies on the unique combination of specialties. Analysts, engineers, physicists, mathematicians,

linguists, and computer science are key to that mix. These individuals team as necessary to meet ever-changing requirements.

For example, cryptanalysts use mathematics, computer programming, engineering, and language skills as well as new technologies

and creativity to solve complex intelligence problems.

Certainly these skills will always be critical requirements for the

NSA. With the increased volume, velocity, and variety of globalized

network communications, there has been a growing need for our

technical employees to have expertise in new skill areas.

Among these key areas are network security, vulnerability analysis, and public key infrastructure. There has been a similar broadening in the scope of contributions of our language analysts, who

are now going well beyond their traditional applications to tackle

network exploitation and signals intelligence development.

The blurring of the lines between technical and analytic disciplines is an ongoing and inevitable outcome of the increasing

technical nature of our work and the sophistication and complexity

of the target. The continued need for competent and near-native

language capability is also critical to our success.

How have our skill needs changed over the last several years?

Well, in the mid 1990’s, NSA looked to technology as the solution

for many of the complex challenges and focused its hiring and development initiatives on technical skills at the expense of language

and analysts.

However, the loss over the last several years of experienced linguists and analysts has created difficulties for the agency in the

areas of target knowledge, less commonly taught languages and

training for the next generation.

As we strive for a better balance, we have tried to maintain a

robust and fairly consistent mathematics hiring program, looked

more to private industry and contracting for technical skills, reenergized our linguist and analyst hiring, and revitalized our

cryptologic reserve program.

The Department of Defense and its components develop and

maintain strategies and programs for ensuring the recruitment and

13

professional development of its employees, and NSA is taking full

advantage of a wide variety of these programs under our existing

authorities. NSA has hired approximately half its fiscal year 2002

hiring program to date, building on the successes of a successful

last year.

Like many other agencies, NSA has struggled in the past to attract top talent to the government, yet we have had success in attracting new recruits with the quality, complexity, depth, and scope

of our work, our commitment to continuing education and development, paying of foreign language bonuses and incentives, targeted

hiring and retention bonuses, continuing education opportunities

and work life initiatives. All those benefits and programs notwithstanding, the market continues to be a challenge for us.

In conclusion, our people remain the key to NSA’s future. We are

committed to recruiting, hiring, and retaining highly educated,

technically sophisticated and readily adaptable core of skilled individuals required to meet the mission challenges posed by the new

targets and technologies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members

of the Subcommittee, for giving us the opportunity to speak to you

today.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I would like to thank all

of you for your statements. I have some questions for you and the

Subcommittee has questions. Nearly a year ago, OPM issued regulations for the current Student Loan Repayment Authority after

Senators Durbin, Voinovich and I added an amendment to the DoD

Authorization Act to ensure the program’s implementation.

As you know, departments now have the authority to provide

this recruitment and retention incentive using funds from their existing salary and expense accounts. Mindful of agencies’ expanded

homeland security missions, our bill would establish funding separate from S&E accounts for student loan repayment.

The question is how are your agencies using this new flexibility

and would your agencies increase the use of this authority if there

was funding apart from the S&E accounts? Mr. Winstead.

Mr. WINSTEAD. As you pointed out, the regulations on this new

program were implemented last year, and in fact the final regulations were not issued until I believe August or late July. So there

was really only a couple of months left in the fiscal year for agencies to put together their plans. We know that several agencies

have, in fact, used this new authority, and we have information

about how those agencies have used the authority.

It has been used so far in only a handful of cases. We are confident, however, that as agencies become more familiar with the

use of this program that their use of this flexibility will continue

to increase.

I would have to defer to other agencies regarding the question

about how they would use this program if separate funding were

available. My only observation on that point is that our belief is

that it is important if we are going to be holding agencies accountable for how they are using their resources to make sure that they

make the case for the use of additional funds, to build that into

their own budget request, so that we can hold them accountable for

the use of their salaries and expenses funding for that purpose, and

that is the way that we would prefer to see this program operated.

14

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Farrar.

Ms. FARRAR. As I said, we just recently again got our provisions

in place, so it would be very difficult for me to answer. I do not

know yet how what we have now is going to assist us, whether the

money came from some other place or from the FBI’s funding. It

would be difficult now to know whether or not the difference, being

able to manage it ourselves, using our own money, how that would

counter with using someone else’s money, but also having to follow

the guidance and regulations there. It is just too soon for me to

know the answer.

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Whiteside.

Ms. WHITESIDE. As I mentioned, sir, we are only just now designing our program under this. We have identified in our current S&E

account $2 million for this fiscal year for the program. It is already

clear to us what the demand is and the categories of positions we

will be considering for student loan repayments—which are less

than the maximum allowed under this legislation. We are also still

in the very early stages of defining our target populations and organizing our implementation.

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Groeber.

Ms. GROEBER. The department issued its student loan repayment

plan in October of last year. Both the Army and the Navy have

published their plans and the other components are working on

them. We particularly are interested in your plans on increasing

those amounts because we do think that is going to be key for the

future. So we support that initiative in the legislation.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. We are in the early stages also of looking at that

tool, though it can prove to be a very good tool in the toolbox in

terms of recruitment and hiring.

Senator AKAKA. GAO will testify this afternoon that, ‘‘Foreign

Service officers must be placed in language designated positions at

lower than desired levels of proficiency.’’ S. 1800 would help break

the cycle of having a shortfall of applicants who are fully language

qualified.

Rather than having to increase staff to train people in languages,

our bill and its companion, S. 1799, would train and provide incentives for individuals to obtain the necessary skills before joining the

State Department and not after.

Is that the goal in the Department of State’s diplomatic readiness initiative and, if not, shouldn’t it be?

Ms. WHITESIDE. I think, sir, it is a combination of goals of which

that is certainly one. We do very much focus our recruiting on individuals who already have language skills. We do not in the Foreign

Service make that a requirement for entry. There are a variety of

reasons for that. The Foreign Service is a worldwide service. We

expect our Foreign Service officers over the course of a 30-year career not just to serve in one country or even in one region, but to

be available, as our foreign policy requirements are, to be available

for worldwide service.

So most of them over the course of a career often will bring one

language into the Service with them, but then will acquire another

language or perhaps two other languages in the course of their careers. So I think the answer is targeted recruiting to people with

15

1The information referred to from Mr. Winstead appears in the Appendix on page 124.

language skills is a very key component, and that is why a program such as the National Security Education Act or the kinds of

fellowship programs envisioned here would be very helpful.

But as our foreign policy requirements change from year to year,

I think we also believe we need to keep this flexible capacity to

train our people as well and to retrain them and to strengthen

their skills. We often find people who have not served in a country

where they have the language for some years will spend 3, 4, or

6 months back at the Foreign Service Institute getting that skill

back up to the level of proficiency that they require.

So we support both the goal of increasing the pool of talent that

can bring languages into the service, but we also believe that we

need to continue to meet our requirements by being able to move

quickly to train people in languages as those needs emerge.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Winstead, S. 1800 establishes the National

Security Service Board made up of OPM and certain Federal agencies. The board’s function is to coordinate the bill’s fellowship and

employee rotation programs with workforce planning goals. By

doing so, we hope to ensure that National Security Fellows locate

meaningful and appropriate positions in the Federal Government.

I understand that existing fellowship and recruitment programs

are experiencing high attrition levels. This is particularly true of

the President’s Management Internship Program. Would you provide for the record what fellowship opportunities now exist, governmentwide, as well as those that target specific national security

skills and include the number of participants in each program as

well as the individual program recruitment retention and attrition

levels?

Mr. WINSTEAD. We certainly can provide that information for the

record. I did mention in my prepared testimony the Scholarship for

Service Program that was initiated about 4 years ago. And that is

an example of the kind of fellowship program that I think does

have the potential to be very successful. It was created in order to

deal with information security issues, and it is one that is jointly

operated, managed by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel Management, and I think it has potential for

being very successful in that regard, but we can provide information about all of the programs that are available at the present

time for the record.1

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Farrar, in your testimony, you state that because FBI is in the excepted service, many of its employees would

not be eligible for the loan repayment provisions in S. 1800. However, with the exception of the limitation on national security positions, S. 1800 mirrors the language of 5 U.S.C. Section 5379(a)(2),

regarding ineligible employees.

