U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–214 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–663 

A NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS: FOREIGN 

LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES IN THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 21, 2012 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JESSICA NAGASAKO, Professional Staff Member 

PATRICK MCILHERAN, Professional Staff Member 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

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

Prepared statement: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 37 

WITNESSES 

MONDAY, MAY 21, 2012 

Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. 

Department of Education .................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Director General of the Foreign Service and 

Director of Human Resources, U.S. Department of State ................................ 5 

Laura Junor, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense ............................................................................................. 7 

Tracey North, Deputy Assistant Director Intelligence Operations Branch, Directorate of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigations, U.S. Department 

of Justice ............................................................................................................... 8 

Glenn Nordin, Principal Foreign Language and Area Advisor, Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence, U.S. Department of Defense .......... 9 

Andrew Lawless, Member of the Globalization and Localization Association 

and Chief Executive Officer of Dig–IT Strategies for Content Globalization . 20 

Allan Goodman, Ph.D., Member of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task 

Force on U.S. Education Reform and National Security and President of 

the Institute for International Education .......................................................... 21 

Dan E. Davidson, Ph.D., President of American Councils for International 

Education and Elected President of the Joint National Committee for Languages ................................................................................................................... 23 

Shauna Kaplan, a fifth grade student at Providence Elementary School, Fairfax County, VA ..................................................................................................... 29 

Paula Patrick, Coordinator of World Languages, Fairfax County Public 

Schools .................................................................................................................. 29 

Michelle Dressner, 2010 participant in the National Security Language Initiative for Youth Program ........................................................................................ 31 

Jeffery Wood, a 2010 participant in the National Security Language Initiative 

for Youth Program ............................................................................................... 32 

Major Gregory Mitchell, a 1995 Fellow for the David L. Boren Fellowship 

Program ................................................................................................................ 33 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Davidson, Dan E. Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

Dressner, Michelle: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 125 

Goodman, Allan: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Junor, Laura, Ph.D.: 

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

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 53 

Kaplan, Shauna: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121 
Page

IV 

Lawless, Andrew: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88 

Mitchell, Major Gregory: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 130 

Nordin, Glenn: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

North, Tracey: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Ochoa, Eduardo: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Patrick, Paula: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123 

Thomas-Greenfield, Hon. Linda: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Wood, Jeffery: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 128 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Ochoa .......................................................................................................... 134 

Ms. Thomas-Greenfield .................................................................................... 144 

Ms. Junor .......................................................................................................... 147 

Ms. North .......................................................................................................... 148 

Mr. Nordin ........................................................................................................ 151 

Statements for the Record from: 

David L. Boren, President, University of Oklahoma ..................................... 156 

Leslie C. Berlowitz, President, American Academy of Arts and Sciences ... 158 

CommonSense Advisory ................................................................................... 169 

Letter from Secretary of Defense ........................................................................... 175 
(1) 

A NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS: 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES IN THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

MONDAY, MAY 21, 2012 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in Room 

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

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you all for being here. I call this hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia to order. 

I want to welcome our witnesses. Aloha and thank you for being 

here. 

As Chairman of the Subcommittee, I have held seven oversight 

hearings that emphasized the need to build the Federal Government’s foreign language skills, from developing a foreign language 

strategy to improving U.S. diplomatic readiness. This is my final 

hearing on this topic. 

Today, we will review the importance of foreign languages to our 

national security and our economy. We will also examine the State 

of the Federal Government’s foreign language capabilities and consider ways to improve our Nation’s language capacity. 

Last year, we marked the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 

2001, terrorist attacks. This tragic event exposed our Nation’s language shortfalls. The 9/11 Commission raised concerns about the 

shortage of personnel with needed Middle Eastern language skills 

at both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central 

Intelligence Agency (CIA), which hindered our understanding of the 

threat. These agencies, as well as the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Defense continue to experience shortages of people skilled in hard-to-learn languages due to a limited pool of 

Americans to recruit from. Because of these shortages, agencies are 

forced to fill language-designated positions with employees that do 
2 

1The statement of David Boren appears in the appendix on page 156. 

not have those skills. Agencies then have to spend extra time and 

funds training employees in these languages. 

As U.S. businesses of all sizes look to expand, they need employees with the foreign language skills and cultural knowledge to access overseas markets. Our national and economic security is closely linked to how well our schools prepare students to succeed in a 

global environment. Experts indicate that learning languages starting at the K–12 levels develop higher language proficiency than 

those starting in college. 

The Federal Government must partner with schools, colleges, 

and the private sector to address this ongoing challenge at its root 

cause: Our Nation’s failure to adequately invest in language education, starting at early ages. 

Even in a difficult budget environment, we must fund important 

international education and foreign language study programs to 

build the pipeline to a 21st century workforce, including the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP). We must make sure 

that budget cuts are not at the expense of strategic national security interests. Short-sighted cuts, for example, to the Department 

of Education’s Title VI program, could severely undermine the 

progress we have made in this area. 

Today, we will hear about agencies’ progress on their language 

capabilities. However, I believe agencies can do more to coordinate 

and share best practices in recruiting, retaining, and training personnel. Furthermore, I strongly believe that a coordinated national 

effort among all levels of government, industry, and academia is 

needed to tackle the problem before us. If we work together, we can 

improve our Nation’s language capacity and effectively confront the 

challenges to our Nation’s security and economic prosperity. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and continuing the discussion on how we can address our Nation’s language needs. 

Former Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, who has been a longtime advocate on this issue and was a friend while he was here, 

was kind enough to provide a statement for this hearing. He continues to urge that we invest in comprehensive language training 

and to address this language crisis. 

I will submit his statement1 for the record. 

Senator AKAKA. I look forward to hearing from our first panel of 

witnesses and welcome again you here today. Eduardo Ochoa, who 

is Assistant Secretary for the Office of Postsecondary Education 

(OPE) at the U.S. Department of Education. 

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the Director General of the Foreign 

Service and Director of Human Resources at the U.S. Department 

of State. 

Dr. Laura Junor, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Readiness at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). 

Ms. Tracey North, who is the Deputy Assistant Director of the 

Intelligence Operations Branch, of the Directorate of Intelligence, 

for the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the Department of Justice (DOJ). 
3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ochoa appears in the appendix on page 39. 

And, Mr. Glenn Nordin, the Principal Foreign Language and 

Area Advisor for the Office of The Undersecretary of Defense Intelligence at the U.S. Department of Defense. He is representing the 

Director of National Intelligence. 

As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in 

all witnesses. I would ask all of you to please stand and raise your 

right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give this 

Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God. 

Mr. OCHOA. I do. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. I do. 

Ms. JUNOR. I do. 

Ms. NORTH. I do. 

Mr. NORDIN. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let it be noted for the record that 

the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before we start, I want you to know that your full written statements will be made a part of the record and I would also like to 

remind you to please limit your remarks to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Ochoa, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. EDUARDO OCHOA,1 ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Mr. OCHOA. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. My name is Eduardo Ochoa and I am the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department 

of Education. I am pleased to provide testimony for this hearing on 

national security and Federal foreign language capabilities. I particularly appreciate your focus on this issue as I have direct experience having been born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where I attended bilingual schools until my family moved to the United 

States during my junior year of high school. I can tell you I personally understand the importance of foreign language programs as 

they not only provide students with a better understanding of other 

cultures, but they also provided me with a unique insight and appreciation of my own culture and language. 

Before providing an overview of our programs, let me express the 

Department’s appreciation of your strong, longstanding support for 

the advancement of foreign language learning in this country. 

The Department believes it is imperative that we improve our 

Federal Government’s foreign language capabilities. In keeping 

with this belief, the Department recently adopted a fully articulated international strategy designed to simultaneously advance 

two goals: Strengthening the educational attainment of U.S. students and advancing our Nation’s international priorities. A key objective of our plan which is particularly relevant to the topic of today’s hearing is to increase global competencies of all U.S. students 

including those from historically disadvantaged groups. The need 

for these competencies which we think of as 21st Century skills 
4 

apply to the world is clear both for U.S. civil society and for our 

Nation’s workforce, and for our national security. 

Right now, just 30 percent of U.S. secondary students and 8 percent of postsecondary students are enrolled in a foreign language 

course, a long way from the multi-lingual societies of so many of 

our economic competitors. Two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 

cannot find Iraq on a map of the Middle East. And African-Americans and Latinos continue to be underrepresented among those 

who study abroad. 

The development of these skills, including foreign language proficiency, must start early, in elementary and secondary education. 

U.S. colleges and universities have a responsibility to help students 

further develop and deepen these skills but waiting until postsecondary education to start is too late. This means that school systems at all levels, from elementary to postsecondary, must place a 

far greater emphasis on helping students understand their responsibilities as global citizens. We believe that engaging students in 

these ways will help our Nation meet the President’s 2020 college 

attainment goal with more graduates ready to lead us well into the 

21st Century. 

I want to take some time to talk briefly about several programs 

funded by the Department through our Office of Postsecondary 

Education that support international learning and foreign language 

acquisition. We support the teaching and learning of foreign languages through a portfolio of 14 discretionary grant programs 

under the Higher Education Act (HEA) Title VI and the FulbrightHays Act. Nine of these programs receive $66.6 million to operate 

domestically and four programs received $7.5 million to operate 

internationally. 

One of the primary roles of the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs is meeting the national need for expertise and competence 

in foreign languages and in foreign area and international studies. 

The National Resource Centers, supported under Title VI, represent the Department’s primary mechanism for developing U.S. 

language and area expertise on college campuses. 

The 127 current grantee institutions provide instruction, research and development in over 110 less commonly taught languages from all world areas. These programs play an important 

part in meeting the needs of the Nation’s Federal workforce, national security, and economic competitiveness for individuals with 

foreign language skills. 

In addition to our Title VI National Resource Centers, the companion program, Title VI Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLAS)—provides funds to colleges and universities to assist undergraduate and graduate students in foreign language and 

area. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, 735 FLAS students attended summer language programs overseas. Title VI funding also supports 

the American Overseas Research Centers. In 2010 alone, 11 of 

these centers worked with nearly 1,000 social science and humanities faculty and scholars, teachers, and students. 

The Federal investment in foreign languages and area studies is 

critical to developing and sustaining the pipeline of individuals 

with foreign language and international education skills that are 

needed to address national security and economic competitiveness 
5 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Thomas-Greenfield appears in the appendix on page 48. 

needs. These programs also help to enhance the capacity of education institutions and agencies at all levels, including K–12 and 

postsecondary, to effectively teach and learn foreign languages. 

We are committed to continuing to improve and refocus our programs to support the goals of the Department’s international strategy to strengthen U.S. education and advance the Nation’s international priorities. 

We believe firmly that knowledge and understanding of other 

cultures and languages are, in an increasingly interconnected 

world, critical to building and sustaining our Nation over the coming years. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this important 

issue, and I would be happy to answer any questions later. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. 

And now, Ms. Thomas-Greenfield, would you please proceed with 

your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD,1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE AND DIRECTOR 

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the Department of State’s efforts and their challenges to build the foreign language skills we need to fulfill our 

mission and also to deliver on America’s foreign policy agenda. 

I will be presenting a summary of my statement today and ask 

that the full statement be submitted for the record. 

The Bureau of Human Resources (HR) has the critical responsibility of building and maintaining an effective civilian workforce 

that can fulfill its role in strengthening the security and prosperity 

of our Nation. As Secretary Clinton emphasized in the Quadrennial 

Diplomacy and Development Review, managing threats, such as regional conflicts, wars, and terrorism, depends as much on diplomacy and development as on the use of military force. 

Therefore, we have increased the number of positions at difficult, 

hazardous posts that are vital to our foreign policy agenda. We now 

have close to 4,000 language-designated positions (LDPs) in these 

posts as well as in other locations. 

It is challenging to uphold the Department’s high standard for 

foreign language capability with the increasing needs that we have 

faced over the past years. 

Over the past decade, there has been significant shift and growth 

of positions to the Near East, South Asia, and East Asia Bureaus 

requiring an increase in speakers of languages such as Arabic, 

Hindi, Urdu, Dari, and Chinese. Overall, positions have tripled in 

the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA) where language designated position requirements have increased tenfold and 

on the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) has doubled regular 

positions and the corresponding with Arabic requirements. 

The Foreign Service Institute (FSI) has expanded its foreign language training capacity to meet these demands and to raise the 

proficiency of existing foreign language speakers. More targeted re-
6 

cruiting, however, can help to address the current challenges, and 

we are recruiting aggressively for certain priority language proficiency skills. 

To address increasingly complex national security challenges, the 

State Department must have robust foreign language capabilities. 

Therefore, working with our interagency partners, we strongly encourage young people to study languages earlier in life, starting in 

middle and high school and continuing through college as my colleague just mentioned. 

To assist in building the pipeline, the State Department’s Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs is providing language learning 

opportunities to thousands of American University, college, and 

high school students and teachers each year through our exchange 

program. 

However, we are very concerned that with budget constraints, 

universities are cutting language programs first before they cut 

anything. 

In addition, the Department has established incentives to encourage employees to strengthen their language skills, particularly in 

the so-called hard and superhard languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Korean, and Hindi. Such incentives underscore the value placed by the Department on improving capacity 

in our most difficult and critical foreign languages. 

We appreciate the support we have received from you as well as 

from Congress as a whole under our Diplomacy 3.0 hiring program 

to hire a training complement that enables more overseas positions 

to remain filled while replacements receive the required languages 

and functional training so that we do not continue to assign people 

to posts who do not have the requisite language skills. 

While we work aggressively to recruit and retain the talented 

staff needed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, we also must 

guarantee that our employees have the foreign language skills necessary to succeed in these challenging environments. 

But the need is not limited to a handful of countries. We have 

needs in many parts of the world, as I stated earlier. No matter 

where in the world our employees are serving, our employees must 

have the language skills to gather information, explain and advocate U.S. policies, establish and maintain diplomatic platforms, 

build and maintain trusts, and create relationships. 

In today’s rapidly changing world, the need for these skills has 

never been more critical. In fact, we believe that our country’s future well-being and security depend on them. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to address you 

today and I would be happy to answer any questions following. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Junor, please proceed with your statement. 
7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Junor appears in the appendix on page 53. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURA J. JUNOR,1 PH.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR READINESS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

Ms. JUNOR. Thank you. Chairman Akaka, thank you for inviting 

me to talk to you about such an important topic. This is a priority 

for the Nation and for the Department of Defense. 

Let me begin by stating that Defense Secretary Panetta has long 

believed that having a strong language ability is critical to our national security and we are committed to fielding the most capable 

force that we deploy. Our mission success is directly connected to 

our ability to communicate effectively with local populations and 

international partners. 

Our current challenge lies in filling language-required positions 

with personnel that possess the requisite language skills. We have 

been reducing this deficiency but we need help. 

We need our Nation’s schools to develop students with these 

skills from which we can recruit to meet our needs. Studies show 

that exposure to foreign language and early language learning 

greatly facilitate language acquisition. 

Therefore, bringing in individuals with foreign language skills 

make it easier to train people to higher levels of proficiency. This, 

in turn, would make it easier for us to fill positions with appropriately qualified individuals. 

We are working to overcome these challenges through collaborative interagency strategies to achieve our vision for language, regional, and cultural capabilities. The strategy addresses the importance of identifying our language needs, acquiring and sustaining 

language skills, enhancing language careers, building partners and 

increasing surge capacity. The department is improving the identification of its language needs through standardized capabilitybased processes. These processes enable the combatant commanders to articulate their language and needs or requirements 

and provide them to the military services who supply the staff to 

meet those needs. 

We have also sought innovative solutions to enhance the language acquisition and sustainment processes, which includes creating a national security workforce pipeline; enhancing language 

training and sustainments in the total force; increasing partner 

language capacity; recruiting native and heritage speakers; and 

creating financial incentives. 