In addition, OPM has issued regulations on this provision which

state that excepted service employees, those excepted from the competitive service, with the exception of Schedule C employees, may

receive student loan repayment benefits if they are otherwise eligible.

With this in mind, let me ask the following: (1) could you explain

how S. 1800 would not be applicable to the majority of employees

16

at the FBI; (2) if technical amendments are required to include the

FBI under the provisions of this bill, do you have any suggested

language; and (3) assuming then that you are included under S.

1800, how would the provisions of this bill assist you in recruiting

and retaining highly qualified employees?

Ms. FARRAR. OK. It does sound—excuse me for one second—if

the language is exactly the same as it is in the other bill, then it

may be that the majority of our employees would be included as

they are. Perhaps that is our misreading of the way that S. 1800

was written.

If our employees were included in S. 1800, I think, as I said in

my testimony, I believe it would expand the amount of money that

would be available. Our question is we believe right now that we

have been very successful in our recruiting campaign. That is at

least our initial indications. We would want to save these kinds of

flexibilities to recruit where we do find that we are having problems. Right now, because we are still in the early stages of our recruiting, we are not certain what those positions are going to be.

They may well be in the foreign language area, but we have gotten so many applications, and as we are going through those, we

are hopeful that we are going to be able to recruit the employees

we need. I suspect S. 1800 and the other flexibilities that we have

are going to be most useful for us for retention purposes than for

recruiting.

I would agree there is a big desire nowadays to join in public

service, so I think that is helping our recruiting. As we move a couple of years down the road, these may be very helpful to us in our

retention abilities.

Senator AKAKA. This is a question for FBI, Department of Defense, and NSA. How do your agencies identify which skills are

needed, develop recruitment strategies, and make your agencies attractive to individuals with science and technology backgrounds?

Ms. Farrar.

Ms. FARRAR. The Administrative Services Division is responsible

for developing the FBI’s hiring strategies, our recruiting strategies

and identifying what our skill needs are, and we do that by working with our field managers and also working with the individual

program managers at FBI Headquarters to tell us what particular

skills they believe are needed to make their program successful.

For instance, I would go to Mrs. Gulotta in the Language Services Section to find out what the demands have been. She would

be working with the program managers to see what foreign languages are in most need for us to be successful in our investigative

programs, and then we design our recruiting strategies around

what our program managers tell us are the needed skills.

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Groeber.

Ms. GROEBER. We identify the skills necessary based upon what

we have projected is going to occur in the world and looking at it

from the mission perspective of the two theater war initiatives that

we would be able to support.

New things that crop up, such as September 11, add something

to our planning scenario, and we try to overlay that into what

skills would be necessary at that time and add that into the mix.

We receive all of that information from the components, and at the

17

Secretary’s level, we assist in them figuring out how we can indeed

provide those employees with those skills.

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. We do a skills mix analysis against our strategic

goals and that transformation that we talked about, taking into account those people that are attriting and leaving the agency and

those skills that are necessary to prosecute our future mission. To

go after these folks we have an aggressive hiring campaign. We are

out at over 100 schools during the recruiting season, and one of the

things that we found that is really attracting people is the nature

of the work itself, and we have taken to bringing a lot of our technical experts, our actual operational people, to talk to the students

so they can understand the nature of the work that needs to be

done, and that hooks people in.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. And I would like to yield

to Senator Cochran for his questions.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Winstead, it is

clear that this legislation would place some new requirements on

the Office of Personnel Management. Do you know or could you advise us at this point whether you would need additional resources

to accomplish the demands of the new workload?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Well, I think it is clear that if we were to be administering a fund, clearly there would have to be additional resources that would have to be devoted to funding the payments,

and in addition I think there would be some additional administrative expenses associated with doing that. Exactly how much at this

point I am not in a position to say.

Senator COCHRAN. Ms. Farrar, the FBI was recently singled out

in a study by the General Accounting Office entitled ‘‘Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls.’’ In that reference, they talked about your use of the OPM

workforce planning model. Could you tell us how you find that

process helpful to you? Are you familiar with the workforce planning model of OPM?

Ms. FARRAR. I did not have an opportunity to read that report,

but Mrs. Gulotta is familiar with it, and she is in charge of the

Language Services.

Ms. GULOTTA. Actually it has been very helpful. It all starts with

the FBI strategic plan, and we have a foreign language program

plan that goes along with it that sets actual milestones and strategic objectives. We poll our field managers and our program managers at headquarters to find out what the crime or intelligence objectives are, and then we set our language goals and we measure

them against workload measurements that we have.

Every year, we set targeted hiring goals by language. And we do

that for special agents where we actually have targeted languages

that we are looking for for special agents, and also for our language

specialists where we have a funded staffing level, and we have a

specific amount of people that we can hire.

Senator COCHRAN. I congratulate you for winning the praise of

the GAO.

Ms. GULOTTA. Thank you very much, sir. We are very happy

about that.

18

Senator COCHRAN. Let me ask if you have any suggestions about

additional measures that would be useful in improving our ability

to recruit and retain personnel with skills that are critical to national security needs? You or Ms. Farrar or Mr. Winstead?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Sure. I can respond to that. We mentioned the

President’s Managerial Flexibility Act in our testimony. There are

a number of provisions in that proposed legislation that I think

would be helpful to national security agencies as well as to other

Federal agencies.

For example, we would like to build on the recruitment, relocation, and retention payments that are currently in law to make

them more flexible and easier to use and also to permit them to

be delivered in more effective ways to current employees and to

candidates for employment.

In addition, we have in that legislation authority to directly hire

candidates for certain kinds of positions for which there is a shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need, and also the ability if

that legislation were to be enacted to use alternative ranking and

selection procedures which would also facilitate hiring not only for

national security agencies and employees but also for other employees as well.

Senator COCHRAN. This is the legislation the president has recommended?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes.

Senator COCHRAN. Is it not? And that has been introduced. I

think some witnesses have already referred to the legislation.

Mr. WINSTEAD. That is correct.

Senator AKAKA. I think Senator Thompson and Senator Voinovich have introduced that bill at the request of the administration,

and I am sure it will be a measure that will be carefully considered

in this Subcommittee as we move forward in our effort to try to do

something legislatively to help improve the situation.

We really do need to find ways to improve recruitment and retention. Ms. Whiteside, you talked about some of these challenges in

your statement. We appreciate your being here. Do you have any

comments now about what you think the bill itself would or would

not do? Are we overstating it or should we include something that

we have left out? What are your views?

Ms. WHITESIDE. I think, sir, my views, to echo what my colleagues have said there really is a war for talent out there, and we

know that many, many young people want to join and do the work

we do. We need ways to shorten our own process for getting them

in the door. We are working very hard on that internally. We have

reduced our own Foreign Service process from the time someone

takes the exam to entering the Foreign Service from 27 months to

about 10 months, and we are moving that down even more.

But I think tools, for example, that might give fellowship participants some sort of non-competitive eligibility. It takes us still nearly a year to bring a new Foreign Service employee in the door. That

is partly because we, like most agencies, have very serious and exacting security clearance requirements that may not be there for

other agencies, but we find that some of the folks who would like

to join the Department are quite young and in many cases just out

of school and not particularly experienced. For them, the sort of

19

1 Requested information from Ms. Groeber appears in the Appendix on page 148.

normal civil service competitive process becomes something that

they are just not particularly willing to invest the time to do.

So anything that shortens that process gives agencies more flexibility to reach out and find the people they need. I would also emphasize our concern right now probably more than recruitment are

retention issues: For example, as people move through their careers

into the mid-ranks, have families, particularly for overseas employees, where family issues and the inability of spouses often to work,

means that many of our Foreign Service employees cannot really

have a two-income family overseas that is often the norm here. Our

retention issues really are increasingly as or more important for us

than recruiting.

Senator COCHRAN. Ms. Groeber, I was going to ask you particularly about the high attrition rate among Army language specialists, and am wondering whether or not you have an opinion about

the issues that lead to that high attrition rate and whether you

have thoughts about what could be done to curb the exodus of

skilled personnel?

Ms. GROEBER. You are talking about the military specialist?

Senator COCHRAN. Yes.

Ms. GROEBER. I would have to get back to you and provide that

for the record since I am not an expert on the military side.1

Senator COCHRAN. OK. Mr. Davis, you mentioned in your statement, the market—and I quote here—‘‘The market continues to be

a challenge for us.’’

I wonder if you have any plans or past practices in developmental programs with universities to improve your ability to recruit qualified personnel for the National Security Agency?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. And, sir, we use our math program as really an

example of that, and what we found is that the sooner you get in

contact with students, the better chance you have to employ them.

So, in terms, for example, in our mathematics area, we have things

called the Mathematics Education Partnership Program, where we

have a math speakers bureau, an NSA partnership with schools,

we have summer institutes, camps for teachers and students, educational partnerships and grants, excess equipment program, USA

Math Talent Search, and we are—in the math community, we are

locked in with key professors who make decisions at the universities as well as the math community throughout the country.

So using that as a model and moving that to other skills, that

would be the direction that we would be moving in.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. I want

to thank you for your statements and your responses. All of that

will be useful to this Subcommittee. Thank you very much.

I am pleased to welcome the Hon. Lee H. Hamilton, Director of

the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, as our second panelist.

Mr. Hamilton served for 34 years as a U.S. Congressman from

Indiana, where he was chairman of the Committee on International

20

1The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton appears in the Appendix on page 73.

Relations. Mr. Hamilton was also chairman of the Joint Economic

Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

In his own State of Indiana, Mr. Hamilton has worked hard to

improve the education, job training, and infrastructure programs of

its citizens, and is now Director of the Center on Congress Project

at Indiana University. It is a pleasure to welcome a friend that I

had the privilege to serve with in the U.S. House of Representatives. So thank you very much for being here today, and you may

proceed with your statement.

TESTIMONY OF HON. LEE H. HAMILTON,1 DIRECTOR OF THE

WOODROW WILSON CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS, FORMER MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran, thank you

for the opportunity. I really do commend you and your Subcommittee and its Members for tackling this problem of the human

dimension to national security. I think I am here largely not so

much because of my congressional experience but because I served

on the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century,

and they devoted a considerable part of their report to the problems that you are addressing here in S. 1800 and S. 1799.

You may know that two of your former colleagues headed that

commission, Senators Rudman and Hart, and that it was initially

established by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Cohen and I think the

idea for the commission arose with Speaker Gingrich, and he

served on the commission. But one of the unanimous points of the

commission—we really had no disagreement on this at all—it was

a principal conclusion, was that the Federal Government must

focus more attention and resources on the human requirements for

national security.

There was a real sense of urgency among members of the commission on that. You look at so many things when you consider national security, and all of them are important I guess, but anybody

who operates any kind of an organization will tell you that in the

end, it is the people that count. Are they qualified, committed people? And I do not care how good your technology is or how good

your system is, if you do not have good people you are not going

to get good results.

We said that the maintenance of American power in the world

depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil and

military at all levels. And we said that we must take immediate

action in the personnel area to ensure that the United States can

meet future challenges.

We considered this business of qualified personnel to be of fundamental importance to the national security of the United States.

And we felt that the need of the U.S. Government in both civilian

and military capacities, but particularly people in science, math,

engineering, and languages, was not being met by the present system and that something had to be done.

We emphasized the importance of promoting high quality education in these areas, which we deemed critical to the national seVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Nov 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 79886.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
21

curity, and we concluded that the capacity of our educational system to create a 21st Century workforce second to none in the world

is a national security issue of the first order.

And if we do not reverse the negative trends—the general teaching shortage, the downward spiral in science and math education

and performance, we will not be able to maintain our position of

global leadership.

So that is the principal point. There was among all of us with

all of our different political views and ideologies a unanimous,

strongly felt conclusion of the urgency of this problem. And in today’s world, we need those kind of people. We found that the U.S.

Government has not focused sufficiently on the fit between the missions it has, on the one hand and the personnel it needs, on the

other.

Now, I do not want to in any way cast doubt upon the people

who preceded me. They are all experts on government personnel,

and I am not. I know they are very well intentioned, and I am sure

they have a good many suggestions to make to Members of this

Subcommittee, but I think what we find missing here something

that cuts across departments and agencies and gives overall direction to our personnel needs now and in the future.

The national security workforce—let me focus on that for just a

minute—we face, as they said a moment ago, a serious problem in

attracting and retaining talented people. I am not sure I heard

enough of the testimony, but I got the impression that they are at

least moderately satisfied with the way the present systems are

working.

We would not agree with that. We do not think that the present

system, however described, is working satisfactorily. Part of the

problem, of course, is that the private sector can attract these talented people with higher salaries.

An additional problem, we think, is that the civil service today

simply does not offer the kind of opportunities for growth and development that you get in the private sector today. And we supported the idea that, I think, is incorporated in S. 1800 of a National Security Service Corps. We recommended the establishment

of that corps to broaden the experience base of departmental managers and to develop leaders who are skilled at producing integrated solutions to the national security problems.

So I strongly support S. 1800 for the establishment of that National Security Service Corps. I think that it correctly points out

that it would help to invigorate the national security community.

One of the things we said in our report, and I am paraphrasing

now, is that there is no place in the U.S. Government where

science and technology personnel assets, as a whole, are assessed

against the changing needs. We have had a lot of studies made of

this in the government. The General Accounting Office has looked

at it. The Congressional Research Service has looked at it. The now

defunct Office of Technology Assessment has explored the issue.

They look at individual departments and individual agencies,

and indeed it is interesting that the people preceding me were, I

think, from five or six different agencies or departments all looking

at the problem as they should from their particular perspective, the

22

FBI’s perspective, the Office of Personnel Management perspective,

and so forth.

But we felt that no one above the departmental level examines

the appropriateness of this fit between missions and personnel in

the area as a whole. I cannot speak for all of the commissioners

obviously, but your proposals with regard to student loan payment

and fellowships, I think are on the mark.

We made very similar recommendations in the National Security

Commission Report. We recommended the deferral of student loan

repayments for individuals who serve in government for a period

of time. And we proposed the Congress expand the National Security Education Act to include broad support for social sciences, humanities and foreign languages.

Now I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether you are also interested in my comments on S. 1799 as well, or do you just want me

to confine my remarks to S. 1800?

Senator AKAKA. Why do you not proceed with that?

Mr. HAMILTON. OK. I will try to be quick with regard to S. 1799.

We concluded here that the need for trained people in science and

math, computer sciences, and engineering is simply not being met,

and we found, for example, that more than 240,000 new and qualified science and math teachers are needed in our K through 12

classrooms over the next decade. That is out of a total of 2.2 million

new teachers.

We found that some 34 percent of public school mathematics

teachers and nearly 40 percent of science teachers lack even an

academic minor in their primary teaching fields. We found that in

1997, Asia alone accounted for more than 43 percent of all science

and engineering degrees granted worldwide; Europe, 34 percent;

and North America, 23 percent.

In that same year, China produced 148,000 engineers. We produced 63,000 engineers. So something has to be done to accelerate

the development of more qualified people in these areas. We all understand why students do not go into science and math—they are

hard subjects, and you have to work hard in college to tackle those

subjects, and I think you have admired, as I have admired, people

that do that, and you have also, each of you, I am sure, sat on university platforms and watched students receiving engineering,

mathematics, computer science degrees, and said to yourself a

large proportion of those folks are non-American.

Senator AKAKA. Absolutely.

Mr. HAMILTON. Are foreigners. And they are the ones that are

getting the degrees, the advanced degrees in these difficult subjects. That is to their credit and not to our credit that it is happening.

So, we need to produce significantly more scientists and engineers to meet our anticipated demand, not just for the economy but

also for the national defense of the country, and they have to be

produced, I think, fairly quickly.

I might note when I talked about the private sector a moment

ago that the average salary of an entering science and math professional in the private sector today is $50,000. That compares with

$25,000 for the average starting teacher, and keep in mind, as you

very well know, that almost all these students today that are gradVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Nov 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 79886.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
23

uating from college do so with considerable bills to pay, loans to be

repaid. So the salary level makes a bigger difference than you

might initially think when you look at it.