Enhancing language careers is essential to sustaining and retaining persons with foreign-language skills. We are creating better opportunities for promotion of personnel with critical language skills, 

creating multiple regionally focused training initiatives and offering language enhancement opportunities to Federal national security employees. 

We also recognize the need for partners. The Department actively engages with Federal agencies through the National Security 

Education Board (NSEB), an interagency governance body that provides input on language, regional, and cultural issues. 

We also use an internal governance body, the Defense Language 

Steering Committee (DLSC), consisting of representatives from 25 
8 

1The prepared statement of Ms. North appears in the appendix on page 75. 

key components across the Department to coordinate policies and 

programs. 

By experience, we have learned the importance of building a 

surge capacity to yield language expertise quickly and at a reasonable cost. The Department’s National Language Service Corps 

(NLSC) provides a pool of qualified volunteers with high levels of 

proficiency in both English and foreign languages who can serve 

and then be activated as temporary government employees when 

needed. 

We have made real progress in improving our foreign-language 

skills, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities to meet 21st 

Century national security challenges. Although we have achieved 

much success, we acknowledge that much work remains. Our vision and strategy are designed to build language and cultural capabilities so they are available to DOD and other Federal agencies 

when needed. 

Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to share the Department’s efforts in this area and I am happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, doctor. 

Ms. North, would you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF TRACEY NORTH,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS BRANCH, DIRECTORATE 

OF INTELLIGENCE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. NORTH. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. 

I am proud to sit before you alone with my esteemed counterparts. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 

Committee today and in particular for your continued support for 

the FBI’s foreign-language program and our critical mission. 

The Directorate of Intelligence’s Language Services Section (LSS) 

is responsible for the organization’s entire foreign-language program. They support the FBI’s mission by providing quality language services to the FBI and its partners. These services include 

foreign migrant recruitment, hiring, testing, training, translations, 

interpretations, and other foreign-language related functions at the 

FBI. The Language Services Section provides a centralized command and control structure at FBI headquarters to ensure that our 

linguist resource base of over 1,400 linguists, an increase of 85 percent since 9/11, is strategically aligned with priorities set by our 

operational divisions and national intelligence priorities. 

The FBI relies on foreign-language capabilities to quickly and accurately inform operations and enhance analysis. The success of 

the FBI’s mission is clearly dependent upon high quality language 

services and the ability to translate and analyze information in a 

timely manner. 

The FBI’s foreign-language program has made great strides in its 

ability to meet the rising demand FBI language needs since September 11, 2001. The program has moved forward through increased recruitment, hiring, retention, specialized training, technology, and collaboration. 
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Nordin appears in the appendix on page 82. 

We have also significantly increased the range and volume of the 

foreign-language training the FBI offers to personnel who need to 

develop language proficiency to do their jobs. Programs include academic immersion training, study abroad, and tailored language 

courses. 

We realize we are not able to address our foreign-language needs 

with recruitment, hiring, or training alone. So, we also invest in 

the development of human language technology tools. These tools 

provide the ability to triage and process large volumes of information while enabling the workforce to enhance productivity. 

Through collaboration, we address our foreign-language needs by 

leveraging the intelligence community and other partners through 

cross community resource sharing, joint duty assignments, and 

interagency short-term temporary duty assignment opportunities. 

We work with the National Security Education Programs (NSEP) 

national Flagship universities and Georgetown’s English for Heritage Language Speakers Programs to funnel language-capable people into the contract linguist process and we reach out to the National Language Service Corps when we have language needs we 

cannot meet with in-house language resources. 

As the executive agent for the National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC), we are able to provide virtual language support not 

only for other intelligence community partners but also for other 

agencies with foreign-language challenges. 

In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear 

here today and provide testimony on the FBI’s foreign-language 

program. As you know, more detail has been provided in my written testimony which I respectfully submit for the record. I am also 

looking forward to answering any questions you may have for me 

today. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. North. 

Mr. Nordin, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF GLENN NORDIN,1 PRINCIPAL FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA ADVISOR, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE 

Mr. NORDIN. Senator Akaka and other folks attending, I am honored to act as spokesman for the Director of National Intelligence 

in today’s hearing. I am particularly honored, as I know this will 

be the last hearing of this Subcommittee chaired by you, sir. 

We, in the foreign-language community, are indebted to you for 

your leadership in bringing world language study to a focal point 

in national dialogue. Thank you. 

Foreign language capabilities, together with a deep knowledge of 

the cultures and societal infrastructure of the populace in geographic areas of interest to our national security, are of paramount 

importance to the successful performance of the strategic and tactical intelligence missions of today. 

The complexity of the Intelligence Community’s (IC) mission in 

today’s world and the variety of Nations and nonstate global actors 

impacting our national security and national interests make it an 
10 

absolute imperative that we possess a deep understanding of their 

cultures, interests, and intentions along with the capability to understand and communicate in their languages. 

Professional language skills, cultural awareness, and textual 

knowledge are core competencies in the collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence information. 

The shift in real and perceived threats to national security and 

global stability from 1992 until the present resulted in an increase 

in the number of world languages that are essential to understanding and dealing with those threats. A sharp increase in our 

needs for skills in the less and the least commonly taught languages led to shortfall in sufficiency and proficiency of the community’s language workforce. 

In order to meet the needs of the day, the community and our 

forces engage contractor services comprised primarily of foreign nationals and civilian immigrants, citizen immigrants. 

We know that we must build an organic civilian and military 

language workforce of translators, interpreters, negotiators, and 

language analysts capable of supporting our steady State needs 

and vetting the contract capabilities needed during surge. 

Thus, the community is now set on a course to significantly increase and improve our organic capabilities together with rational 

employment of their foreign-language skills and foreign area 

knowledge. In order to retain their services, we need to offer these 

professionals rewarding careers as language specialists. 

While the technology of today and many tomorrows ahead will 

not replace the human cognitive skills in processing foreign language, rational integration of key technologies can facilitate the 

work process and enable higher productivity on the part of the language-equipped analyst. 

The Director of National Intelligence advocates a significant increase in foreign-language capability through expansion of the language-capable workforce while facilitating and expediting their 

work through integration of state-of-the-art human language technology into the collection and analytic processes. 

Together with the Defense Department leadership, we are exploring the feasibility and potential cost benefits of a professional 

military cadre of translators, interpreters, language analysts, and 

instructors serving in the general purpose, special operations, and 

intelligence forces. 

Research has shown the advantage of starting language at an 

early age as noted before. The IC’s STARTALK program which supports language students and teachers in the elementary and secondary school system is an essential first step. 

The Intelligence Community will seek to capitalize on the current investments in language education by targeting, recruiting, 

and hiring the best and brightest products of programs currently 

sponsored under IC and other Federal funding, and the community 

will continue to recruit and hire native and heritage speakers. 

I see that my time has about expired. I would like to continue 

for another minute, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. 

Mr. NORDIN. I would be remiss if I did not cite two activities 

sponsored by the Defense Department and the intelligence commu-
11 

nity that have and will continue to have major impact on national 

foreign-language capability. 

First, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center 

(DLIFLC) that continues to produce novice, professional language 

specialists from high school graduates. The center also provides 

worldwide initial online learning as well as maintenance and enhancement continuing education to all entities. 

Second, the Center for the Advanced Study of Language, a university-affiliated research Center at the University of Maryland 

(UMD). The center is charged with improving the way we teach, 

learn, and employ second and multiple languages through research 

toward enhancing and optimizing human cognitive skills. 

The work of the center is contributing to improved aptitude testing, training and working memory and improved understanding of 

the languages of Africa and Asia. 

On behalf of the Director, I thank you for this opportunity to address this important national issue; and one final statement, sir, as 

foreign language capabilities are an inherent government responsibility, the Federal Government must continue its investment in 

these precious, valuable tools for national security. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Nordin. 

Dr. Ochoa, you testified, and it seems that the panel agrees to 

this, that foreign-language skills are critically important to our national security. However, the Department’s only K–12 initiative, 

which is the Foreign-Language Assistance Program could, lose out 

on funding by competing with other core subjects and funding for 

Title VI language programs have been significantly reduced since 

Fiscal Year 2011. 

How will you support the Department’s international strategy to 

develop globally competent students in light of these budget cuts? 

Mr. OCHOA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. 

It is true that we have rolled that money into lump-sum funding 

for K–12 to provide more flexibility and more efficiency in the management of those programs but we are also placing, more globally, 

an emphasis on the development of global competencies. 

The fundamental message that we are transmitting is that in 

order to achieve the objectives of the President’s 2020 goal, we have 

to have a kind of quality education that includes those global competencies as part of it. So, as we move beyond the focus on math 

and English language competency to encompass other subjects, 

these will also be emphasized and highlighted throughout the pipeline. 

Senator AKAKA. I would like to follow up with a question to the 

rest of the panel. How will cuts in the Department of Education’s 

language and international programs affect your efforts to build 

and maintain your Department’s language capabilities? Ambassador. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you very much for that question, and it is very relevant to what we do in the State Department 

in terms of training our officers for language skills. 

We know that it is more difficult to train people as adults than 

it is to bring them in with the foreign-language skills early on. 

And, it is our belief that young people who start language training 
12 

as early as sixth and seventh grade come prepared with the languages when we hire them. 

Right now, we are spending, and this figure is a very rough fig- ure, but about $250,000 for each position that we are training people for. If I use Iraq as an example, where we are signing people 

for 1 year when they come in. We have one officer in the position. 

We have one officer in the first year of training and one officer in 

the second year of training. If we brought those people in with the 

language skills, we would save that amount of money up front with 

our officers. 

Again, thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Junor. 

Ms. JUNOR. Yes, Senator. To follow-up and to build on the last 

set of comments, DOD has built a lot of partnerships with the support of our national language fellowships with the States and we 

have made a lot of headway. 

But this relies on an infrastructure and capacity that was laid 

down by the Department of Education. So simply put, it makes a 

hard problem harder. Clearly, continued partnerships, public-private partnerships, the State-Federal partnerships will help us get 

through this but there is no question that we value our partnership 

at the Department of Education now and in the past. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. North. 

Ms. NORTH. So, as you know, the FBI recruits from our communities out there and whether we recruit from the heritage community, a native community, or for those people who have learned the 

language through education, for us our challenge is to get them 

through the recruitment and background process. 

So, as the Department of Education increases the number of students for us to recruit that are U.S. citizens, who have spent their 

life here in the United States as opposed to overseas, that increases 

the ability of us to get them through their background, their fullscope background quicker. And, for that reason we definitely appreciate what the Department of Education is doing for us in that respect. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Nordin. 

Mr. NORDIN. Yes, sir. I think we have a responsibility in our outreach program from all of the Federal entities to go out and help 

the school boards and the systems to find ways to continue language education, and I think that is a responsibility that we bear. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Dr. Ochoa, as I mentioned in my statement, I believe coordination is key to addressing our language crisis and strategically target limited resources. How is the Department working with other 

Federal agencies to make sure that it’s programs are addressing 

our national security needs? 

Mr. OCHOA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Pursuant to the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, the 

Secretary of Education consults annually with the 16 cabinet agencies in the Federal Government to receive recommendations on 

areas of national need for expertise in foreign languages and world 

regions. 

The Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for International 

Foreign-language Education and the senior staff at OPE serve as 
13 

advisory committee members for the Department of Defense National Security Education Program and the Department of State’s 

Title VIII program under the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. 

The Department also has an interagency agreement with the Department of State to assist with administration of the FulbrightHays programs administered by the Department, and the staff of 

our International Education Division works cooperatively with the 

Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration 

Western Hemisphere Office to plan and participate in seminars intended to give students and faculty at Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities (HBCUs) and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

(HSIs) an understanding of funding and other opportunities in 

international business education. 

And, we are also members of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) which is an unfunded Federal interagency organization 

that was formally established in 1973 for the coordination and 

sharing of information about language related activities at the Federal level. 

So, that group serves as a premier way for the Department and 

agencies of the Federal Government to keep abreast of the progress 

and implementation of techniques and technology for language 

learning, language use, language testing, and other language related activities. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I would like to ask the rest of the 

panel to answer this followup question. Will you please discuss 

steps your Departments have taken to coordinate Federal language 

education programs? Ambassador. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you again for that question. 

As you know, we have a premier language Foreign Service Training Institute at the Foreign Service Institute, and we make available places at the Foreign Service Institute for other agencies to 

participate in our language training program. We also participate 

in the interagency committees that look at language training. 

We think it is very important as our embassies represent the 

platform for all agencies overseas for those agencies also to have 

people with language skills who arrive to fill their positions as 

well. So, we see it as key to all of our foreign policy goals to have 

other agency individuals with the requisite language training. 

Senator AKAKA. Dr. Junor. 

Ms. JUNOR. Sir, by far our biggest effort is the National Security 

Education Board which helps fund the National Security Education 

Program. This board was established by Senator Boren in 1991 and 

has been meeting since 1994. It brings together about seven Federal agencies to help achieve its main goal, which is to establish 

partnerships among the Federal Government, partnerships with 

Federal and State entities and even public-private partnerships. 

In doing so, we have helped create State roadmaps for education. 

These roadmaps are an opportunity for individual States to work 

with our Flagship institutions and they create a clearinghouse for 

best practices in providing language instruction to our kids. 

This pipeline then flows through elementary school, middle 

school, high school and into our Flagship colleges where we provide 

several initiatives. The Boren scholarships and grants ensure that 

we are not only creating folks with an awareness of language but 
14 

some with that professional level of expertise that ILR–3 or better 

where we sponsor an immersive experience overseas. And in doing 

so, that creates a better pool for not only DOD but all of our Federal partners to draw from. 

Within DOD, we have several initiatives. Our Project Global Officer. We have a new project with the Reserve Officer Training Corps 

(ROTC) candidates and several initiatives for our Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) and we already heard about our Defense Language 

Institute (DLI) to create classes for military members to come and 

learn. Many of the teaching devices that are available through DLI 

are also open to Federal partners. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. North. 

Ms. NORTH. So, one of the better ways that we are actually collaborating with our partners is through the National Virtual 

Translation Center. This is a center that was created as a result 

of the USA Patriot Act back in 2001 and then in 2003 the FBI became the executive agent for this center under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). 

What this center does is they are a virtual capability for the U.S. 

Government and the intelligence community where they have provided support not only for the intelligence community but for DOD, 

the combatant commands. Particularly at one center, we have in 

Doha where they provided regional expertise to the embassies in 

that region, CENTCOM and AFRICOM. 

We are also a member of the Interagency Language Roundtable 

and the Foreign-Language Executive Committee (FLEXCOM) 

which is an interagency committee where best practices are shared 

and different initiatives and the outcomes for those initiatives. 

One of the results of that is the FBI created a language quality 

program where all of our products are then quality controlled before they go out the door. That became a best practice and that 

process and methodology was shared among our partners, not only 

here in the United States but also overseas. 

Then, we are just continuing to leverage the other IC partners 

as far as technology is concerned. As we know, that as technology 

develops we need to be able to triage our collection faster and in 

a more expeditious manner. We are hoping that through the combined efforts of all of our partners that technology will advance to 

a rate that we can use on a daily basis and it will cut back the 

time it takes us to actually review that collection. That is a priority 

for us. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Nordin. 

Mr. NORDIN. I suppose one of the big items is the STARTALK 

program that the DNI initiated as part of the National Security 

Language Initiative in which teachers and students in the elementary and secondary school system are treated to a summer of study 

and interchange in the languages that they have. 

There is a number of community meeting places where we all get 

together. The ILR is a primary one which is currently led by an 

employee of the Army. 

That unchartered and unfunded organization is doing just fine 

after 30 some years and its work is added to by the Foreign-Language Executive Committee of the ODNI. The State Department’s 
15 

FSI is a great host to this organization, and you have the Defense 

Language Steering Committee, the National Education’s Security 

Education Program, all of these groups work together, sir. It is the 

most collaborative group of people that I have ever worked with. 

Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. This question is for the national security agencies. The DOD has filled only 28 percent of the positions 

with language requirements with qualified employees and other 

agencies here are struggling with this issue as well. What challenges are your Departments facing in recruiting, hiring, and retaining personnel with the needed language skills and what steps 

have you taken to address these challenges? Ambassador. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you again for that question. 

We are actually doing very well now in filling our language-designated positions with people with the requisite language training, 

and right now the State Department is about 70 percent. We have 

a very high bar for that, and that is, people who have tested recently in the language at a 3–3 level. 

So, we feel we are doing very good but it is because we have done 

a lot of work over the past 3 years with the training float that we 

were able to develop based on a 3.0 diplomacy hiring. So, we have 

hired over the past few years about 15 percent more so that we can 

put people in language training while others are in the jobs. We 

are somewhat concerned as we approach the next year because we 

do not have the hiring float. He will only be able to a hire to attrition and we need to continue to encourage more hiring or get support and resources for more hiring to continue to have that training 

float so that we can continue to train qualified people. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Junor. 

Ms. JUNOR. Yes, sir. I talked a lot about our first challenge and 

that is to try to improve the accession pool. After folks come in, we 

have two ways we think about this, teaching folks who come in 

their language capability. We have the Defense Language Institute 

Foreign Language Center. And that is creating an in-house cadre 

of language speakers and we can get them up to ILR–2. This is 

hard and it is expensive but it does serve its purpose. 

We are also using the Language Training Centers. In order to 

further improve our language capabilities, we are trying to improve 

how we use these folks. So, you may have seen recently that the 

Army is creating regionally aligned forces, and this will help us 

build expertise in other cultures as well as give service focal points 

for folks who speak those languages around the world to go and 

practice. 

We are also trying to expand how we use, over the last several 

years we have tried to expand how we use heritage speakers. We 

have the National Language Service Corp which is a very important surge capacity. That is over 240 languages that are at our disposal and there is no way we could have created such a competency 

starting from scratch. We are very thankful for that. 

We also have something called 09 Lima program and the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program. 

These are methods for heritage speakers to come and actually 

serve as uniformed military members and serve as in-house lan-
16 

guage and cultural experts. These folks have been critical to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years. 

And, we also have the Defense Language Institute English Language Center and again that is to increase the language capacity 

of our partners. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. North. 

Ms. NORTH. So, as I mentioned earlier, we actually have a linguist workforce of over 1,400 which is an 85 percent increase from 

9/11 and our retention rate is 94 percent. So, we are actually doing 

fairly well in that regard. 

We have implemented what we call a workforce planning model 

where we actually do targeted recruitment toward languages where 

there is a shortfall or anticipated need. Our hiring goal is 90 percent fill rate. We are currently at 88 percent and we anticipate that 

we are going to meet our Fiscal Year 2012 goal, and the flexibility 

that we have is that mixed workforce of contract linguists and language analyst. 

As a result, we have reduced our average applicant processing 

time and we are down to now 10 months which, for us, is a really 

good news story. The challenges that we face in recruiting and hiring is our difficulty in finding those individuals who can pass the 

foreign-language test battery at the level that we require. They 

also need a polygraph examination and a full scope background. 

And then, given our requirements that a lot of our material has 

to be submitted to a court of law for evidentiary purposes, we have 

a higher bar set for our language skills. 

We have an average of 1 in 10 applicants actually getting 

through that applicant process. And of course, we are competing 

with everyone else here at the table for those same resources. 

The way that we mitigate those challenges is through recruiting 

fairs that we actually go out to look at the native and heritage communities. We advertise in those foreign-language newspapers. We 

put out press releases and we do in-person events. We also attend 

university hiring events and the intelligence community has a virtual career fair that we also attend. 

And then, we leverage the other language enabled employees in 

the FBI. We are able to provide them with a limited amount of foreign-language incentive pay where, if they have a language that is 

critical to our needs, we can actually reward them for that ability. 

And then, we also leverage our IC partners through cross-community resource sharing. So, we host joint duty assignments, interagency short-term temporary duty assignments. We work with the 

National Security Education Program as I have mentioned before 

and that Heritage Language Speakers Program. 

Still we do have foreign-language needs and those continue to be 

Arabic, the Yemeni dialects, Chinese, Farsi, Pashto, and Somali. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Nordin. 

Mr. NORDIN. One of the difficulties that we have had has always 

been the inability to take people away from the positions where 

they are actively using their language and send them off to school 

to learn their language better or to do other jobs. 

We are very appreciative of the training float that was granted 

to the DNI for a number of positions so that we can send some of 

these people off to get their enhancement training. 
17 

But the biggest difficulty we face, sir, I feel, is in our leadership, 

and I cannot give the specific names, but let us say the general 

Federal entity leadership is as unaware of the needs for language 

within their organizations as the general populace is failing to be 

aware of the needs for language in their community. It is a national disgrace in that respect, sir. 

And, it is that lack of knowledge that we need to correct. We 

need to find a way to communicate to our people just how important that interpreter/translator at the social services level is to a 

community’s well-being. So, that is our biggest education challenge 

I feel. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Nordin. 

Dr. Junor, you mentioned earlier the National Language Service 

Corps. Will you please discuss how the Corps addresses the Department’s language needs, as well as any plans to further develop the 

corps? 

Dr. JUNOR. Yes, sir. The National Language Service Corps, there 

are over 3,500 members at this point and about 400 more applicants. I mentioned before that this represents over 240 languages 

around the world. There is a national pool that looks like our inactive reserve and a dedicated pool that looks like our active reserve. 

And, what this means is that it truly is a surge capacity for those 

emergent needs that must be filled. That dedicated pool represents 

a predictable and very broad capacity for languages that are not 

commonly found. 

Several geographic combatant commanders, to include 

CENTCOM and PACOM and AFRICOM are regularly drawing 

from this. Several of our force providers, our North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) oriented units, are drawing on these capabilities as well as key agencies. 

Non-DOD agencies, and we have heard from some of them today, 

include everywhere from FBI to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Justice, Center for Disease Prevention, and several States. 

Individual States have drawn from the service corps. 

In a time of fiscal austerity, it is useful to point out that we have 

actually been able to recapture some of the investments we have 

made in Federal employees in that about 8 percent of the service 

corps have previously had Federal background. So, we are recapturing those language capabilities. 

The National Language Service Corps is something that we rely 

on frequently and is relatively new in our world. As word is getting 

around, we expect the demand for this capability to increase. So, 

it is something that we take very seriously. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let me ask my final question to the 

entire panel. What do you envision as the end goal for language capacity and what resources or authorities are needed to reach that 

goal? 

Mr. Ochoa, I would like to discuss the Department’s vision for a 

national language capacity and I would like the other witnesses to 

discuss language capacity within your Departments. So, that is my 

question to the entire panel. And let me begin with Mr. Ochoa. 

Mr. OCHOA. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 
18 

Well, ultimately we are really trying to prepare the Nation for 

the global 21st Century society that we are going into; and that requires, as we have outlined in our international strategy, the development of global competencies in our citizenry. This will lead to 

positive outcomes all around. 

In addition to the very focused national security concerns, there 

is improved understanding of the world, the greater effectiveness 

in our business dealings with other countries and other regions of 

the world, also a greater understanding of the diversity within our 

own country as we draw from populations across the world. 

This is the kind of society that we are going to be working in the 

future. We have, as we draw students from across the world, they 

represent a potential untapped resource because they are really 

bridges to communities all over the world. 

We are a Nation that, unlike many other countries, we are defined by an idea that draws people from all over the world and has 

for the lifetime of our country. And so, that is a very powerful asset 

that we have and I think that preserving and expanding that cultural diversity and the language that people bring is something 

that I think will stand us in good stead in the global society of the 

future. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I have always felt the diversity of our 

country is its strength, and so that is that part of the strength. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OCHOA. Absolutely. 

Senator AKAKA. Ambassador. 

Ms. THOMAS-GREENFIELD. Thank you again. 

The Department of State has a huge responsibility of carrying 

out our diplomatic goals all over the world; and in order to do that, 

we have to have a workforce that has the language skills to do it 

wherever we are in the world. 

So, what we see in the future or hope for in the future is to be 

able to recruit people with those language skills when they come 

into the Foreign Service so that we are able to deploy them as 

quickly as possible to those areas of the world where they are required and we would like to be able to have the resources to continue to train them in their languages, to improve their language 

skills so that as they go up in the Foreign Service, they are better 

able to negotiate for our government to help us prevent wars. 

This is a huge responsibility that we have and we know that we 

need to have people with language skills to carry out those responsibilities. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. JUNOR. 

Ms. JUNOR. Yes, sir. We live with two realities. The first is that 

we are the biggest, largest consumer of language capabilities, that 

we are the biggest hirer of folks, we have the largest need of folks 

with language requirements in the Federal Government and probably nationwide and these are profound needs. These are needs in 

some of the most difficult languages out there. 

The second reality is that except for a gifted few, learning language is hard. It is not something that you do once and then is 

yours forever. You have to sustain that expertise throughout your 

career; and especially with the fiscal realities being what they are, 
19 

our end state is the furtherance of the national plan, a national 

partnership. 

We cannot meet our needs alone. Partnerships like I said among 

our Federal partners to share best practices on how to help K–12 

to keep that pipeline coming, practices on how to improve and sustain language capability once they have come in our doors, and further partnerships with Congress to help keep this pivotal national 

issue. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. North. 

Ms. NORTH. Since September 11, 2001, the FBI’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) collection in counter-terrorism and 

counter-intelligence related matters has increased significantly and 

we do not see that trend reversing at all. We project that the demand for translation services will only continue to increase. 

So, the challenge for us is achieving the goal of translating all 

of the material that we collect. We are never going to be able to 

do that because of what we collect and the volume that continues 

to come in. 

So, really what we need to be able to do is partner with our other 

agencies in the intel community, in the civilian community so that 

we have the resources that we need then to remain flexible so that 

we can meet those new and emerging threats as they appear. 

As years go along, the languages that are going to be in demand 

are going to change. Right now, we cannot predict what those languages will be 20 years from now but now is the time that we actually have to start training our workforce for those languages 20 

years in the future. 

So to have those resources to remain flexible so that we can reconfigure our workforce and also to help work on the technology so 

that we can triage the material that we are getting to be able to 

ID the speaker, ID the language, look to see what we can do to actually focus our analysts so that their work becomes more productive and not such a sifting through of all the collection that we 

have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. North. Mr. Nordin. 

Mr. NORDIN. The Director has laid a strategy of increasing the 

number of persons in the intelligence community who have command of other languages, cultures, knowledge of the countries and 

augmenting that increase with key technologies inserted at critical 

points within our intelligence collection and analytic systems so 

that you facilitate and control the volumes of material that are 

being processed. 

There is no one solution to the problem. It lies in the Nation 

itself understanding the need for foreign language in their daily 

lives. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I want to thank this panel very 

much for your responses and your statements, of course. You have 

been very helpful and I want to wish you well as we work together 

to continue to increase our Nation’s language. 

You are doing a great job but we still have more to do. I want 

to thank you for what you are doing and wish you well in your 

work. 

I would like to ask our second panel to please come forward. 
20 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Lawless appears in the appendix on page 88. 

I want to welcome Mr. Andrew Lawless, Member of the 

Globalization and Localization Association and Chief Executive Officer of Dig-IT Strategies for Content Globalization; Dr. Allan Goodman, Member of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force on 

U.S. Education Reform and National Security and President of the 

Institute for International Education; and Dr. Dan E. Davidson, 

President of the American Councils for International Education 

and Elected President of the Joint National Committee for Languages (JNCL). 

It is the custom, as you know, of this Subcommittee to swear in 

all witnesses. I would ask you to please rise and raise your right 

hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this 

Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth so help you, God? 

Mr. LAWLESS. I do. 

Mr. GOODMAN. I do. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let it be noted in the record that the 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before we start, I want you to know that your full written statements will be made a part of the record, and I would like also to 

remind you please to limit your oral remarks to 5 minutes. 

So, Mr. Lawless, would you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW LAWLESS,1 MEMBER OF THE 

GLOBALIZATION AND LOCALIZATION ASSOCIATION AND 

PRINCIPAL OF DIG–IT CONSULTING 

Mr. LAWLESS. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer my testimony about the 

business of language in the United States; I will do so on behalf 

of the Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) that is 

the international trade association for the corporate translation 

sector. 

As an American citizen with a thick German accent and an Irish 

last name, I feel especially motivated to speak to you today how the 

shortage of language resources puts our economic security at risk. 

Let me give you some context first. U.S. businesses exported 

about $1.5 trillion in goods and $600 billion in services last year, 

all of which depended on language services to sell and market to 

audiences whose native language is not English. 

News statements, Web sites, movies, product literature, software, 

and safety information, labeling, digital games, and customs support are all translated every day in over 500 major language pairs. 

The outsourced language services industry represented in $15.5 

billion of activity and 190,000 jobs in North America last year. This 

does not account for the vastly larger pool of part-time and freelance linguists in the United States, let alone the jobs that the language industry has indirectly created such as for the American people who market, sell, deliver, and support U.S. made products 

worldwide. 

Languages, and the business that they enable, may be the most 

powerful force in job creation in the United States today. Without 
21 

translation and localization, U.S. businesses would be missing $2.1 

trillion in gross income. 

As U.S. companies target multi-lingual audiences at home and 

abroad, they create a rapidly growing need for language services 

and a workforce that can deliver in cross-cultural settings. If you 

sell products in Germany, your customers will tweet back at you 

in German and your customer support team needs to be ready. 

To stay relevant and to continue to successfully compete in a 

global marketplace, U.S. companies must build language capabilities. Acquiring language skills takes time, repeated exposure, and 

practice to develop. Not acting immediately on these development 

needs have dire consequences on the U.S. economy. 

We are already seeing a chronic shortfall of qualified language 

specialists and stagnant translator activity. As a result, corporations are increasingly relying on less qualified translators and low 

quality machine translations, all of which are rendering their products less competitive in the global marketplace. 

The American workforce needs more key competencies in disciplines such as translation, localization, terminology, localization 

technologies, engineering, and multimedia. These skills are in high 

demand and will continue to be sought after. 

U.S. businesses and government agencies are addressing the 

needs for language competence but we need more cooperation between private sector, government, and academia. 

For example, investing in startup and existing language technology companies, promoting research and development of language activity in key areas such as emerging markets, homeland 

security and cyber crime, expanding the educational and career opportunities for U.S. citizens in language-related fields, and last but 

not least, training specialized workers such as law enforcement officers and the intelligence community in targeted skills. 

As an association, GALA has committed to educating our member companies in advancing our industry to alleviate the looming 

crisis but we cannot do it all on our own. We will need the close 

collaboration between translation service companies, technology 

providers, the buyer community, government, and academia. 

GALA would welcome the opportunity to expand on this testimony and our recommendations in more detail. We also appreciate 

the invitations from the previous panel to collaborate with the private sector and we are definitely open for that and welcome that 

conversation. 

And, thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am happy to 

answer any questions that you have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawless. 

Dr. Goodman, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLAN E. GOODMAN,1 PH.D., MEMBER OF THE 

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS’ TASK FORCE ON U.S. 

EDUCATION REFORM AND NATIONAL SECURITY AND PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION 

Mr. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was an honor to receive the call from this Subcommittee to present some testimony. 

It is a privilege to serve as President of the Institute of International Education which administers the Fulbright, Gilman, and 
22 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Goodman appears in the appendix on page 99. 

Boren programs on behalf of the Department of State and the Department of Defense. 

What really captured my attention for this hearing was participation in the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force. It was 

chaired by Secretary Condoleezza Rice and former Chancellor of 

the New York City Public School System, Joel Klein. It was a very 

bipartisan and very mixed group. 