S. 1799, you forgive the interest payments on student loans for

undergraduates that are pursuing these degrees. The only criticism

I would make of that is that I do not think you go far enough. Just

forgiving the interest payments, I do not think is going to help that

much. I am for it, but I think you ought to consider forgiving some

of the principle as well.

I know that costs more money and you have to wrestle with the

priority question, but I think this is an urgent matter. And I would

like to see the student loan repayments extended to the graduate

as well as the undergraduate students, and I think your bill just

extends them to the undergraduates. But I support S. 1799 because

I think it is aimed at this exceedingly difficult problem that we

confront.

Now, let me just comment, if I may, on the testimony here. They

took the view that there are numerous programs in place that promote the goals of this legislation. They say that there are rotations

within the Federal agencies, and that they have student loan repayments and fellowships to encourage people to go into the government service.

They also argue that the legislation that is pending before this

Subcommittee creates a centralized program that would increase

the bureaucracy and reduce the flexibility of individual agencies.

There is something to that, but I think I take the opposite view,

and that is given the urgency that exists in the country, we need

someone in this government at a pretty high level asking the question what are the needs in terms of national security personnel and

how do we get the personnel to meet those needs, rather than to

look at it on an individual agency or department level.

That is important, but you need more central direction. Now they

make the point that you have to have some flexibility, and I think

we would all agree with that. So you have got to strike the right

balance here in your legislation. Overall, I think, as I read the testimony that was presented to you a moment ago, what comes

through to me is a lack of urgency, and I think what the commission members felt, look, you can talk all you want about missiles

and armaments and new weapon systems and everything else, but

we had better begin to focus in this country on getting qualified

people forward in these tough disciplines, including, may I say, the

foreign languages where we are woefully deficient.

So I think more money is needed. Now they claim that they have

incentive programs, and they do in these departments and agencies, but the incentives have to be drawn, as I understand it, from

the pool of money that is there for salaries and so the administrator has to make tradeoffs, incentives for salaries, and I think

you need additional resources so you do not put the administrator

in that kind of a box.

In other words, you need to give him money to provide additional

incentives, and that money must not come out of the pool for salaries. We have got a wave of Federal Government retirements coming up. We have this tremendous need for people with these skills,

and so I think, to conclude, it is a matter of the highest importance

24

to the national security of the United States, nothing is any of

higher importance than to resolve this shortage of qualified people

in the technical skills without which your national security apparatus cannot function well. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. You and

I have known one another for awhile, and my only question for you

is that having listened to or read the testimony of our first panel,

how would you answer those who fault S. 1800 and S. 1799 for

making math, science, and engineering a priority?

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, I just think that is where we are short of

talent and not just mildly short. We are desperately short of talent.

One of the witnesses a moment ago used a phrase I thought was

pretty good. We have got ‘‘a war for talent’’ going on out there, and

believe you me, the private sector needs these people. You all know

how diligently top math and science engineering, computer science

people are recruited by the private sector.

They have got this problem figured out. They know they have got

to have a steady stream of talented people coming into their organization or they are not going to be able to perform, and we are

not either.

Now, I was not a math or a science or an engineering student

for abundant reasons, but I know that is the talent that makes our

technology go, and I know that technology is needed for our national security.

Senator AKAKA. I thank you for your—— Mr. HAMILTON. We have to give favor. We have to provide an additional incentive to those people.

Senator AKAKA. I thank you for pointing out what was missing.

I take this is coming from all of your experiences in important positions for government, and thank you for pointing out that we need

something that can cut across all agencies. I appreciate your support for setting up a national security service corps. All these

things/ideas will be useful to this Subcommittee.

And as I said, I had only one question to ask you so I am going

to yield to my colleagues.

Senator COCHRAN. Do you want to recognize George before you

recognize me?

Senator AKAKA. Yes. May I recognize—— Senator VOINOVICH. I just came in. Let Thad ask a question.

Senator COCHRAN. I think you ought to.

Senator AKAKA [continuing]. Senator Voinovich for any statement

he wishes to make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

Senator VOINOVICH. I am going to ask that my statement be put

in the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to commend you for holding this

hearing on ‘‘Critical Skills for National Security and the Homeland Security Federal

Workforce Act.’’ I would also like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for

being here today.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, reforming the Federal Government’s human capital

management has been one of my highest priorities as a Member of this Committee,

25

and I know that you share my concern with the human capital crisis. You have also

been an important leader on this issue, and I want to thank you personally for attending all of the hearings I held on human capital during the time I chaired the

Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee.

In addition to today’s hearing on S. 1800, you have scheduled two days of hearings next week on my legislation, S. 1603, The Federal Human Capital Act of 2001,

and the proposal I introduced on behalf of the Bush Administration with Senator

Thompson, S. 1639, the Federal Employee Management Reform Act of 2001, and I

would like to further thank you for agreeing to hold these hearings.

In addition to the Committee’s activities, other government offices and agencies

are addressing the human capital crisis. Indeed, David Walker, Comptroller General

of the United States, designated strategic human capital management as a governmentwide high-risk area in January 2001, and has also made elevating the profile

of and developing solutions to this problem a top priority. In August of last year,

the Bush Administration designated strategic management of human capital as its

number one governmentwide management initiative.

In short, a great deal of action has been taken to address this issue over the last

several years, and we are daily building momentum for the passage of reform legislation in Congress.

It is my sincere hope that we can advance legislation through the Governmental

Affairs Committee this spring that will incorporate the best elements of the various

legislative proposals that are before us. I am extremely optimistic that we can enact

legislation this year that will really make a difference to the Federal workforce.

However, we do so knowing that this is but a down payment on reform, and that

a comprehensive examination of issues such as pay, health care benefits, outsourcing (which, as you know, the Committee examined this issue last week), and

the operations of Federal agencies is an urgently needed next step.

Mr. Chairman, last March, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management held a similar hearing on the national security implications of the human

capital crisis. As the former Chairman of that Subcommittee, I had hoped to hold

more hearings on the issue, but I am pleased you have called this hearing to carryon this important discussion.

At the hearing last March, witnesses from the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Department of Defense and the General Accounting Office testified about how the Federal Government’s human capital challenges were endangering America’s national

security establishment and the ability of the government to defend our Nation and

its interests around the world.

Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, in discussing the conclusions of the

Hart-Rudman Commission, made the following insightful observation:

‘‘As it enters the 21st Century, the United States finds itself on the brink

of an unprecedented crisis of competence in government. The maintenance

of American power in the world depends on the quality of U.S. Government

personnel, civil and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action

in the personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet future

challenges.’’

Secretary Schlesinger added further:

‘‘. . . it is the Commission’s view that fixing the personnel problem is a

precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national security policy.’’

Who would dispute Dr. Schlesinger’s assertion?

We know all too well that there are nations and organizations around the world

that have evil intentions against the United States.

The best way for the United States to address our national security is to first and

foremost confront our personnel deficit in the Armed Forces, the intelligence community, Federal law enforcement and our ‘‘front line’’ of defense—our state and local

police, fire and emergency services.

Other committees are looking at why our intelligence establishment failed to predict or prevent the attacks of September 11, but I fully believe that when you peel

away the layers, it will come down to the fact that we had people with inadequate

skills minding the store.

We need to work overtime, Mr. Chairman, to bring the right mix of people into

the Federal Government if we are to confront and defeat terrorism. Our nation’s security literally hangs in the balance.

Mr. Chairman, you and I have joined Senators Durbin, Thompson and other Members of this Committee in introducing S. 1799 and S. 1800, bills which are based,

in part, on the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman panel.

26

These bills include important flexibilities and innovative programs designed to

make the Federal Government a more attractive employer for applicants with academic and professional background in areas critical to national security.

For example, CIA Director Tenet recently noted that, within 3 years, between 30

and 40 percent of his workforce will have been there for 5 years or less. He proposed

overhauling the compensation system to help keep the ‘‘best and brightest,’’ and

those with more experience at the Agency.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Director Tenet’s statement is that the CIA

already has many more personnel flexibilities than most other Federal agencies in

the national security community. One can only imagine how much worse the condition of the workforce is at such agencies.

In recent months, we have received ample evidence of one such deficiency (which

has been examined previously by Senator Cochran). Federal agencies—from the

State Department to the FBI—have a severe shortage of employees who are proficient in foreign languages that are critical to U.S. national security.

A recent article in Government Executive stated that, because of problems with

its personnel databases, the State Department did not even know how many Foreign Service Officers lack the language skills that their positions required. However,

their estimates ranged from 16 to 50 percent!

Mr. Chairman, I still think it’s incredible that in the aftermath of September 11,

we had to advertise for people who speak Arabic and Farsi.

Ambassador Whiteside, given your background as the former director of the Foreign Service Institute where FSOs receive language training, I will be interested in

learning what the State Department is doing to address this problem.

Congress has taken some action to alleviate the skills imbalances in the civilian

workforce at the Department of Defense. Over the last 2 years, I have successfully

amended the Department of Defense authorization act to provide the Department

with separation incentives and early retirement authority to reshape its civilian

workforce to meet future challenges.

I am particularly eager to hear from Ms. Groeber on how the Defense Department

is managing this program, and I would like to compliment her office on its recent

release of the implementation guidelines which provide the military departments

and base leaders significant flexibility in the use of these authorities. The Defense

Department’s use of this authority may well become an example for the entire government.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would note that over a decade has passed since the

first Volcker Commission met and declared that the Federal Government has a

‘‘quiet crisis’’ in the area of human capital. Still, little has been done to address this

problem.

The events of September 11 demonstrate that the United States doesn’t have the

luxury of another decade before our government moves to comprehensively address

the human capital crisis—particularly in our security agencies.

It is encouraging that Mr. Volcker is convening a second commission to further

examine this problem, and I look forward to that panel’s analysis.

However, that is not a reason to wait. We must act.

The swift passage of human capital legislation, building on the base of such bills

as S. 1800 and S. 1603, is needed this year, and I look forward to working with

you, Mr. Chairman, in order to make it happen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today’s discussion.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Akaka knows and so does Senator

Cochran, I have been working on this human capital crisis now for

3 years since I came to the Senate and we have comprehensive legislation that we introduced along with the administration’s, and I

am so pleased that Senator Akaka has put together this special

piece of legislation that deals with our national security agencies.

Congressman Hamilton, you have been around here a long time,

and I am sorry I am late for this hearing, but I was in another

hearing with Senator Jeffords. We had Joe Allbaugh in there, and

he is going to have this new first responder initiative in FEMA. So

everybody is talking about what he should do, and I asked him,

Joe, where are you in terms of your personnel? He said I am in

awful shape. I do not have enough people. And he said many people are coming to me and they are retiring early. He said that,

after September 11, they decided they wanted to spend more time

27

with their wives and their families. And now that they have a

chance, they are going to retire, and they are leaving.

And we have ourselves a really difficult situation. And it is not

only in national security, but it is right across the board. The question is how do we light a fire under this issue and underscore the

urgency of our vulnerability right now? I have read the Hart-Rudman Commission’s report. Senator Cochran, you have been around

here for many years. How do we get our colleagues to understand

how urgent this is?

I mean we are talking about, for example, spending billions of

dollars on a National Missile Defense System. It seems to me that

the No. 1 thing that we should be concentrating our attention on

is how do we keep ‘‘the best and the brightest,’’ and how do we attract ‘‘the best and the brightest’’ to the Federal Government in

terms of say, intelligence agents and diplomats and a lot of other

positions?

So the question is: How in the world do we get this government

to understand how important it is that we do something about it?

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, I believe you have to pay more for people,

and I am all for the other incentives.

Senator VOINOVICH. Let me just say this. We have had a comparability study around here, and we have not done anything with

it because it costs money.

Mr. HAMILTON. That is correct.

Senator VOINOVICH. And so you are saying we ought to look at

that?

Mr. HAMILTON. Absolutely. And I think, look, we all know the

civil service is rigid, and it discourages talent, and so one of the

members of our commission was Norman Augustine, who headed

Lockheed, and he said, look, we are spending a lot of time talking

about terrorism, and we are talking about missile defense, and we

are talking about all these fancy things, and difficult solutions. He

said you have got to consider the civil service reform as a fundamental part of national security. Managers cannot manage today.

They cannot hire. They cannot fire.

And you have great rigidity in the system. I think Mr. Augustine

was exactly right in it. Now, you have got to have other incentives,

but these people that excel in the sciences, we know them to be

very bright people. They are going to succeed no matter what happens. They are going to find a way to succeed.

Senator VOINOVICH. Congressman Hamilton, the issue is how do

we communicate to the members of Appropriations committees, to

the Armed Services Committee, and to some of these other committees around here that we have this very terrible problem in terms

of people?

Mr. HAMILTON. Well, you persuade your colleagues by conversation.

Senator VOINOVICH. I am just saying you can answer better than

I can.

Mr. HAMILTON. Yes. You persuade your colleagues by conversation. You do not persuade them by speeches. And it just takes persistence again and again and again. You have got a good case to

make, and I think you can make it with your colleagues.

28

That is the best I can say. You have just got to talk to them one

on one. But, look, the National Security Commission is not by itself

with these recommendations. You have had a half a dozen other

commissions all make the same recommendations. You have had

all of these experts about government who are preaching a common

theme here, and maybe eventually that will get through to your

colleagues. I think it will.

It takes time to move this government, but it moves over time.

I think that puts the burden on you, Senator, and your two colleagues here, but it can be done.

Senator AKAKA. Senator Cochran.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I think

you make an excellent point, Congressman Hamilton, when you say

that we need somebody to take the broad overview of the situation,

somebody to look at the broad needs of the government for personnel that can help protect our security. I think that is what the

President has stepped forward and recommended.

As a matter of fact, he has brought into the government someone

who has just that role, the Advisor to the President for Homeland

Security, and that is one of the missions, as I understand it. So I

think that we are seeing a very important step in that direction

being made by President Bush.

But we do need, I think, the underpinning of new authorities for

Federal departments to use incentives to go after people who they

want and need and they have to compete for, and with the incentives of forgiveness of student loans, scholarship programs designed

to bring the graduates as they come out of college into the National

Security Agency or whatever agency it is. We do that in the military, as a matter of fact.

We have scholarship programs for ROTC students trying to recruit talented young men and women who will commit to service

in the military after they graduate from college, and these were

programs that were begun back when you and I were in—well, you

were maybe a year older or two. I remember you were a basketball

star. You had a good excuse for not going to engineering lab when

you were in college. [Laughter.]

You had other responsibilities and talents.

Mr. HAMILTON. I was not smart enough to get into engineering.

That is the fact of the matter.

Senator COCHRAN. I think we do need to marshal our resources

and to have someone at the highest level of our government to help

ensure that is done. That is an excellent point.

And your other observations are very helpful to the Subcommittee. I know you are in demand, and you have a lot of places

you could be, but we appreciate very much your taking time to

come testify before our Subcommittee today.

Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Senator Cochran. It is more than just

financial incentives. I mean scientists need collegiality. They need

to be able to talk with one another. That is the way the world of

science moves forward, and so you have to create an environment

for them in which they can consult not only with their colleagues

in their particular area, but to consult with similar scientists all

over the world.

29

1The prepared statement of Ms. Westin appears in the Appendix on page 79.

These scientific meetings are enormously important, because we

do not have a monopoly on science in this country. That is part of

it to create that collegiality, and I think that one of the good things

that may have come out of September 11 is the sense of mission,

and I think the people that preceded us here talked about that,

that they now find much more interest in serving the national security of the United States, and that is an important factor. We

want to take advantage of that.

I very much hope that Governor Ridge, whom I consider as you

do to be an excellent choice, will make this among his priorities.

Homeland defense needs these kinds of people very much, and I

think he will. I am pleased to hear that.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Well, if there are no further questions for Mr.

Hamilton, I want to say thank you so much for being here, Congressman Hamilton.

Mr. HAMILTON. My pleasure. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. And we thank you for your statements.

I would like to welcome our third panel, and ask you to take your

places. I want to thank Dr. Susan Westin, Managing Director for

International Affairs and Trade Issues at the General Accounting

Office, and Dr. Ray Clifford, Chancellor of the Defense Language

Institute, for being with us today.