For someone in a higher education, what really was to me the 

heart of the recommendation was the call for a national readiness 

audit which would help us understand the very things your statement and your questions and this Subcommittee have been asking 

about for a long time. How prepared is the Nation and at what levels are we teaching all of our citizens to have proficiency in another 

language? 

Now, it is easy for us in higher education and international education to forget just how many of our citizens are connected to the 

world and do not get the chance to study it. 

Seventy percent of Americans today do not have a passport. That 

is about the same percentage of Americans with a college education 

that cannot find Indonesia on a map, cannot find Iran on a map, 

and believe that South Sudan, the newest country in the world, is 

either in Southeast Asia or in South America. 

Most Americans who do study abroad go to a relatively few number of countries, many also English-speaking, and they study 

abroad for a very short period of time. 

The other thing that we tend to forget, except for you and this 

Subcommittee, is that foreign language learning in our country 

may be at the lowest level in our Nations history. 

Certainly, for college students today about, as Secretary Ochoa 

said, only 8 percent studying a foreign language, that is half of 

what it was in 1965; and yet, the need for, as you have noted many 

times, the need for much more proficiency in foreign language is 

where the future ought to be. 

The Federal programs that this Subcommittee has supported are 

quite strategic, therefore, in my view. Fulbright, Boren, Gilman, 

are global. They get our citizens to more than 150 different countries. 

They are very diverse, not only in terms of where students go but 

the students from our society that go. More than half are from minority groups in our society, a much different portfolio and profile 

than is the normal study abroad profile of Americans going abroad. 

They go for longer periods of time, and that is conducive to language study. 

So, I think this Congress has repeatedly made very strategic investments in these programs and we are grateful. But to move the 

needle—I am not going to ask for more money to move the needle, 

what has to happen is that American higher education has to reinstitute foreign language proficiency as a graduation requirement 

for every undergraduate going through our systems. 

A hundred years ago that was true in every college in America, 

from technical schools to liberal arts schools to research univer-
23 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson appears in the appendix on page 106. 

sities, and today I do not think it is true for more than a dozen 

or two dozen in our whole country. 

That is the only thing that is really going to change the pipeline 

and assure that the panel that we just heard from is going to have 

the future language speakers that we need to protect our country. 

In conclusion, I want to depart from my written statement just 

a little bit because your Subcommittee is focused also on the District of Columbia. Twenty blocks from here my daughter runs a 

clinic, a pediatric clinic under a federally qualified health clinic. 

They have had over 600,000 patients visits last year and 95 percent of her patients’ language is mainly Spanish. When she went 

to medical school she realized that what she needed more than 

learning chemistry, biology, and physics, if she was going to be an 

effective doctor in your National Health Service Corps, was to be 

able to speak to patients in their own language and in this case 

it was their first language Spanish. 

I agree that more language for diplomacy and national security 

will help make our world a less dangerous place but I also think 

sometimes learning another language helps our citizens right here 

at home to live in a safer and more secure world. 

Thank you very much for your support of both programs. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Goodman. 

Dr. Davidson, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF DAN E. DAVIDSON, PH.D.,1 PRESIDENT OF 

AMERICAN COUNCILS FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION 

AND ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE JOINT NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LANGUAGES 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka, for the opportunity to appear before you today. It has been my honor to serve 

as the Elected President of the Joint National Committee for Languages for the last 4 years. 

The foreign-language profession in the United States is in a 

strong position to address the needs that have been so articulately 

and eloquently spoken today by our colleagues from DOD, ODNI, 

State, Justice, Education, the foreign affairs community and American business. 

If we are to meet the demands of keeping the peace around the 

globe as called for by Secretary Panetta, of engaging audiences and 

institutions around the world as envisioned by President Obama 

and Secretary Clinton and also detecting the intentions and preventing the actions of those who would do us harm, as the National 

Security Agency (NSA) Director Michael Werthheimer has stated, 

then what is needed is a citizenry and a government workforce that 

includes substantial numbers of persons professionally fluent and 

culturally literate in the major languages and cultures of the world. 

Research shows that professional level knowledge of language is 

highly sensitive to cultural signals and cues, of understanding not 

only what people say but also how they use language to communicate, to modulate meaning, to conceal values, or communicate 

their intentions and their aspirations, to build rapport with one an-
24 

other, to persuade, to negotiate, to establish trust, or fail to establish trust, as the case may be. 

Information transfer, is a relatively minor part of communication 

if you look across the mass of communicated elements that we 

have; the cultural component is what is central. It is specific to 

each language, not something generically ‘‘global,’’ and here I differ 

a bit from one of the comments made earlier today. It can be very 

hard to discern, especially if you have never set foot outside the 

‘‘greenhouse’’ or a classroom in this country. 

We, in the foreign-language field, therefore, salute yours and the 

U.S. government’s decision to raise the bar for language designated 

positions across agencies to Level III. But the real answer for scaling up the system and delivering speakers, readers, and analysts 

in major world languages and cultures to the new level required by 

the government is to begin that training as far upstream as we can 

take it, as you have said today, with an extended sequence in the 

K–12 system, periodic opportunities for full immersion in the target 

culture, continued advanced and content-oriented study in the university and a strong language maintenance strategy for the Federal 

and civilian work corps employees. 

Thanks to the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of a half 

a century ago, the United States has been able to maintain a core 

capacity in the university level in for foreign language and areas 

studies for most world areas through Title VI and Fulbright-Hays 

both of which have been unfortunately reduced by 40 percent over 

the past 2 years alongside the outright elimination of FLAP which 

you have commented on. 

This is movement in the wrong direction which we hope can be 

addressed by the Administration and Congress as soon as possible. 

On a more positive note, in the post 9/11 era, initiatives arising 

from the defense, foreign affairs, and intelligence communities notably National Security Language Initiative, which builds on Title 

VI and Fulbright-Hays, specifically aims at helping address the 

new mandate for high level language and culture across the sectors 

of the economy. 

And, here I simply want to mention programs that are making 

a big difference in the foreign-language field right now on the 

ground. The STARTALK program funded by NSA is running high 

quality stateside summer programs, 159 different programs in 10 

languages in 48 States and the District of Columbia. It is making 

a big difference even though it has not been out there very long. 

The State Department is investing more than $30 million a year 

in the National Security Language Initiative for Youth (NSLI–Y), 

Critical Language Scholarships (CLS), and related teacher programs supporting critical language study for more than 1,500 

American university, college, and high school students a year. 

The NSLI–Y program, for example, is open to any student in the 

country and has a remarkable level of language achievement even 

for the short period that it works. Similarly the CLS program has 

done the same thing for the undergraduate students. 

The final point I want to make is the National Security Education Program’s Flagship Program because, while it has some very 

promising K–12 pilots in place, it has totally reinvented the way 

that foreign languages are taught today in our universities, setting 
25 

three as the logical outcome for a series of programs and training 

models that do not even require the undergraduate learner to be 

a major in that field. 

Together the NSLI group and those supported by Title VI and 

Fulbright-Hays are low cost, high quality, proven models that we 

believe are scalable. They are working in a few places right now. 

They could work in a lot of places with the same level of success. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement. Mr. 

Lawless. 

Mr. LAWLESS. Yes, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. What are some of the barriers U.S. companies 

face when attempting to enter overseas markets and how does the 

process of localization assist companies in accessing and succeeding 

in these markets? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Right. There is a difference between translation 

and localization. Localization is the cultural adaptation of products 

or services to the target country. 

To give you an example, if you buy a Japanese car, you buy it 

here in the United States, you sit on the left even though it was 

produced in Japan where you sit on the right because you have 

left-hand traffic. 

So, you need to adapt your product. You need to adapt your user 

manual. You need to adhere to local laws and regulations. So that 

is the process of localization. It goes far beyond just translation, although translation is a most important part of localization. 

The question that you asked about the key challenges for U.S. 

companies to enter markets. That really depends on the organization. It starts very often with what they do not know how to put 

a document into translation. 

But most likely, and that resonates with what was said by the 

previous panel, it is lack of executive awareness; and if more executives understood that almost 50 percent of their income comes from 

overseas, they would pay more attention. 

I gave an example with Apple Computer. Apple Computer last 

year made $108 billion of revenue, 60 percent of that was generated abroad. Facebook’s international revenue grew from 33 percent in 2010 TO 44 percent in 2011. Wal-Mart international sales 

in the last quarter of last year rose by up to almost 9 percent 

whereas the U.S. business slipped by half a percent. 

If more executives really understood that language is the key enabler for their success and for their ability to survive, they would 

not have a lot of middle managers in their companies that struggle 

to get a localization budget. 

Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Lawless. 

Dr. Goodman, as you mentioned in your testimony, you served on 

the Council on Foreign Relation’s Task Force on U.S. Education Reform and National Security, which concluded that short falls in 

U.S. education raise national security issues. Will you please explain how the Task Force came to that conclusion? 

Mr. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
26 

We began with the horrifying statistic which was 75 percent of 

our young people today are unqualified or disqualified from military service. 

That was a number that shocked really all of us. Some are unqualified because of their educational background, some because of 

persistent health problems, and some because of obesity which we 

know is a major problem in America. 

So, we tried to zero in on the part of that population that at least 

we could fix and that was through education and what we tried to 

get agreement on and got a substantial amount of agreement was 

that America needs a core curriculum as about 20 States and 20 

Governors have now accepted. 

What surprised me the most was I thought I would have to fight 

very hard for a foreign language requirement to be considered essential and to be considered core. I did not have to at all. 

People on the task force really realized that it is our key to understanding the world that we share, to preparing Americans for 

global life and global work, and getting ready to enter national 

service whether it is in the security or diplomatic Everest. 

So, we believe in a core curriculum. We believe in foreign language, and we also believe in a readiness audit that helps establish 

the dialogue and then the coordination that you are concerned 

about among academia, the private sector, and also government. 

So, when we know where the gaps are, we can fix them. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Mr. Lawless and Dr. Goodman, the Task 

Force’s report discussed the reality of cyber espionage against business and government information systems. 

Would you explain why foreign languages are important to cyber 

security? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Yes. Right now we see an explosion of content on 

the Internet, only 20 percent of that content is in English so the 

rest I guess is not English. 

There is also a huge increase in what we call user-generated content through blogs and other social media sites. So, if you want to 

analyze what is out there, if you want to understand what other 

people say about you as a company or about us as a Nation, then 

speaking those languages but also understanding these languages 

in the current context and the context of the culture is absolutely 

crucial. 

Senator AKAKA. Dr. Goodman. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Dan mentioned in his testimony that language conveys values 

and sometimes it conceals intentions and we need people skilled at 

understanding both. I think to me the same is true in the cyber security area. 

The Internet is an English-speaking world a lot, not exclusively, 

and it is being used by people with many different values and 

many different intentions, and so, I think part of our recommendation of the task force to focus on this is to try to understand those 

people who are speaking English using the Internet and have intentions that are very different than the ones we associate with 

simply sharing more information. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 
27 

Dr. Davidson, your testimony notes that there is a general lack 

of knowledge of how to develop and implement language training 

from early childhood, and you recommended using the K–12 Flagship model to build a pipeline of proficient language speakers. 

What key elements from this program can be emulated by 

schools across the Nation? 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. 

I think the lessons of Flagship are that best practices are out 

there in the field. Flagship did not sort of create a bunch of mystical new ways of learning language but rather it mobilized the 

best thinking in the field and stood back with a certain perspective 

and said how can we do all of this better and in a consistent way. 

I think in terms of the Federal role in the Flagship model, it is 

a very clever one in the sense that it does not attempt to purchase 

a turnkey shop of some kind but rather looks at those limited 

points of leverage along the way where a Federal boost can make 

the difference in whether a program survives or a student is motivated or the progress in learning that language is suitably advanced. 

For example, never to forget the importance of the teacher, the 

investment in the teacher. It is maybe not as sassy as a headline 

but the teacher is critical to this process. Another really strong lesson we have learned is that the overseas study piece or the summer intensive study piece can fit into a curriculum without doing 

damage to everything else. 

In fact, if you do it well, then you can actually pursue part of the 

major requirements later on, harking back to Allan’s point about 

requirements. Those requirements can actually be continued overseas in the setting in a direct enrollment model. 

So, I think the key to Flagship really is mobilizing the best practices which are out there now, the standards, the outcomes. The 

field has its act together in that sense, and then looking at those 

points of leverage, like the summer, like the capstone where a little 

boost from an external funder can make it all come together. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Davidson. 

My next question is for the panel. I would like to give you all an 

opportunity to provide any final statements or comments. I know 

you have lots to say about foreign languages. 

Mr. LAWLESS. Yes. Well, thank you very much for giving us the 

opportunity to testify to you and the Subcommittee. 

As an industry association, we represent the majority of people that actually produce that work that generates $2.1 trillion in revenue. And, we would really welcome the opportunity to cooperate 

with the previous panel and this panel because we have all the 

same challenges and I would like to note, as I only realized that 

after my testimony, that the entire first panel left the room before 

the second panel began. 

So again, thanks again for the invitation and I am looking forward to more conversation hereafter. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Goodman. 

Mr. GOODMAN. Thank you, Senator. I simply hope that this Subcommittee and its exercise of government oversight will continue to 

focus on the very issues you have identified since 9/11, the need for 

our country to be able to speak other languages to operate effec-
28 

tively in the world, the role that academia places in that, the role 

of the private sector plays in that, the role that the government 

plays in that. 

So, I hope that the spirit of these hearings will very much continue. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Dr. Davidson. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to second what Allan 

just said about the importance of these hearings and the way you 

have been able to focus public attention over time to this very important need inside our government. 

I think the good news is that models are there that we can make 

a difference and those models are scalable. We mentioned Title VI. 

We mentioned the State Department programs and we mentioned 

the NSEP and the Flagship and STARTALK. These are excellent 

models that do not have to be reinvented and they are operating 

in 150 places or 12 places or in 24 places. It would take so little 

to double that number. The marginal difference in the cost would 

enable those models to be generalized and disseminated more 

broadly in the country. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Well, I want to thank you so much for your responses, and of 

course, the statements. It will be helpful to this Subcommittee. We 

look upon you as key partners, and together we can use your expertise to improve our country’s language capacity. 

We are a diverse country. We have the languages. We just have 

to use it well and make sure we train our people well to serve in 

that capacity. So, thank you very much. We appreciate your presence. 

Now, I would like to ask our third panel to please come forward. 

I want to welcome the third panel. 

We have Shauna Kaplan, a fifth grade student at Providence Elementary School in Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Ms. Paula Patrick, Coordinator of World Languages, Fairfax 

County Public Schools. 

Ms. Michelle Dressner, a 2010 Participant in the National Security Language Initiative for Youth Program. 

Mr. Jeffery Wood who was also a 2010 participant in the National Security Language Initiative for Youth Program. 

And, Major Gregory Mitchell, a 1995 Fellow for the David L. 

Boren Fellowship Program. 

As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in 

all witnesses. So, I ask you to please stand and raise your right 

hands. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this 

Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth so help you, God? 

Ms. KAPLAN. I do. 

Ms. PATRICK. I do. 

Ms. DRESSNER. I do. 

Mr. WOOD. I do. 

Major MITCHELL. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Let it be noted in the record that the witnesses answered in the 

affirmative. 
29 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Kaplan appears in the appendix on page 121. 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Patrick appears in the appendix on page 123. 

Before we start, I want you to know that your full statement will 

be made a part of the record and I would like to remind you to 

please limit your oral remarks to 3 minutes. 

So, Shauna, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF SHAUNA KAPLAN,1 A FIFTH GRADE STUDENT 

AT PROVIDENCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FAIRFAX COUNTY, 

VIRGINIA 

Ms. KAPLAN. [Speaking in Chinese]. 