I would like to thank GAO for their report on foreign language

proficiencies in the Federal Government. So Dr. Westin, will you

please proceed with your statement? Your full statements will be

made a part of the record.

TESTIMONY OF SUSAN S. WESTIN,1 MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Ms. WESTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recently

completed report on foreign language proficiency and personnel

shortfalls at four Federal agencies: The U.S. Army, the Department

of State, the Foreign Commercial Service, and the FBI.

Federal agencies’ foreign language needs have grown significantly over the past decade with increasing globalization and a

changing security environment in light of such events as the breakup of the Soviet Union and the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Foreign language skills are increasingly needed to support traditional diplomatic efforts and public diplomacy programs, military

and peacekeeping missions, intelligence collection, counterterrorism

efforts, and international trade.

At the same time that Federal agencies find their needs for staff

with foreign language skills increasing, these agencies have experienced significant reductions in force and no growth or limited

growth environments during the last decade.

As a result, some agencies must now contend with an aging core

of language capable staff while recruiting and retaining qualified

new staff in an increasingly competitive job market.

30

1Figure 2 appears in the Appendix on page 89.

Today, I will discuss three topics: (1) the nature and impact of

foreign language proficiency and personnel shortages in these four

Federal agencies; (2) the strategies that are being used to address

these shortages; and (3) the efforts that have been made to address

current and projected foreign language shortages.

Let me address each of these in turn. First, all four Federal

agencies covered in our review reported shortages of staff with foreign language skills that are critical to successful job performance.

These staff include diplomats and intelligence specialists as well as

translators and interpreters.

The shortfalls varied significantly depending on the agency, job

position, language, and skill level. To give just one example, the

Army had a shortfall of 146 translators/interpreters in the critical

languages of Arabic, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Persian-Farsi, and

Russian.

These shortfalls can have a significant impact on agency operations. For example, the FBI has thousands of hours of audio tapes

and pages of written material that have not been reviewed or

translated due to the lack of qualified translators.

In addition, the State Department has long suffered from a language proficiency shortfall whereby Foreign Service officers must

be placed in language designated positions at lower than desired

levels of proficiency. According to officials from all four agencies,

these types of shortfalls have hindered the prosecution of criminal

cases, limited the ability to identify, arrest and convict violent gang

members, weaken the fight against international terrorism and

drug trafficking and resulted in less effective representation of U.S.

interests overseas.

Second, the agencies we reviewed reported using a range of

workforce strategies to fill their specific foreign language needs.

These strategies included providing staff with language training

and pay incentives, recruiting employees with foreign language

skills or hiring contractors, or taking advantage of information

technology.

This technology includes using network computers and contractor

databases to optimize existing foreign language resources. While

these assortive efforts have had some success, current agency strategies have not fully met the need for some foreign language skills.

Third, to help fill existing skill shortages, some agencies have

begun to adopt a strategic approach to human capital management

and workforce planning. OPM has issued a workforce planning

model that illustrates the basic tenets of strategic workforce planning.

We used this model to assess the relative maturity of workforce

planning at the four agencies we reviewed. As shown in Figure 2

of my written statement 1 and as reproduced here for you to see,

this model suggests that agencies follow a 5-step process that includes setting a strategic direction, documenting the size and nature of skills gaps, developing an action plan to address these

shortages, implementing the plan, and evaluating implementation

progress on an ongoing basis.

31

1The prepared statement of Dr. Clifford appears in the Appendix on page 92.

This is a model that could be used to guide workforce planning

efforts as they relate to other skills needed in the Federal Government such as math, science, and information technology.

We found that the FBI had made an effort to address each of the

five steps in OPM’s model. For example, the FBI has instituted an

action plan that links its foreign language program to the Bureau’s

strategic objectives and program goals. This action plan defines

strategies, performance measures, responsible parties, and resources needed to address current and projected language shortages.

In contrast, the other three agencies have yet to pursue this type

of comprehensive strategic planning, and have only completed some

of the steps outlined in OPM’s planning model.

In closing, I would like to note that foreign language shortages

have developed over a number of years. It will take time, perhaps

years, to overcome this problem. Effective human capital management and workforce planning, however, offer a reasonable approach

to resolving such long-standing problems.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes

my prepared statement. I will, of course, be happy to answer any

questions you have.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Dr. Clifford, please give

your statement now.

TESTIMONY OF DR. RAY T. CLIFFORD,1 CHANCELLOR,

DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

Dr. CLIFFORD. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I would

like to provide a historical context for Dr. Westin’s report. The first

question faced by the founders of this Nation, I think, was what

is important for the Nation to provide? Should, for instance, the

teaching and learning of foreign languages be of national concern?

Yes. Even the preamble to the Constitution of the United States

specifically says that the Union was formed to insure domestic

tranquility and to provide for the common defense.

Many people in the world today speak English, but it is a reality

that our enemies do not speak English when they are talking to

each other about us. In today’s world, national defense requires capability in foreign languages.

Now, the shortage of citizens with foreign language skills in the

United States is not a new phenomenon. The problem has been

identified many times in the past, but interest has waned before

systemic improvements have been implemented.

Very few people know that in 1923, because of the distrust that

had been created by World War I, that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to overturn laws in 22 states that restricted foreign

language instruction.

In 1940, the National Report, ‘‘What the High Schools Ought to

Teach,’’ found that high schools’ ‘‘overly academic’’ curriculum was

causing too many student failures. Foreign language instruction

was among the subjects recommended for elimination. Foreign language instruction was not only difficult, it took so much time that

new courses could not be added.

32

1954. The publication ‘‘The National Interest in Foreign Languages’’ reported that only 14.2 percent of high school students

were enrolled in foreign languages and most United States public

high schools offered no foreign language instruction at all.

1958. In response to Sputnik, the National Defense Education

Act was passed to prepare more and better foreign language teachers. Immediate improvement was evident. Then funding waned and

progress ceased.

1975. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement published the results of a research study titled ‘‘The Teaching of French as a Foreign Language in Eight

Countries.’’ In the United States, the researchers could not find

enough 12th grade students with 4 years of language study to complete the study as they had originally designed it.

Still, the study found that the primary factor in the attainment

of proficiency in any foreign language is the amount of instructional time provided.

1979. The President’s Commission on Foreign Language and

International Studies reported Americans’ incompetence in foreign

languages is nothing short of scandalous, and it is becoming worse.

1983. The Commission on Excellence in Education heard testimony that in the United States foreign language instruction had

yet to attain mediocrity.

1999 and forward, we have heard repeatedly from government

agencies, including from the panel today, that these national needs

are still with us. I am personally pleased to see that the bills S.

1800 and S. 1799 include several initiatives designed to improve

U.S. readiness in foreign language skills.

While the demand for competency in foreign language shifts occasionally in terms of the specific languages required, two trends

have remained constant over time. First, the total number of linguist requirements has grown.

Second, the levels of proficiency required of those linguists has

increased. Therefore, the central challenges facing all segments of

our society, including the government today, are recruiting more

employees with language skills and then building on those language skills.

In most other developed nations, the educational system provides

the foundation language courses, and the government language

school or schools builds on those skills.

Whereas, currently more than 90 percent of the enrollments at

the Defense Language Institute, for instance, are in beginning language courses, Germany’s counterpart to the Defense Language Institute, the Bundessprachenamt, has nearly 100 percent of its students enrolled in advanced language courses.

The provisions of the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act

and the Homeland Security Education Act will help correct our national shortage I feel in qualified linguists by: Encouraging language majors to accept Federal employment; recognizing that second language skills are as necessary to our national defense as our

skills in math and science; and producing graduates with advanced

levels of language proficiency.

I would suggest that the programs described in the Homeland

Security Federal Workforce Act include all Federal employees, beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Nov 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 79886.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
33

cause most of the linguist assignments are in the excepted service

or are exempt from the requirements of the competitive service.

I believe I understand where the confusion is on this point because page 9, line 20, appears to have exclusionary language that

if eliminated would then clarify this point.

In closing, all of the Nation’s problems preparing, recruiting, and

retaining scientific personnel apply to the problems with language

skills in the United States. The major difference is that the situation in languages is even worse. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Clifford. I have some

questions for both of you. Dr. Westin, your testimony forecasts substantial Federal retirements of those with key math and science

backgrounds within 5 years.

Why do you believe there are not more individuals entering government with math and science backgrounds?

Ms. WESTIN. Mr. Chairman, we did not take that up specifically

in the report. The report you are referring to talked about the retirement across the Federal Government in general, and we cited

some statistics from that, but I believe the first panel spoke to that

very well, and also Mr. Hamilton. It is a very competitive market.

It is particularly competitive for staff personnel who have these

skills, have majored in math, have degrees in math or science, or

in engineering, and I think that one of the issues is people coming

out with student loans, and many students do graduate today with

student loans, and need to consider what their compensation is

going to be when they take those first jobs.

And I think right now we have seen that the Federal Government is not competitive in areas where many companies are competing to get these students.

Senator AKAKA. Your testimony emphasizes how Federal agencies can use workforce strategies to address shortfalls in foreign

language capabilities. Has GAO looked at how workforce strategies

can be used to ease shortages in math, science, and engineering

within the Federal Government?

Ms. WESTIN. We checked on prior GAO work, and we do not believe that there was anything in the very near past that addressed

this, but I would like to point out that the reason that we brought

the OPM workforce planning model, and think it is important to

put up as a special board, is that this is a workforce planning

model that is not designed just to address foreign language shortfalls.

I think that it really starts with any agency setting a strategic

direction, and then very importantly looking to see what skills you

have on hand, how long people are going to be there, and identifying your gaps and then coming up with an action plan for filling

the gaps. I can speak, if I can, to what GAO has done in this area.

As you know, we have put together a strategic plan. We have

conducted an inventory of staff knowledge and skills which is available to managers. We do pay attention to what percentage of our

workforce is likely to retire and in what areas. We are instituting

the student loan program. That is under development in our agency right now, and we expect to offer that to some staff this fiscal

year.

34

With regard to the student loan program, we have analyzed carefully where it should be targeted, not just areas where we have had

trouble recruiting, but we are looking at one overall workforce, do

we have more trouble recruiting or do we have more trouble retaining? So we have been looking at our past experience and seeing

where we are most likely to lose staff and hope to target our program to help retain staff in those areas.

Senator AKAKA. Dr. Clifford.

Dr. CLIFFORD. Yes, sir.

Senator AKAKA. What is the best way to ensure that someone

has a foreign language and technical background capable of analyzing highly technical intelligence? Is it better to start with someone with a science background and teach them a foreign language,

and does the Defense Language Institute have programs for this?

Dr. CLIFFORD. Actually, experience would indicate that if you

have a scientist who needs to learn a foreign language and you

have someone who speaks a foreign language who needs to learn

about its science, it is easier to take the person with the language

skills and teach them science skills.

Now, we have at our institute language programs that are quite

specialized. We have courses for scientists. I remember looking at

one curriculum where there were topics such as learning about the

tensile strength of turbine blades in that foreign language. We can

get quite technical.

Underneath that technical language, there is a requirement for

accurate communication skills in language in general. If one focuses without those foundation skills on the technical language, we

find that we produce individuals who are able to miscommunicate

about very technical things.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I yield to Senator Voinovich.

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Westin, you said that the FBI in your

opinion has done the best job of developing a workforce planning

model. One of the provisions contained in my legislation would require Federal agencies to develop succession planning models so

that they have an adequate understanding of what human capital

needs they have—both currently in the future.

Do you think it would be a good idea if this Subcommittee in putting together this legislation and the legislation I am working on

would suggest that they follow this model so that we indeed end

up with some document that clearly states what the needs are, and

then put a dollar figure on what it would cost in order to get something like this done?

Ms. WESTIN. We have found this model useful, not only for GAO

itself, but also in looking as we did at these four agencies and

where they are with respect to the model. Senator, I would say that

in their response to our draft report, two of the agencies that we

sent the draft report to for their comments thought that the original way we had stated our recommendation was too rigid, and so

we revised that to say that we were not telling them exactly how

to do it, but suggesting that the principles that are illustrated in

such a model would be very helpful.

So I would just say when you might use the word ‘‘suggest,’’ that

might be more helpful to agencies than to use the word ‘‘require.’’

35

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Akaka, it seems to me—and I was

talking to Representative Hamilton about the issue of urgency—

that perhaps the only way that we are going to be able to deal with

this in some of these agencies that deal with national security is

to require them to develop these plans, so that we really have a

handle on what is going on.

For example, I asked Administrator Allbaugh today to come back

with his evaluation of FEMA’s human capital problems, and I am

going to suggest that we submit your recommendation to him to

have him go about doing his study that way. Maybe if we have that

information, we might be able to start to underscore what an urgent need there is for all kinds of people in various agencies.

I have another question for you, Dr. Westin. Your testimony

highlights a critical deficiency plaguing the government—language.

However, the problem is deeper than the shortfalls of the Federal

Government. Only a fraction of American college students even

study a foreign language. I went to college at Ohio University in

the 1950’s, and you could not get out of there without having 2

years of a foreign language. And I will never forget. I tried to get

out of Russian after the first year, and the dean, who I thought

was my buddy, said stay in there, and so I took it for 3 years.

But what is your observation across the country in terms of

whether or not liberal arts institutions require foreign language as

part of their programs, and how much of a requirement is there?

Ms. WESTIN. We did not address that in this study. I could only

speak to what I have read. I know my experience going through

college and graduate school in terms of foreign language requirements seems to be different than it is today. I know that it was

important for us to make sure that our daughters had foreign language in high school, but we have not undertaken a study to look

at this comprehensively across the United States.

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Clifford, do you have some information

for us on that?

Dr. CLIFFORD. Yes, not specific statistics, but it is clear, and that

I work with many of the universities nationally, the trend is to

eliminate or at least reduce foreign language requirements across

the board.

There are a few countercurrents that I believe would be worthy

of support, programs where there is, for instance, a specific emphasis on creating dual majors, scientists with a major perhaps in

chemistry and a major in a foreign language. Those programs exist,

and they exist at those institutes that would probably be the primary candidates for recognition under S. 1799 with the flagship

programs.

Senator VOINOVICH. There is a National Security Education Program. Are you familiar with NSEP?

Dr. CLIFFORD. Yes, I am.

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. And it has been effective in offering language emersion opportunities in foreign countries to students in return for some Federal Service. I guess you want to study a language. We will send you overseas. You can really get into it, and

come back, but in consideration for that, you are going to have to

give us some time.

36

Do you think that the expansion of such a program or the institution of a fellowship program, as proposed in S. 1800, might be

a good way to attract additional linguists to the Federal service?

Dr. CLIFFORD. Absolutely. We have also found—I will just add to

that general perception—that the way to learn a foreign language

is to go overseas. The research shows that the way to learn a foreign language is to learn a foundation capability in the language

in a classroom first, and then once overseas you have all the skills

to take advantage of the experience and not just observe it.

So that combination, though, of preparation and then overseas

experience, followed by a commitment, an obligation, is a great

combination to focus our limited resources and see a return.

Senator VOINOVICH. In other words, make sure that the foundation is in place so that they are not just going over and having a

little joy ride.

Dr. CLIFFORD. My statement might be interpreted that way, yes.

Senator VOINOVICH. OK.

Dr. CLIFFORD. And I would agree.

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. The other thing that we all know—and

I would be interested in your comments on this—is that the earlier

one learns a language, the better off they are. I mean it is not

going to deal with our immediate shortage of linguists, but do you

think in the long term that some consideration to that should be

given to early language training for children? Either one of you?

Ms. WESTIN. Well, again, I am not speaking to work the GAO

has done on this, but it does seem to me that one of the things that

we could take more advantage of is the children of immigrants and

to make sure that they keep that ability in their first language as

they are learning English and learning to function in this country,

which is equally important, but I think that it is too bad if those

other language skills are lost along the way.

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. That is interesting. What you are basically saying is we do have a lot of immigrants that come here and

then they raise their families, but a lot of times, the children of

those immigrants do not learn the native language?