I just said in Chinese: Hello everyone. My name is Shauna. I am 

11 years old. I am in fifth grade at Providence Elementary School. 

I like Chinese class very much because Chinese class is fun. 

Senator AKAKA. Xie xie. 

Ms. KAPLAN. I have been taking Chinese since the 1st grade, 

which was the first year it was taught at my school. My Chinese 

teacher is Ms. Yuan, who has been my teacher all 5 years. There 

is a second Chinese teacher at my school, Ms. Su, who is teaching 

my little sister. 

I really like learning Chinese. Class is a lot of fun because we 

learn using a lot of games and activities that include everyone in 

the class and teach us new things. My regular teacher, Mrs. Pratt, 

told me she works with Ms. Yuan so that sometimes they are 

teaching about the same things at the same time. This year, when 

we learned about ancient civilizations in Mrs. Pratt’s class, Ms. 

Yuan taught us about ancient China and different dynasties while 

we were learning Chinese. I like that they go together. Sometimes 

we even do math in Chinese. 

I want to keep learning Chinese. I want to be fluent in Chinese. 

I would like to visit China, and I want to be able to talk to the people there. I also like showing people in Virginia how I have learned 

Chinese, like when I count in Chinese the number of things we ate 

at my favorite dim sum restaurant. The people working there were 

very surprised that I could count in Chinese. 

Thank you for helping Fairfax have Chinese classes. I also want 

to thank Ms. Yuan for being such a great teacher, all the people 

who help her, and my mom and dad who encouraged me to learn 

Chinese and to work hard in school, and even my sisters who also 

got to take Chinese. I am very excited to be here representing 

them, all of Providence Elementary School, and Fairfax City. 

[Speaking in Chinese.] 

That means: Thank you everyone. I am happy to speak some 

Chinese today. Learning Chinese is not hard. You also can learn 

Chinese. [Applause.] 

Senator AKAKA. Xie xie, Shauna. 

Ms. Patrick, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF PAULA PATRICK,1 COORDINATOR OF WORLD 

LANGUAGES, FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Ms. PATRICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mahalo. 

Fairfax County public schools is the 11th largest school division 

in the country with approximately 175,000 students. The school di-
30 

vision prepares students with the necessary skills that are desperately needed in the Federal workforce, national security, and on 

the economic front by providing a variety of language offerings to 

students in kindergarten through 12th grade. 

Funding provided by the Federal Government allowed Fairfax to 

implement Chinese and Arabic programs that would not have been 

implemented otherwise. Some policymakers simply felt these languages were too challenging for elementary students. Federal startup funding made it possible to implement Chinese and Arabic 

where district funds were not available. 

Once policymakers could see the success of the language programs, they gladly provided funding to ensure students could continue the languages through high school and have since expanded 

Chinese and Arabic to additional sites. 

The Foreign Language Assistance Program grant addressed the 

need of studying the critical needs languages. The funding provided 

a firm foundation for language study that ultimately increased the 

number of students learning Chinese and Arabic and provided 

them the opportunity to become proficient in these critical needs 

languages. 

Prior to the grant in 2005, we had 125 high school students 

learning Chinese and we had 162 students learning Arabic. Today 

we have a little over 5,000 students in elementary, middle, and 

high school learning Chinese and we have over 1,000 students 

learning Arabic. 

Our fifth grade students are now connecting sentences to convey 

meaning orally as well as in writing using characters and Arabic 

script. 

The FLAP grant awarded in 2006 actually funded projects at 

every level. With the funding, we developed a virtual online Chinese language course for the Virginia Department of Education 

which allows more students the opportunity to learn Chinese not 

just in Fairfax County but throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

We developed an electronic classroom that broadcasts synchronous Arabic courses to Fairfax County high school students attending schools that do not have sufficient enrollment to offer Arabic. We also developed Chinese programs in the Fairfax high school 

pyramid which gives students in grades 1 through 12 an articulated program of study and we supported Chinese and Arabic programs at eight additional elementary schools and four high schools 

by providing professional development and materials. We also 

partnered with Georgetown University and George Mason University for student mentoring, seminars, guest speakers, and summer 

language camps. 

We now have ample research that proves what all other countries have known for a long time. We must start language learning 

at an early age when the brain is most receptive to language acquisition. Mastering a foreign language takes time, sequential study 

and practice. When language supervisors propose starting a language program, they are often denied due to already stretched district and State budgets. Policymakers view them as a want and not 

a need for students. Federal funding is the only way we can initiate 

programs that will prove to the taxpayers and policymakers that 
31 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Dressner appears in the appendix on page 125. 

the money is well spent once people can see what these children 

can do with a second language. We do not know what the world 

will be like in 20 years but we do know we cannot say that we are 

educating our students for the 21st Century if we are not giving 

them the tools they need to protect the country and to keep America the superpower it is today. 

In closing, I would like to say that Fairfax County public schools 

is thankful for the Federal funding that we received and 6,000 

Fairfax County students studying Chinese and Arabic are thankful 

too. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Patrick. 

Ms. Dressner, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHELLE DRESSNER,1 2010 PARTICIPANT IN 

THE NATIONAL SECURITY LANGUAGE INITIATIVE FOR 

YOUTH PROGRAM 

Ms. DRESSNER. I have always been an adventurer. I enjoy puzzles, exploring, and learning new things. These qualities led me to 

apply for the National Security Language Initiative for Youth 

(NSLI–Y). 

I studied Russian in high school for 2 years. I decided that the 

ideal way to get to the next level in Russian language was through 

immersion. So, in my senior year of high school, I applied for 

NSLI–Y, a scholarship funded by the U.S. Department of State 

through the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Administered by American Councils for International Education. 

When I won a semester NSLI–Y scholarship to study in Nizhniy 

Novgorod, Russia, I was ecstatic. However, I had no idea how significantly this experience would change my perception of culture 

and language as well as shape my educational and career aspirations. 

During my time in Russia, I lived with a host family. On my first 

day, they were unsure of how to behave around me, how to speak 

to me, and even how to feed me. Bread? Pancakes? Soda? What do 

Americans eat for breakfast? 

Unfortunately, my ability to communicate was limited to prepared phrases I learned in high school and at my program orientation. I knew how to say hello, goodbye, please, thank you, and very 

tasty. Well, ‘‘very tasty’’ was helpful with the food issue. However, 

I felt unable to communicate my emotions and learn more about 

the family kind enough to keep me as their guest. I wanted so 

badly to speak to them and tell them how grateful I was for their 

generosity and hospitality. My host family made my reason for language learning personal and emotional. 

My goal to communicate in Russian was achieved through practice speaking with my family, practice around the city, and my 

studies at the Nizhniy Novgorod Linguistics University. There our 

professors, Natalia and Svetlana, put an extraordinary amount of 

effort into teaching us Russian. Through their teaching, I quickly 

became able to express myself. My host mom was delighted when 

I asked her about her day and told her about the poem I was read-
32 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Wood appears in the appendix on page 128. 

ing, all in Russian. My new friends, professors, and host family inspired me. 

After returning from Russia, I was confident not only that I 

wanted to study Russian in college, but that I wanted to pursue a 

career involving Russia and international relations. In 2014, I will 

graduate from Smith College with a double major: Economics and 

Russian Civilization. I hope to work in public service for either the 

U.S. Department of State, a sector of the Federal Government, or 

a nonprofit organization. By pursuing a career involving public 

service and Russia, I know that I will be working in a field that 

I am passionate about, and it is through NSLI–Y that I discovered 

my passion for Russian studies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Dressner. 

Mr. Wood, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY WOOD,1 A 2010 PARTICIPANT IN THE 

NATIONAL SECURITY LANGUAGE INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH 

PROGRAM 

Mr. WOOD. NSLI–Y is a federally funded program by the U.S. 

Department of State that has allowed me to do unimaginable 

things. Without the support from NSLI–Y, I would not have been 

granted the opportunities that I have experienced such as going to 

Beijing, China twice in my lifetime along with speaking in front of 

you all today. 

Additionally, I would not have pursued learning the Chinese language. This program highlighted the importance of language, especially the Chinese language and how learning the language can 

benefit me and others. 

Prior to graduating from high school, I had no interest in learning another language. As a student who attended Roosevelt High 

School in Washington, DC, my opportunities were very limited. 

However, during my 10th grade year, I was granted an opportunity 

that changed my life forever. After much convincing from my AP 

government teacher, I applied for the Americans Promoting Study 

Abroad program (APSA). I figured this would be a way to view the 

world outside of my local periphery. But I took a chance and it paid 

off. I was offered the opportunity to study abroad in Beijing, China 

for 6 weeks to study Chinese language and culture. 

I am forever grateful that NSLI–Y’s funding granted me the opportunity to go to China. As a student who had never been on a 

plane prior to going to Beijing, this was a life-changing experience. 

I appreciate that Americans Promoting Study Abroad targets students that live in underrepresented communities across the Nation 

because that is where dire attention needs focus now. It is not just 

the students who can afford these opportunities that are deemed 

‘‘globally aware’’ because of their travel experiences, but also 

through the lenses of students like me, and ones in underrepresented communities because every student deserves a global experience. 
33 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell appears in the appendix on page 130. 

Since my experience, I decided to pursue a future career in the 

Foreign Service, working either in an international development organization or intergovernmental organization/non-governmental organization (IGO/NGO). I recently finished my freshman year at 

George Mason University where I am pursing a double major in 

Global Affairs with a concentration in international development 

and a major in Chinese. I am also currently in the Chinese language buddy program at my college where you chat and build relationships with native Chinese citizens that come to study at 

Mason. I would have probably pursued a career very different from 

the one I am pursuing now if I did not go to the program. 

These types of programs are very necessary for the development 

of our future young generation because without them, we have very 

limited views on the world. As the United States becomes more diverse, more interactive, more developed technology-wise, we have 

to understand that the only barrier that we have to break through 

is communication, especially through languages such as Chinese. 

Improving the foreign language capacity of the Nation is crucial 

to the United States’ success over this lifetime. In order to become 

powerful, we have to learn to adapt and learn new knowledge. 

Through language and immersion, you achieve both requirements. 

Thank you for your time and I am happy to answer any questions that you have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Wood. 

Major Mitchell, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GREGORY MITCHELL,1 A 1995 FELLOW 

FOR THE DAVID L. BOREN FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM 

Major MITCHELL. Chairman Akaka, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss my experiences as a Boren Fellow and the impact 

the program has had on my career as an Army Officer. 

Before entering the Army, my Boren Fellowship afforded me the 

opportunity to spend a semester at the American University in Cairo’s Arabic Language Institute. It was an experience which significantly shaped my decision to enter the military and has significantly impacted my career as an Army officer specialized in the affairs of the Arab world. I have served a total of 48 months in the 

Middle East as both a combat arms officer and a Foreign Area Officer. Throughout my career I have leveraged my Arabic language 

training to build partnerships at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels with our partners in the region. I have studied Arabic 

in a variety of venues, to include the Foreign Service Field School 

in Tunis, Tunisia; Princeton University; and my Alma Mater Washington University in St. Louis. However, it was the semester I 

spent in Cairo as a Boren fellow where I laid the groundwork for 

a high degree of spoken Arabic proficiency. 

I first put my Arabic language skills to work in 2003 when I 

served in al Anbar province with the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment. My commander understood the valuable role I could play in 

the unit’s efforts to build rapport with local Iraqi officials and he 

placed me in charge of the Squadron’s government support team. 

The rapport I built in cities such as Fallujah and Habaniya saved 
34 

American and Iraqi lives and helped my unit develop a successful 

counterinsurgency strategy. 

In 2004, I took command of a tank company in the 3d Armored 

Cavalry Regiment and trained my men for a second tour beginning 

in April 2005. Because I could speak Arabic, my commander again 

placed me in a unique role partnered with an Iraqi Army battalion 

on the outskirts of Tal Afar in Ninewa Province. Our tour was very 

successful and our partnership with our Iraqi battalion was recognized as one of the strongest American-Iraqi tactical partnerships 

at that time. With my Arabic, I was able to plan and execute tactical operations with my Iraqi counterparts without an interpreter. 

I have the National Security Education Program to thank for that. 

Because of my Boren fellowship, I came to the Army with a 

unique skill set that I have leveraged to build and strengthen important tactical and strategic relationships with our partners in the 

Middle East. Boren Fellows and National Security Education Program alumni like me are currently serving across the Department 

of Defense and other governmental agencies. We arrive at the Federal workplace language enabled and regionally astute, ready to 

address complex problems and build lasting partnerships across 

the globe. 

And, sir, I want to thank you for your continued interest in this 

very important capability. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Major Mitchell. 

Shauna, when I was a youngster my dad spoke Chinese and Hawaiian in Hawaii, but at that time people thought it was bad for 

children to learn multiple languages. So, my parents did not teach 

me. As a matter of fact they said speak English. 

You are very lucky because now we understand that it is good 

for students and very important for our country to teach foreign 

languages. My question to you is: What do you like most about 

learning a different language and what made you want to learn it? 

Ms. KAPLAN. What I like most about learning Chinese is how it 

is taught to us through activities but still learning. I guess my parents inspired me to learn another language because I was already 

learning one because of my religion, and I just like learning more 

about the other cultures and ideas that inspired me to learn Chinese. 

Senator AKAKA. I see. Did you have an opportunity to go to a 

Chinese community or to China? 

Ms. KAPLAN. Not yet, but I am hoping to when I am older to go 

to China and learn more about the culture and their way of life. 

Senator AKAKA. As you know, there are different dialects in 

China. When I said my father spoke Chinese, he spoke Cantonese. 

So, it is a little different from the major language now in China. 

Thank you very much for your responses, Shauna. 

Ms. Patrick, I am impressed with your achievements in educating young students in foreign languages and I would like to say 

mahalo, thank you, to you as well. 

Ms. PATRICK. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you know how often students continue their 

language study after they finish your program and how the program has influenced their career goals? 
35 

Ms. PATRICK. I think the key is when you start language learning at an early age, students do not really look at it as being a difficult language or really even an academic subject. They look at it 

as a communicative tool and we now have all of our language lessons that are related to content. So, they are using language to 

problem solve in the area of math, science, and social studies. 

And so, to continue on as you heard today, it just seems like the 

natural next step. You are learning the language to sixth grade, 

you continue on through seventh until you hit the higher levels of 

proficiency which we are seeing in our students. 

The students, it is interesting, we do not encourage them to only 

think of two languages. We want this to be the foundation of multiple languages. 

So, sometimes we see our students take on even another language in middle school or high school and continue on with two or 

three languages in college. So, I think because we are developing 

that fearlessness of language, they are also more encouraged to 

continue with the language at the higher level of education. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

This question is for Ms. Dressner, Mr. Wood, and Major Mitchell. 

How has learning a foreign language and about a different culture 

shaped your perspective about the world we live in? Ms. Dressner. 

Ms. DRESSNER. Well, I feel that learning a language and learning 

about the culture is critical to language learning in general because 

it gives you a basis for understanding and you can really connect 

more to the language and have a reason for continuing to learn the 

language. And, I believe that is growingly important in this day 

and age when the world needs language speakers and needs people 

to be able to communicate cross culturally. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Wood. 

Mr. WOOD. I think that it allows me to think outside of my own 

stereotypes that I had prior going. I think learning a new language 

and about their culture allows me to learn about the language and 

the people that are within the culture as the people and what they 

do and how they interact with each other, and it allows me to see 

them as, I guess I can explain this, it allows me to interact with 

them in a way where I could not have before if I did not learn their 

language; and with their language, it helped me develop a relationship with them. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Major Mitchell. 

Major MITCHELL. Yes, sir. I think that language is sort of the 

hard science of understanding people who come from different 

paces than oneself. I find it emphasizing the common things between things that are common to myself, to my peers in the Army, 

and to people that we work with. 

Learning a language helps you to emphasize those common factors as human beings. So, I am a big advocate, maybe a language 

determinist in the sense that I think a lot of the way we think is 

done in language. 

So, if I want to know another way of thinking about a topic, to 

learn to do that in a different language gives me a different perspective. So, I am a big advocate of language training. 

Senator AKAKA. I should tell you that I am a World War II veteran; and during that time, I served in the Pacific; and at that 
36 

time, our country used our Japanese citizens to deal with the Japanese. And so, they became a part of what I call military intelligence 

service (MIS). 

But it is claimed that there were out there in the Pacific during 

that period of time and because of the language they were able to 

shorten World War II by years. So, even at that time language 

made a difference. 

And, I knew some interpreters for General MacArthur who 

served in the Philippines as well as in Japan after the war. I 

learned from them that their language speaking ability really made 

a difference with the Japanese and they were able to help stabilize 

the government at that time even to the point where it helped to 

bring Japan about so that it could become, as it has, one of the top 

industrial Nations. 

So, the language skills of our citizens makes a difference. I am 

so glad that we are moving in that direction. But I want to be sure 

we have adequate resources and programs to help bring this about. 

This is why we have you here on our panels. Everything you 

have said will be part of the record and will demonstrate the importance of these programs. 

So, I would like to say thank you to our witnesses for being here 

today. It is clear that we have made good progress to improve our 

Nation’s language capabilities. However, as you know, more work 

remains to be done. 

I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues in the Senate to make sure we have robust language capabilities and you are helping us to do that. 

The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks for questions other 

Members may have. Again I want to say mahalo. Thank you so 

much for your responses and your statements. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(37) 

A P P E N D I X 

ST ATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL K. AKAKA 

A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government 

Hearing 

Snbcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security aud Governmental Affairs 

Aloha, T want to welcome our witnesses to today' s hearing: A National Security Crisis: Foreign 

Language Capabilities in the Federal Government 

Today, we will review the importance of foreign languages to our national security and our economy. 

We will also examine the state of the Federal government's foreign language capabilities and consider 

ways to improve our nation's language capacity. 

Last year, we marked the 10'h anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This tragic event 

exposed our nation's language shortfalls. The 9111 Commission raised concerns about the shortage of 

personnel with needed Middle Eastern language skills at both the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation and 

the Central Intelligence Agency, which hindered our understanding of the threat. These agencies, as 

well as the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Defense continue to experience shortages of 

people skilled in hard-to-Iearn lanf,'uages due to a limited pool of Americans to recruit from. Because of 

these shortages, agencies are forced to fill language-designated positions with employees that do not 

have those skills. Agencies then have to spend extra time and funds training employees in these 

languages 

As U.S. businesses of all sizes look to expand, they need employees with the foreign language skills and 

cultural knowledge to access overseas markets. Our national and economic security is closely linked to 

how well our schools prepare students to succeed in a global environment. Experts indicate that 

learning languages starting at the K-12 levels develop higher language proficiency than those starting in 

college 

The Federal government must partner with schools, colleges, and the private sector to address this 

ongoing challenge at its root cause: our nation's failure to adequately invest in language education, 

starting at earl y ages. 

Even in a difficult budget environment, we must fund important international education and foreign 

language study programs to build the pipeline to a 21 " century workforce, including the Foreign 

Language Assistance Program We must make sure that budget cuts are not at the expense of strategic 

(OVER) 
38 

national security interests. Short-sighted cuts, for example to the Department of Education's Title VI 

program, could severely undermine the progress we have made in this area. 

Today, we will hear about agencies' progress on their language capabilities. However, I believe 

agencies can do more to coordinate and share best practices in recruiting, retaining, and training 

personnel. Furthermore, I strongly believe that a coordinated national effort among all levels of 

government, industry, and academia is needed to tackle the problem before us. If we work together, we 

can improve our nation's language capacity and effectively confront the challenges to our nation's 

security and economic prosperity. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and continuing the discussion on how we can address our 

nation's language needs. 

-END-
39 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on the Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the 

District of Columbia 

Hearing on "A Notional Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government" 

Testimony of Eduardo Ochoa, 

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education ofthe U. S. Department of Education 

May 21,2012 

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. My name is Eduardo Ochoa and I 

am the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education. I am 

pleased to provide testimony for this hearing on national security and federal foreign language 

capabilities. I particularly appreciate your focus on this issue as I have direct experience having been 

born in Buenos Aires, Argentina where I attended bilingual schools until my family moved to the U.S. 

during my junior year of high school. I can tell you I personally understand the importance of foreign 

language programs as they not only provide students with a better understanding of other cultures, but 

it also provided me with a unique insight and appreciation of my own culture and language. 

Before providing an overview of our programs, let me express the Department's appreciation of Senator 

Akaka's strong, long-standing support for the advancement of foreign language learning in this country. 

It is imperative that we improve our federal foreign language capabilities. In 2007, the National Research 

Council reported that "a pervasive lack of knowledge about foreign cultures and foreign languages 

threatens the security of the United States as well as its ability to compete in the global marketplace and 

produce an informed citizenry." 

1 
40 

International Strategy at the U.S. Department of Education 

Reflecting these concerns, the U.S. Department of Education recently adopted a fully articulated 

international strategy designed to simultaneously advance two goals: strengthening the educational 

attainment of U.S. students and advancing our nation's international priorities. These goals and the 

underlying objectives reflect: 

the critical importance of a world-class education for all students; 

• the need to increase global competencies of all u.s. students; 

• a heightened focus on international benchmarking and applying lessons learned from other 

countries; and 

a renewed focus on education diplomacy and engagement with other countries. 

In today's globalized world, no nation can launch a fully effective domestic education agenda without 

also addressing global needs and trends and nurturing a globally competent citizenry. The reality is that 

a hyper-connected world requires individuals to have strong 21" century skills and a disposition to 

engage in the world around them. Such global competencies, including foreign language competency, 

cannot be seen as an 'add-on' either in higher education or in K-12. They will prepare students, and our 

nation, for economic competitiveness and jobs, collaboration to address global challenges, national 

security and diplomacy, and effective engagement in a diverse u.S. society. 

A key objective of our plan, which is particularly relevant to the topic of today's hearing, is to increase 

the global competencies of all u.S. students, including those from historically disadvantaged groups. The 

need for these competencies, which we think of as "21" Century skills applied to the world", is clearboth for u.S. civil society and for our nation's workforce, and for our national security. 

2 
41 

Right now, just 30 percent of U.S secondary students and 8 percent of postsecondary students are 

enrolled in a foreign language course, a long way from the multi-lingual societies of so many of our 

economic competitors. Two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 could not find Iraq on a map of the 

Middle East. And African-Americans and Latinos continue to be underrepresented among those who 

study abroad. 

Many of us are aware of the dramatic decrease in the number of college students who enrolled in any 

foreign language over the past several decades. Surveys by the Modern Language Association and 

others indicate that currently only about 8 percent of students at the postsecondary education level are 

enrolled in a foreign language as compared to about 17 percent of postsecondary education students in 

the 1960s, and only about 1 percent of students at the postsecondary education level are enrolled in the 

less commonly taught languages. This downward trend in language enrollment at the postsecondary 

education level demonstrates the magnitude of the need and the importance of high quality language 

study starting in the early grades. 

The Global Competence Task Force, formed and led by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the 

Asia Society, has pointed out that, to acquire and exercise global competencies, students must be able 

to understand the world through disciplinary and interdisciplinary study. They need opportunities to 

investigate the world beyond their immediate environment and to recognize perspectives - their own 

and those of others. They must be able to communicate ideas effectively with diverse audiences and 

take action - to translate their ideas into constructive endeavors. 

The development of these skills, including foreign language proficiency, must start early, in elementary 

and secondary education. U.S. colleges and universities have a responsibility to help students further 

3 
42 

develop and deepen these skills, but waiting until postsecondary education to start is too late. This 

means that that school systems at all levels-from elementary to postsecondary-must place a far 

greater emphasis on helping students understand their responsibilities as global citizens, helping them 

work effectively on diverse teams, educating them to acquire cross-cultural competencies, challenging 

them to make ethical decisions for the common good, and encouraging them to engage in their 

communities locally and globally. We believe that engaging students in these ways will help our nation 

meet the President's 2020 college attainment goal with more graduates ready to lead us well into the 

21" Century. 

Department of Education Programs: Office of Postsecondary Education 

The Department of Education currently awards funds specifically for international learning and foreign 

language acquisition through the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE). We support the teaching and 

learning of foreign languages through a portfolio that consists of 14 discretionary grant programs under 

Title VI and Fulbright-Hays Act. These programs are grouped into nine programs that received $66.6 

million to operate domestically and four that received $7.5 million to operate internationally. 

Though funding for the international programs has decreased-from $125.9 million in fiscal year (FY) 

2010 to $74 million in FY 2012-the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs have managed to keep 

supporting the most significant needs by being flexible and adaptive. These programs support the 

Federal government's investment in the international service pipeline and work in concert with the 

investments in students through our Federal Student Aid programs that help them access and afford a 

college education in foreign language and other areas of international importance. In our last survey of 

postsecondary students in 2007-2008, nearly 270,000 undergraduates majoring in foreign languages 

received $1.9 billion in Federal student aid. 

4 
43 

By working with colleges and universities, the international programs run by OPE ensure a steady supply 

of graduates with expertise in less commonly taught languages, world areas, and international studies. 

Despite the challenges in developing a budget that would provide a world-class education for our 

students in a tough economic period, the President's FY 2013 budget proposed $75.7 million, an 

increase of $1.7 million over the 2012 appropriation, for the International and Foreign Language 

Education programs. 

One of the primary roles of the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs is meeting the national need for 

expertise and competence in foreign languages and in foreign area and international studies. The 

program particularly addresses the need to develop foreign language competence in less commonly 

taught languages, such languages as Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Indian languages like 

Hindi and Urdu, , and African languages like Swahili and Zulu, to name a few. Now, only about 1 percent 

of students at the postsecondary education level are enrolled in less commonly taught languages. 

In 2008, in cooperation with several Federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and State, 

as well as selected university linguistics and language professors, our office compiled a list of 78 less 

commonly taught languages, which were determined to be priority, and posted this list on the 

Department of Education's Website at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opeliegps/languageneeds.html. As required in the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act of 2008, our office also consults with the other cabinet agencies to obtain 

recommendations regarding areas of national need for expertise in foreign languages and world regions. 

These recommendations are also posted on our Website along with the list of 78 priority less commonly 

taught languages. 

5 
44 

The National Resource Centers, supported under Title VI, represent the Department's primary 

mechanism for developing U.S. language and area expertise on college campuses. The 127 current 

grantee institutions provide instruction, research and development in over 110 languages from all world 

areas. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of students enrolled in critical language programs at 

National Resource Centers nearly doubled. As an example of the effective use of the funds we were 

given after FY2000, in that year we funded 140 Middle East Foreign language and Area Studies fellows. 

In FY 2009 we funded 310-an increase of 120 percent. 

Our advanced overseas intensive language program, supported by the Fulbright-Hays Group Projects 

Abroad program, (and currently funded at approximately $3 million) gives upper-level undergraduate 

and graduate students the opportunity to study modern foreign languages overseas. A program 

assessment completed in fiscal year 2011 for the program found that the majority of students who 

participated in it between 2000 and 2008 achieved proficiency at the "professional working" level or 

higher in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The majority of students who participated in the 

program during that same period are working in positions that allow them to use their language (61 

percent) or cultural competence skills (85 percent). 

Through their focus on building national capacity to teach less commonly taught languages, especially at 

the postsecondary level, and developing expertise in area studies especially in strategically important 

regions of the world, the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs play an important part in meeting the 

needs of the Nation's federal workforce, national security, and economic competitiveness needs for 

individuals with foreign language skills. 

6 
45 

In addition to our Title VI National Resource Centers, the companion program-Title VI Foreign 

Language and Area Studies Fellowships (FLASj-provides funds to colleges and universities for the 

academic year and summer fellowships to assist undergraduate and graduate students in foreign 

language and area or international studies. In FY 2011, 735 FLAS students attended summer language 

programs overseas. These students study at the intermediate or advanced level of their languages. 

World areas where students study include: Africa, Canada, East Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, 

Europe/Russia, the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Western Europe. Over 2,600 FLAS 

fellowships have been given to students to study languages of the Middle East. Title VI funding also 

supports American Overseas Research Centers. These centers make it possible for our faculty, students, 

and teachers to enrich their scholarship and research by facilitating the research clearances, making 

connections to the academic and research communities in strategic regions around the world, and 

hosting major conferences on topics that are vital to our understanding of the cultures where these 

Centers operate. In 2010 alone, 11 Centers worked with nearly 1000 social science and humanities 

faculty and scholars, teachers, and students. The relatively modest funds of $650,000 are leveraged to 

do much. 

Helping to Build a Competitive Workforce 

The Centers for International Business Education (CIBEs), within OPE, serve as resources for the teaching 

of improved business techniques, strategies, and methodologies that emphasize the international 

context in which business is transacted; and offer instruction in critical capacity to teach less commonly 

taught languages and international fields needed to provide an understanding of the cultures and 

customs of u.s. trading partners. Over 2 million students have taken international business courses 

through the CIBEs. 

7 
46 

Outreach to underserved populations in international education 

As we continue to advance international education and foreign language learning through the 

discretionary grants that we administer, I want to reaffirm our commitment to promoting access and 

diversity in foreign language learning and international education by serving underserved populations. 

In FY 2011, over 50 percent of the Title VI National Resource Centers provided outreach services to 

community colleges and minority-serving institutions. In FY 2012, in order to help promote greater 

access to international education programs and to diversity in international education, OPE conducted 

Webinars to reach out to over 300 individuals from community colleges, historically black colleges and 

universities, and Hispanic-serving institutions (including faculty and prospective project directors) to 

discuss Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs that could help achieve greater access to diversity in 

international education for postsecondary education students. 

Foreign Language Assistance Program 

While Congress chose not to fund the Foreign Language Assistance Program in FY 2012, the 

Administration is proposing in our reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 to create an "Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education" program. This 

proposed $90 million program would support competitive grants to States, local educational agencies, 

and institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations in partnership with high-needs local 

educational agencies to develop and expand innovative practices to improve teaching and learning in 

the foreign languages among other subjects that contribute to a well-rounded education. 

Conclusion 

The Department has continues to make the case for investing in language and cultural education for all 

students. The Federal investment in foreign languages and area studies is critical to developing and 

8 
47 

sustaining the pipeline of individuals with foreign language and international education skills that are 

needed to address national security and economic competitiveness needs. These programs also help to 

enhance the capacity of education institutions and agencies at ali levels, including K-12 and 

postsecondary, to effectively teach and learn foreign languages. We are committed to continuing to 

improve and refocus our programs to support the goals of the Department's international strategy to 

strengthen U.S. education and advance the nation's international priorities. We believe firmly that 

knowledge and understanding of other cultures and languages are, in an increasingly interconnected 

world, critical to bUilding and sustaining our nation over the coming years. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for your attention to this important issue, 

and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

9 
48 

STATEMENT 

OF 

AMBASSADOR LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD 

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE AND 

DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

BEFORE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF MANAGEMENT, THE 

FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

HEARING 

ON 

" A NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS: FOREIGN LANGUAGE 

CAPABILITIES IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" 

MAY 21, 2012 
49 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Snbcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss the Department of State's efforts to build the foreign 

language skills we need to fulfill our mission and deliver on America's foreign policy agenda. 

The Bureau of Human Resources (HR) has the critical responsibility of building and maintaining 

an effective civilian workforce that can fulfill its role in strengthening the security and prosperity 

of our nation. Our highest priority is assigning our people to places and positions where we 

believe they can best achieve our foreign policy goals. We are thankful for the funds that 

Cons>ress appropriated in recent years to increase our ability to accomplish this mission in a 

rapidly changing environment worldwide. This funding has helped set us on the right path to 

address the global challenges of today and tomorrow. 