Ms. WESTIN. Well, that is my understanding that they may

speak it at home. From some experience, I know as they grow

older, they want to communicate in English with their friends, and

I think also that we might not have made the efforts to make sure

they are instructed in that language as well as just maintaining

conversational level skills.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that

we do not really encourage that. We talk about just learning

English. My mother spoke fluent Slovenia and my father spoke fluent Serbian, but the only time they ever spoke in the native

tongues was at home. They were both first generation college graduates and they knew their languages, but they only used them

when they did not want us to know what they were saying. I can

tell you all the swear words. [Laughter.]

But again there is a kind of perception in the country that this

is not a good thing to do. We should maybe try to change that attitude towards that issue.

Dr. CLIFFORD. I would add to the comments made that indeed

this is a national resource. With proper attention paid to the lanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Nov 26, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 79886.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
37

guage skills of these families, we would have more individuals prepared when it came to hiring. Now, there are a few programs that

Members of the Subcommittee might be interested in looking into.

They are generally referred to as two-way immersion programs,

which provide an opportunity for the English speaking students to

spend half of their day in the language of what we call the heritage

speakers, and the heritage speakers to spend half of their day in

English.

They seem to have found that to be a very useful and beneficial

combination.

The other point to be made, I believe, is that one thing we can

say for sure about early learning of foreign languages is that if you

start learning early, there is an opportunity for an extended sequence of language instruction.

In some assignments, I spent some time working with NATO and

Partnership for Peace Nations, and it is rather amazing that, for

instance, I was—let me tell an anecdote. I was asked to provide

some advice for the service academy for the Finnish armed forces.

I was in Helsinki, visited their site, and as I learned further, their

major problem was that their junior officers’ capability in their

fourth language was not as good as in the other three. [Laughter.]

And the reason was that they did not start learning that fourth

language until junior high.

Senator VOINOVICH. Is that not something?

Dr. CLIFFORD. That is the rest of the world. If we want a worldclass educational system, we might consider doing what the rest of

the world does.

Senator VOINOVICH. I may be wrong on this, but maybe one of

the reasons why Americans do not have great facility in foreign

languages is that people keep saying that English has become the

universal language, and you do not need to learn other languages.

I go to NATO and OSCE meetings, and I meet people from all over.

They all can speak English. Rarely does anyone—Jim Oberstar—

you remember Jim—speaks fluent French, and he will sometimes

speak in that language. But there are very few of us that can speak

another language. I tried to bumble along when I was in St. Petersburg a couple of years ago, but there is a feeling that we do not

need to learn another language because, around the world, the universal language is English.

Do you think that is one of the things discouraging people or not

providing them the incentive they need to study another language?

Ms. WESTIN. I think that might be the case. I would like to point

out, though, that I head the International Affairs and Trade team

at GAO, and we have been doing a fair amount of recruiting, and

I have been very impressed with the number of applicants that we

get who want to work in my team who have real proficiency in a

second language and sometimes a third.

I often ask them how did you get so good, and it seems that there

are two things. One is somehow they got excited about it studying,

whether they started in grade school or whether they started in

junior high or high school, and then they took advantage of a foreign exchange program, and spent some time overseas, and that is

where they felt they really learned the language, and we have

38

found these skills are very important to us in our oversight function.

For example, as you know, we have been looking at the reconstruction projects from Hurricane Mitch hitting Central America.

On almost every one of those monthly trips, we have been able to

send a fluent Spanish speaker and it has made a difference when

looking at these projects that somebody can understand the idiomatic Spanish and communicate with the people where the money

is going.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it would be interesting to go back and

check on some of those incentives, how they got involved, and see

if we could not start to encourage that to happen. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much, Senator Voinovich,

one of the leaders in this effort, and thank you for making a stimulating discussion. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony

this afternoon. They have told us in many different ways that individuals with strong backgrounds in science, math, and foreign languages are vital if the Federal Government is going to meet our national security needs.

In addition to having jurisdiction over the civil service, this Subcommittee also has oversight over international security and proliferation. Over the past year, we have held hearings on a number

of different international security and proliferation issues. Whether

the topic was monitoring multilateral treaties, assistance to Russia

to prevent the loss, theft, or diversion of weapons of mass destruction, or responding to acts of bioterrorism on our own soil, one

thing was clear: Our success in any of these areas will depend upon

having the right people in the right place.

The Hart-Rudman Commission’s final report states the excellence of American public servants is the foundation upon which an

effective national security strategy must rest. The report notes that

future successes will require the mastery of advanced technology

from the economy to combat, as well as leading edge concepts of

governance.

The workforce concerns facing the Federal Government did not

come about overnight, as we all know. They are the result of years

of neglect and focusing on short-term needs rather than long-term

strategies. It will take sustained effort and support to hire and retain, and retrain employees with the critical skills needed to ensure

homeland and national security.

The legislation that I and my colleagues have introduced is an

effort to ensure that we have those public servants. We are in a

sense in a state of national emergency. We have no further questions for this panel at this time. However, Members of this Subcommittee may submit questions in writing for any of the witnesses, and we would appreciate a timely response to any questions.

Do you have any further comments to make?

Senator VOINOVICH. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Senator AKAKA. Well, if not, I would like to again express my appreciation once again for your time. This Subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

39

A P P E N D I X

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN

Last January, members of the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security for

the 21st Century testified before our Governmental Affairs Subcommittee outlining

their recommendations for ensuring the security of our nation. As we will hear from

Congressman Hamilton, a Hart-Rudman Commissioner and one of our witnesses

today, the Commission’s recommendations centered around the most highly skilled

Federal workforce possible, and reforming the nation’s education system to ensure

that every young person has the tools needed to succeed in the 21st Century.

Senators Akaka, Thompson and I have retold the tale of 1957 many times. In that

year, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik into orbit. We were caught off guard as

a nation. The start of the space race revealed to us that major changes had to be

made to preserve our national security and to pull ahead in scientific and technological innovation.

It took Congress just 1 year to pass landmark legislation—the National Defense

Education Act. The stated purpose of the act was to ‘‘strengthen the national defense and to encourage and assist in the expansion and improvement of educational

programs to meet critical national needs’’ This legislation established a coordinated

national effort in education, training, and the fortification of our Federal workforce,

and it helped our Nation meet its goals.

Within 10 years of the passage of the National Defense Education Act, American

astronauts landed on the moon—years ahead of schedule. The United States was

the most technologically advanced nation in the world. A new generation of highly

skilled mathematicians, scientists, and technology experts staffed our laboratories,

universities, and Federal agencies. Our colleges and universities had the resources

they needed to support the most advanced levels of foreign language, international

studies, science, math, and engineering.

Yesterday marked the 6-month anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade

Center and the Pentagon. While the outpouring of volunteerism and goodwill that

followed is a testament to the strength of the American people in the wake of devastating circumstances, I fear that this wave of interest in public service may already be on the wane.

If last September taught us anything, it is that we can’t afford to let this period

of heightened awareness of our national security needs pass without reform.

Today we are here to discuss the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act. This

legislation will establish a collaborative and strategic approach to our Federal workforce—especially that part of the workforce charged with our nation’s security.

This legislation builds on the existing Federal student loan forgiveness program.

Every Senator who is a cosponsor of the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act

also worked long and hard to ensure that all Federal agencies have the authority

to create a loan repayment program for their employees. With this legislation, we

will give specific funds to key Federal agencies engaged in national security to permit enhanced loan forgiveness to employees in critical national security positions.

The National Security Fellowship Program in the bill will pay for graduate study

in math, science, engineering, or foreign languages for students who agree to serve

in a position of national security upon the completion of their degree. This fellowship program will also be open to current Federal employees, encouraging the enhancement and development of the skills of our current workforce.

The legislation also creates a National Security Service Corps to give Federal employees more flexibility and experience within the national security community.

Our Nation has spent billions dealing with the aftermath of September 11. The

human cost of the tragedies was absolutely unbearable.

This legislation, along with a companion bill we introduced—the Homeland Security Education Act, which has been referred to the HELP Committee—will help our

nation’s Federal workforce and education system rise to a level that will go a long

way to ensure that such tragedies will never happen again.

We owe it to the American people to ensure that our Federal workforce is the

best-educated, best-prepared, and best-qualified in the world. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce is an essential part of this ongoing goal.

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

Æ