The United States and the world face great perils and urgent foreign policy challenges, including 

regional conflicts, wars, the global economic crisis, weapons of mass destruction, climate 

change, worldwide poverty, food insecurity, pandemic disease, and terrorism. State Department 

employees are working diligently toward solving the problems that these issues have created. 

As Secretary Clinton emphasized in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, 

managing these threats depends as much on diplomacy and development as on the use of military 

force. Therefore, we have increased the number of positions at difficult, hazardous posts that are 

vital to our foreign policy agenda. And we now have close to 4,000 language-designated 

positions (LOPs). We have worked hard to ensure that qualified language speakers encumber 

these positions. The percentage of worldwide language-designated positions (LOPs) 

encumbered by fully language-qualified personnel has increased to 74 percent in 2012 from 

approximately 61 percent in 2009. Of our Foreign Service employees assigned to LOPs in FY 

2011,78 percent either met or exceeded the language requirements for their positions. This is a 

major achievement. 

Over the past several years, we have had to make critical choices about whether to leave a 

position vacant for the time it takes to train a fully language-qualified officer or curtail all or part 

of the language training. These were difficult choices. 
50 

The Department makes every effort to ensure that Foreign Service Officers are fully trained in 

and meet the language requirements needed for the position, but there are cases where a medical 

emergency or other problem has forced us to curtail the assignment of someone serving in a 

language-designated position. When that occurs, it is often hard to find someone with the 

requisite language skills who can fill the position immediately. 

A similar situation can occur when someone volunteers to serve in Afghanistan, Iraq, or 

Pakistan. Filling those positions meets critical service needs, but that can create a gap elsewhere. 

The Department may need to send an officer to fill the gap who does not have full language 

training, but who possesses the other required skills to meet the needs of the position. 

Fortunately, that has begun to change for the better. With the additional hiring authorized by 

Congress, we launched Diplomacy 3.0 in March 2009 and have now increased the Foreign 

Service by 17 percent and the Civil Service by 7 percent. We used a significant portion of that 

increase to double the size of our long-term training complement allowing us to leave employees 

in training longer without suffering staffing gaps overseas. 

Meeting our Foreign Language Needs 

It is challenging to uphold the Department's high standards for foreign language capability. 

Over the past decade, there has been a significant shift and growth of positions to the Near East, 

South Asia, and East Asia. 

Overall, positions have tripled in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA) where 

LDP requirements have increased tenfold and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) has 

doubled regular positions and the corresponding language requirements. 

Comparing December 2002 to November 2011 data, overall LDPs have increased by 46 percent, 

with Chinese (65 percent) and Arabic (125 percent) among the languages with the highest 

growth rates. These languages are among the hardest to learn, each of them requiring two years 

of training to reach a level of general professional proficiency. Meeting our Arabic needs has 
51 

been particularly challenging, since much of the growth in Arabic LDPs has been at one year 

assignment posts. This means that we must commit three officers for each one-year Arabicspeaking position; one currently in the assignment, one in the first year of training and one in the 

second year. For cases such as these, the Department pays on average an additional $252,000 in 

salary and benefits for the two officers in training. 

The shifting focus, mirroring our shifting foreign policy, has also required additional training in 

other languages from these parts of the world, including Pashto, Hindi, Urdu, Dari and Farsi, all 

ofwhich require one year of training to reach general professional proficiency. 

The Foreign Service Institute (FSI) has expanded its foreign language training capacity to raise 

the proficiency of existing foreign language speakers. In addition, to meet increased demand, FSI 

is also running a two-shift schedule and expanding on-line offerings. Currently, FSI offers 

training in 65 different languages. 

More targeted recruiting, however, can help address the current challenges, and we are recruiting 

aggressively for certain priority language proficiency skills at this time. Those with these 

laus'Uage proficiencies who pass our stringent Foreign Service Officer Test are given preference 

points in the hiring process. 

To address increasingly complex national security challenges, the State Department must have 

robust foreign language capabilities. Therefore, we strongly encourage young people to study 

languages earlier in life, starting in middle and high school and continuing in college. 

In addition, the Department has established incentives to encourage employees to strengthen 

their language skills - particularly in the so-called "hard and superhard languages "such as 

Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Korean, and Hindi. For example, employees receive extra 

time in service for studying and achieving fluency. We also have a Lan!:,'Uage Incentive Pay (LW) 

program under which proficiency in certain languages provides additional compensation for 

employees who have achieved proficiency and who are serving in a country where the language 

is the primary spoken language. And, in 2009, we established the Asymmetric Language 
52 

Incentive Pay (ASLIP), a pilot program wherein employees may receive compensation for 

uneven proficiency (for example, where the employee's spoken language is strong and deemed 

more important than reading) in several strategically important lanb'Uages (including Arabic, 

Russian, and Korean). Such incentives underscore the value placed by the Department on 

obtaining capacity in our most difficult and needed foreign languages. 

Conclusion 

While we work aggressively to recruit and retain the talented staff needed in places like 

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, we also must guarantee that our employees have the foreign 

language skills necessary to succeed in these challenging environments. But the need is not 

limited to a handful of countries. No matter where in the world they are serving, our employees 

must have the lanb'Uage skills to gather information, explain and advocate U.S. policies, establish 

and maintain our diplomatic platforms, build and maintain trust, and create relationships. In 

today's rapidly changing world, the need for these skills has never been more critical. In fact, we 

believe that our country's future well-being and security depend on them. 
53 

Prepared Statement 

Of 

Dr. Laura J. Junor 

Before the 

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee 

on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the 

Federal Government" 

May 21, 2012 
54 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of this distinguished 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address the importance of foreign language skills 

in carrying out the Department's mission, our plan for improving foreign language capabilities, 

and our efforts and accomplishments regarding ways to increase the number of individuals with 

foreign language skills. 

Let me begin by stating that Defense Secretary Panetta has long believed that having strong 

language ability is critical to our national security. He offers that "Language, regional, and 

cultural skills are enduring warjighting competencies that are critical to mission readiness in 

today '.I' dynamic global environment." 

The Secretary emphasized the importance oflanguage and culture in an August 2011 

memorandum to the Department's key leaders. In it he outlined his vision to have the required 

combination oflanguage skills, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities to meet our Nation's 

present and future national security needs. In short, he stated that, "The Department must 

establish and execute policies and procedures that show we value these skills." (see Attachment 

I). 

The August memorandum supports his January 2012 Defense Strategy, which emphasizes 

that we are a Nation with important interests in multiple regions. We remain engaged in the 

international arena and must communicate with local populations and their senior officials if we 

are to strengthen relationships with existing allies, and forge new relationships with potential 

partners. 

2 
55 

The Department is committed to fielding the most capable Force it can deploy, and language 

is a critical capability of that same Force. As a result, we have improved our tracking of both 

language requirements and language capabilities over the past seven years. The Department 

looks at language capabilities within three separate but overlapping groups: the General Purpose 

Forces (GPF), the Special Operations Forces (SOF), and Language Professionals, which includes 

language analysts, translators, linguists and Foreign Area Officers. Together, they span our 

Total Force. 

The Department faces difficult challenges regarding language. Currently, the DoD Total 

Force includes 3.3 million personnel with 7.92% or 258,786 individuals with reported language 

skills. Although this is noteworthy accumulation oflanguage capability, we find that slightly 

over 142,000 of these personnel speak Spanish, so the majority of our language capability is not 

addressing current operational deployments. Our challenge is in generating capabilities to 

address current and projected operational needs. We need personnel who have the required 

language competing at the right proficiency level to fill the 36,983 military positions in DoD that 

are identified as having language requirements. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, over 81% (29,960) of 

our military positions identified as having language requirements were filled. However, only 

28% (10,377) of the positions with language requirements were filled with personnel at the 

requiredforeign language proficiellcy level. Although we may be filling the positions, we are 

not filling those positions with individuals with the requisite proficiency ski111evel. We have, 

nevertheless, made headway. 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 20 II fill rate indicates that 34.6% of assigned personnel have the 

required level of proficiency for their positions, an increase from 31.7% in FY 2010. We admit 

that we have a lot of work to do in this area and will continue to address this deficiency through 

3 
56 

training and other incentives. The long-term solution must be a national one. In short, we recruit 

from a national pool of individuals who, for the most part, have little or no formal language 

training. We recognize that our schools cannot teach every language vital to U.S. national 

security, but we know that having a pool of individuals who have been exposed to a foreign 

language or had early language learning will greatly facilitate further language acquisition. A 

citizen possessing any language learning skills would greatly increase the Department's ability to 

fill language required positions with qualified individuals. 

We are working to overcome these challenges through a strategic, integrated way forward--

not only for our nation's security but also for the security of our global partners. As a result of 

Secretary Panetta's August 2011 memorandum, the Department created a new strategic 

organization: the Defense Language and National Security Education Office. This office grew 

from a merger of two strategic offices and allows the Department to draw upon the National 

mission of the National Security Education Program and the Departmental mission of the 

Defense Language Office. 

As a result of this merger, Departmental leadership has the benefit of national coordination 

through the National Security Education Board (NSEB) and Department-wide coordination 

through the Defense Language Steering Committee (DLSC). The NSEB is an interagency 

governance body with representatives from several Cabinet-level federal agencies, including the 

Departments of Defense, Education, State, Commerce, Energy; the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence; and the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Humanities, along 

with six presidential appointees, to provide input on critical language, regional, and cultural 

issues. The DLSC is an internal governance body that consists of General Officers/Senior 

Executive Service members from 25 key components across the Department that coordinate 

4 
57 

policy and programs, such as Department-wide strategic planning, language requirements, 

language training, and proficiency testing. 

Building upon the 2005 Defense Language Transformation Roadmap, which established a 

foundational capability to have people with the right skills in the right place at the right time, our 

current strategy addresses the entire language, regional, and cultural spectrum of activity-from 

public school education to initial skill training, assessment, enhancement, sustainment, and 

leveraging international partners. 

There is no shortcut for acquiring foreign language skills. They involve significant 

investment in time and training. We recognize that the linguistic, regional, and cultural readiness 

of our force is heavily influenced by the preparedness of the national citizenry, from which we 

build this force. Accordingly, we have initiated programs to attract personnel with these skills. 

We also assist in training more of our Nation's youth so they develop these skills prior to joining 

federal service. However, our efforts cannot make up for the fact that opportunities to gain these 

skills in our Nation's schools are not currently designed to meet the needs of this century. 

Therefore, the Department has moved forward to invest in developing these needs. Over the 

past decade we have come a long way in defining the problem. Based on planning and 

discussion throughout DoD, we have agreed across the Department that the first step in 

addressing a strategy is to better identify the language needs within the Total Force. As we work 

across the Department to identify the need, we are coordinating and improving policies and 

programs to acquire, sustain, and enhance language skills as well as to build meaningful military 

and civilian career paths. Lastly, we are working to build strategic partnerships within and 

across the Federal government, to include our national educational system, our allies, and our 

5 
58 

international partners. However, we know we cannot always accurately predict the need, so we 

are also increasing our ability to surge language capabilities to meet unexpected demands. 

IDENTIFICATION OF LANGUAGE NEEDS 

We are actively working to improve our identification oflanguage needs through a 

standardized, capabilities-based process. This process enables the Combatant Commands to 

articulate their lan!,'Uage requirements and provide them to the Military Services. The Military 

Services then supply staff to meet those needs. This year, the Geographic Combatant Commands 

will finish articulating these requirements, which will be the first time that the Military Services 

will have precise demand signals to inform recruiting, training, and resource management 

decisions to fill warfighter requirements. While military intelligence agencies have routinely 

carried out analyses oflanguage requirements, this effort expands upon that to include the Total 

Force, as our experiences over the last decade of war show that we must identify the linguistic 

needs of the Total Force if we are to be prepared for the full spectrum of contingencies. 

Additionally, every two years, we conduct a language capabilities-based review, which 

determines the languages upon which we should focus to meet strategic and operational needs 

for the next 10 to 15 years. Based on a thorough review of the national strategic guidance, 

intelligence assessments, ongoing operations, and input from the Combatant Commands, Joint 

Staff, Services, and Defense Agencies, the capabilities-based review prepares the DoD Strategic 

Language List. This list informs our policies and resource allocation decisions as we recruit, 

retain, train, and test our personnel. 

6 
59 

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND PROFICIENCY SUSTAINMENT 

To increase the pool for critical languages, the Department must find the means to support 

language acquisition. Langnage skills atrophy over time, especially if they are not constantly 

engaged. Therefore, equally important to langnage acquisition is langnage proficiency 

sustainment. As a result, we have sought innovative solutions to enhance not only language 

acquisition but also the sustainment process. Our solutions present a strategic and integrated 

approach that will ensure we create a pipeline for a future workforce that has the skills to meet 

the demands of the national security community. Our pipeline to build a future workforce can 

only be accomplished by collaboration, partnership across the Nation, and engagement with our 

Nation's schools, colleges and universities, industry, and research centers to foster a new 

generation of skilled individuals, from which DoD and other Federal agencies can recruit a 

national security workforce. 

Pipeline/iir National Security Workfiirce 

The Department has invested in many strategic initiatives to develop a national security 

workforce pipeline. These initiatives encompass partnering with Kindergarten through Jih 

grade (K-J2) schools and institutions of higher education to increase the nation's langnage 

capability. Programs such as Boren Scholarships and Fellowships, the Pilot African Language 

Initiative, and The Langnage Flagship are designed to improve the pool of professionals with 

critical language proficiency and regional expertise. The Langnage Flagship is raising standards 

for undergraduate language education by providing professional level language proficiency for 

students of any academic major in 26 universities across the country. The Flagship program is 

designed to bring students to Interagency Langnage Roundtable (ILR) Level 3, or general 

7 
60 

professional proficiency (see Attachment 2 for sample ofILR proficiency levels). This is the 

level identified by the national security community as being the minimum to provide work as 

useful language professionals, such as analysts, translators, or in diplomatic capacities. 

Normally, the Flagship program develops these skills within a four-year period, during which 

Flagship students would complete their undergraduate degrees with concurrent intensive 

language study and an academic year overseas. 

To build a pipeline, which in tum will reduce DoD's training time and costs, we have 

built upon our innovative K-12 initiative to promote and improve lanb'llage instruction by 

expanding our partnership between the Language Flagship Program and State and local 

education entities, such as the State of Utah and the Oregon Public Schools. This year, we have 

launched a new partnership with the Department of Defense Education Activity. Together, these 

expanded initiatives will build stronger pathways to language skill development in public schools 

feeding The Language Flagship, Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and Project Global 

Officer programs, as well as the DoD supported and public K-12 schools and public schools, 

which serve large numbers of students from military families. Though still relatively small in 

number, all of these efforts are intended to create a pipeline of language skilled individuals. 

Future Officer Cadre 

Future officers require a global perspective as leaders of the 21" Century, Therefore, the 

Department is investing in its future officer leaders through two programs: Project Global 

Officer and the Pilot Flagship Reserve Officers Training Corps initiative, Through Project 

Global Officers, we provide grants to institutions of higher education to teach critical languages 

and enhance future officers' regional expertise and intercultural capacities, largely through study 

8 
61 

abroad and cultural immersion opportunities. The Pilot Flagship ROTC Initiative will increase 

the number of ROTC students completing their undergraduate studies with professional-level 

proficiency in critical languages and significant regional expertise. These investments in our 

future leaders, over time, will result in a future officer corps that is better equipped with the skills 

to lead its noncommissioned officers, interact with our partners, and think and act strategically. 

1()/al Force 

The Department places great emphasis on high quality language training. Much of this 

training is provided by the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC). 

DLIFLC delivers language training to language professionals, special operations forces, and the 

general purpose forces. In addition to intensive classroom instruction at the Presidio of 

Monterey, DLlFLC offers instructional venues through over 30 Language Training Detachments 

and Mobile Training Teams. It also offers a full range oflanguage learning opportunities 

through online programs. In 2011, we developed a new initiative to leverage our Nation's 

academic institutions entitled Language Training Centers. We currently have Language Training 

Centers at five universities located near major military populations. DoD provides grants to 

these institutions of higher education and in return they provide specific linguistic and cultural 

training for active, reserve, and guard personnel. These new efforts allow us to better leverage 

investments and resources across the military, civilian, and academic language programs. 

In 2005, we established the Department of Defense Foreign Area Officer program which 

created common training and education standards across the Department. In response, each of 

the four Military Services has instituted a Foreign Area Officer (F AO) program, which provides 

a corps of mid-grade military officers with high levels of regional expertise and professional9 
62 

level language proficiency. Since 2006, we have increased the number of FAOs from 1,414 to 

2,055. We plan to add approximately 800 FAOs to these ranks by 2015. We are watching to see 

how draw downs impact this career field. These officers combine military skills with specific 

regional expertise, language competency, and political-military awareness to represent and 

advance U.S. interests in one of nine geographical areas: Latin America, Europe, South Asia, 

Eurasia, China, Middle East and North Africa, Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan 

Africa. Tomorrow's global engagements will require that we continue to invest in FAOs for the 

knowledge and skills they provide as advisors to Geographic Combatant Commanders. 

Another large professional language community consists of the Department's language 

analysts. Language analysts are primarily enlisted personnel who attend anywhere from 26 to 63 

weeks of training at the DUFLC to achieve ILR Level 2, or limited working level proficiency, in 

their assigned foreign lanl:,'Uage(s). Their efforts have proven to be of great utility through 

previous and current conflicts. 

Language proficiency and regional expertise are among the critical capabilities necessary 

to effectively engage our partners and allies in order to conduct Foreign Internal 

Defense, Unconventional Warfare and other Irregular Warfare tasks. Special Operations Forces 

(SOF) will increasingly need these capabilities in order to develop lasting relations, develop 

trust, and assist our partners and allies in more etfectively addressing threats to security and 

stability. The SOF components have taken steps to increase capabilities and have tapped into 

external resources such as the DLIFLC. 

The U.S. Army Special Operations command, traditionally the principal regionalized 

special operations force, significantly strengthened both language and regional instruction, All 

10 
63 

Army Special Forces, Military Infonnation Support, and Civil Affairs Soldiers receive cross 

cultural communications training and language instruction to proficiency level of ILR level 1. 

Additionally, the top 15% of graduates attend follow-on training to attain ILR 2 and to learn 

specific regional content related to one of the five geographic combatant commands in 8-week 

regional studies courses. At the end of their SOF qualifying courses, Anny SOF are then 

assigned to operational units based on their regional alignment. Naval Special Warfare 

Command implemented language instruction for its operators. All SEALS and Special Warfare 

Combatant Craft Crewman (SWCC) currently train to ILR level 1 or 0+ during their SOF 

qualifying instruction and the troop graduates attend follow on course to achieve ILR 2 or 1 + 

depending on the language. Combat Aviation Advisors in Air Force Special Operations 

Command train to ILR levelland select Critical Skills Operators in the Marine Special 

Operations Command are trained to ILR 2. All SOF have access to sustainment and 

enhancement programs to include the Special Operations Forces Te1e-training System, Joint 

Language University, DLIFLC online resources, and the Language Training Centers. These 

skills increase mission readiness and continue to lead to improved operational success 

Current operations have taught us that language and culture training is also necessary for 

the success of our General Purpose Forces. Therefore, we made it a requirement that all DoD 

personnel deploying to Afghanistan take basic language and culture training. The DLIFLC also 

operates language training detachments that provide pre-deployment language and cultural 

instruction to the General Purpose Forces to ensure basic linguistic and cultural norms are met 

and that any specified, mission-specific vocabulary is identified and learned prior to deploying. 

11 
64 

Partner Language Capacity 

We must build our partners' language capacity so that DoD can increase interoperability. 

The Defense Language Institute English Language Center provides this capacity by training 

international military and civilian personnel to speak and teach English. This resource is vital to 

building and sustaining partner capacity throughout the world and is a key component for 

coalition operations as well as foreign military sales and security cooperation initiatives. It 

serves as the primary vehicle through which foreign military members gain the language 

capability needed to attend military training and education in the U. S., and has resulted in 

building global contacts. 

Native and Heritage Speakers 

Native and heritage speakers possess not only desired linguistic skills, but a deep cultural 

understanding that can inform leaders and influence mission success. The Department has 

leveraged this expertise through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest pilot 

program, which brings highly proficient native and heritage speakers into the General Purpose 

Forces, increasing the Department's overall language capacity without expending the time and 

financial resources to grow this capability within our existing force. The Army's 09L 

(Interpreter / Translator) program currently recruits native and heritage speakers of Mid die 

Eastern languages who perform interpretation and translation functions in support of Overseas 

Contingency Operations. The English for Heritage Language Speakers program provides a 

pipeline of speakers of critical languages who are well-equipped with the skills needed in 

national security positions. Continuing these native and heritage speaker programs will provide 

the Department with native level language proficiency and cultural knowledge. 

12 
65 

Financial Incentives 

The Department invests in acquisition and sustainment of language because it is a critical 

skill for a highly functioning Total Force. In many cases, given the mission, we must start with 

students that do not possess language learning skills or proficiency. 

The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center trains primarily military enlisted 

personnel to become language analysts. This training program is often referred to as the Basic 

Course. It also has a smaller training program for military officers preparing to become Foreign 

Area Officers. This training program is an intensive course of study to bring students with no 

language proficiency to limited professional capability in the shortest possible time. Few 

educational institutes can match its output in quality or quantity. The Department also trains 

students at the university based Flagship program to ILR level 3, general professional 

proficiency. This program starts with students who already have language skills. 

The Department provides incentives to active duty and reserve military, as well as to civilian 

personnel. Financial incentives to study a language are also available to ROTC cadets and 

midshipmen. The Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus is targeted to active duty and reserve 

personnel and is intended to encourage members to identify, sustain, and enhance their 

proficiency in languages of strategic interest to the Department. To ensure we have a pipeline of 

leaders with language skills, a skill proficiency bonus is paid to ROTC students that study 

foreign languages of interest to the Department. The role of these financial incentives is to send 

a clear message that the Department values these skills and to encourage more personnel to 

acquire, sustain, and enhance their skills. 

13 
66 

BUILDING PARTERNSHIPS 

We recognize that the work of building language capability cannot be done alone. We 

use informal and formal forums to generate cross-collaborative efforts at the national, state, and 

local levels. Building on the efforts of the 2005 National Security Language Initiative to 

encourage interagency collaboration, the Department continues to engage with a number of 

federal agencies in formal and informal venues. The Department leverages the NSEB by hosting 

Senior Language Authorities from DoD, as well as representatives from other federal agencies, 

to present and discuss their needs, and their efforts to build a workforce with advanced language 

capabilities. Together with the DLSC, the Department uses the NSEB as a means to create and 

support national collaboration and partnership. 

Additionally, 000 collaborates with local, federal and state programs to enhance 

language, regional and cultural pre-federal service capabilities through K-12 critical language 

programs and postsecondary programs. This year, our Portland K-12 Chinese Language 

immersion pilot sent its first graduates--as advanced Chinese language speakers--to the 

University of Oregon Flagship program. We are currently exploring expansion of immersion 

programs to additional languages across the state of Utah and have interest in further expansion 

to an additional 15 states. The Department also continues to work at the State level with its 

Language Roadmap Initiative. Under this program, the State of Rhode Island this year will 

present a strategy for statewide lafll:,'Uage initiatives in partnership with its DoD sponsored 

Language Flagship program. On an international basis, we are also supporting the Global 

Ministry of Defense Advisors program with language and culture training to assist in building 

partner capacity, and are establishing new regionally focused initiatives modeled after the 

Afghanistan- Pakistan Hands program. 

14 
67 

SURGE CAPACITY 

Through experience, we have learned the importance of building a surge capacity through 

which we may obtain the needed language expertise quickly and at a reasonable cost. The 

Department's National Language Service Corps (NLSC) provides a pool of qualified volunteers 

with high levels of proficiency in both English and a foreign language who can then be activated 

as temporary government employees, when needed. Department of Defense Combatant 

Commanders have been our primary single user since inception; however, in the past year we 

have had a significant response from many other federal agencies. For instance, we are 

coordinating with federal agencies so they can utilize this corps of volunteers to meet their 

emergent language needs, especially in response to Executive Order 13166 regarding Limited 

English Proficiency. This Executive Order mandates that all federal agencies will provide 

language access at all levels of government to individuals who have limited English proficiency. 

The NLSC is already part of the Department of Homeland Security's language access plan built 

in response to Order 13166, and that plan is being used as the template for other agencies. 

Additionally, we have had numerous requests for assistance from the Department of Justice, with 

the Federal Bureau ofInvestigations and Interpol being the primary users. 

The Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and customers in 

the Intelligence Community have utilized, or are preparing to use, our members for operational 

needs. In the first four months of2012, the NLSC has completed five missions, has two 

missions on-going, and is planning ten others in support of five U.S. government agencies, 

totaling over 10,000 hours of work with 60 members. 

Through targeted recruitment of members, the NLSC has become another means of 

leveraging very valuable language and cultural training that our federal employees receive while 

15 
68 

serving in the military or as a civilian federal employee. Because of their operational experience 

and language training, the NLSC is an effective means of capturing and redeploying their 

language skills to address language capability gaps in the federal government workforce. 

CONCLUSION 

We have made great progress in improving our foreign language skills, regional 

expertise, and cultural capabilities to meet 21 st century national security challenges. Although 

we have achieved much success, we acknowledge that much work remains. A critical challenge 

lies in the lack oflanguage skills from which we can recruit. However, our vision and strategy 

are designed to build language and cultural capabilities so they are available to DoD and other 

Federal agencies when needed. Our continued investments in developing a pipeline and in 

training our personnel are critical to success. 

The lessons learned expressed by our warfighting Commanders validate the importance 

of having a Total Force with the required language skills, regional expertise, and cultural 

capabilities that are available when necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to share the 

Department's efforts in this area and for your continued support of our language and culture 

programs. 

16 
69 

ATTACHMENT 1 

17 
70 

A TT ACHMENT 2 

INTERAGENCY LANGUAGE ROUNDTABLE FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY SCALE 

The U.S. government relies on the Interagency Langnage Roundtable (ILR) language proficiency scale to 

detenuine linguistic expertise. The following table outlines the proficiency descriptions for each ILR 

proficiency level. Below are the ILR descriptors for speaking. There are also ILR skill level descriptions 

for Reading, Listening, Writing, Translation Perfonuance and Interpretation Perfonuance and arc located 

at (http://www.govtilr.orgl) 

No Proficiency: Unable to function in 

limited to occasional isolated words. 

Memorized Proficiency: Able to satisfy immediate needs using rehearsed 

utterances. Shows little real autonomy of expression, flexibility or spontaneity. 

Can ask questions or make statements with reasonable accuracy only with 

memorized utterances or formulae. Attempts at creating speech are usually 

unsuccessful. 

Examples: The individual's vocabulary is usually limited to areas of 

0+ immediate survival needs. 

Most utterances are telegraphic; that is, functors (linking words, markers and 

the like) are omitted, confused or distorted. An individual can usually 

differentiate most significant sounds when produced in isolation but, when 

combined in words or groups of words, errors may be frequent. Even with 

repetition, communication is severely limited even with people used to dealing 

with etc. are 

Elementary Proficiency: Able to satisfy minimum courtesy requirements and 

maintain very simple face-to-face conversations on familiar topics. A native 

speaker must often use slowed speech, repetition, paraphrase, or a combination 

of these to be understood by this individual. Similarly, the native speaker must 

strain and employ real-world knowledge to understand even simple 

statements/questions from this individual. This speaker has a functional, but 

limited proficiency. Misunderstandings are frequent, but the individual is able 

to ask for help and to verify comprehension of native speech in face-to-face 

interaction. The individual is unable to produce continuous discourse except 

with rehearsed material. 

Examples: Structural accuracy is likely to be random or severely limited. Time 

concepts are vague. Vocabulary is inaccurate, and its range is very narrow. The 

individual often speaks with great difficulty. By repeating, such speakers can 

make themselves understood to native speakers who are in regular contact with 

but there is little sion in the information ""nu,eu,>ri 

18 
71 

1+ 

experience or trammg may vary greatly from individual to individual; for 

example, speakers at this level may have encountered quite different 

vocabulary areas, However, the individual can typically satisfy predictable, 

simple, personal and accommodation needs; can generally meet courtesy, 

introduction, and identification requirements; exchange greetings; elicit and 

provide, for example, predictable and skeletal biographical information. He/she 

might give information about business hours, explain routine procedures in a 

limited way. and state in a simple manner what actions will be taken. He/she is 

able to formulate some questions even in languages with complicated question 

constructions. Almost every utterance may be characterized by structural errors 

and errors in basic grammatical relations. Vocabulary is extremely limited and 

characteristically does not include modifiers, Pronunciation, stress, and 

intonation are generally poor, often heavily influenced by another language. 

Use of structure and vocabulary is highly imprecise, 

Elementwy Pro.ficiency Plus: Can initiate and maintain predictable face-to-face 

conversations and satisfy limited social demands, He/she may, however, have 

little understanding of the social conventions of conversation. The interlocutor 

is generally required to strain and employ real-world knowledge to understand 

even some simple speech. The speaker at this level may hesitate and may have 

to change subjects due to lack of language resources, Range and control of the 

lanl:,'lIage are limited, Speech largely consists of a series of short, discrete 

utterances. 

Examples: The individual is able to satisfy most travel and accommodation 

needs and a limited range of social demands beyond exchange of skeletal 

biographic information, Speaking ability may extend beyond immediate 

survival needs, Accuracy in basic grammatical relations is evident, although 

not consistent. May exhibit the more common fonns of verb tenses, for 

example, but may make frequent errors in formation and selection, While some 

structures are established, errors occur in more complex patterns. The 

individual typically cannot sustain coherent structures in longer utterances or 

unfamiliar situations. Ability to describe and give precise information is 

limited, Person, space and time references are often used incorrectly, 

Pronunciation is understandable to natives used to dealing with foreigners, Can 

combine most significant sounds with reasonable comprehensibility, but has 

difficulty in producing certain sounds in certain positions or in certain 

combinations. Speech will usually be labored, Frequently has to repeat 

utterances to be understood by the general public, 

Limited Working P!"(?ficiellcy: Able to satisfy routine social demands and 

limited work requirements. Can handle routine work-related interactions that 

are limited in scope, In more complex and sophisticated work-related tasks, 

language usage generally disturbs the native speaker. Can handle with 

confidence, but not with facility, most normal, high-frequency social 

conversational situations including extensive, but casual conversations about 

current events, as well as work, family, and autobiographical information. The 

individual can get the gist of most everyday conversations but has some 

19 
72 

.> 

difficulty understanding native speakers in situations that require specialized or 

sophisticated knowledge. The individual's utterances are minimally cohesive. 

Linguistic structure is usually not very elaborate and not thoroughly controlled; 

errors are frequent. Vocabulary use is appropriate for high-frequency 

utterances. but unusual or imprecise elsewhere. 

Examples: While these interactions will vary widely from individual to 

individual, the individual can typically ask and answer predictable questions in 

the workplace and give straightforward instructions to subordinates. 

Additionally, the individual can participate in personal and accommodationtype interactions with elaboration and facility; that is, can give and understand 

complicated, detailed, and extensive directions and make non-routine changes 

in travel and accommodation arrangements. Simple structures and basic 

grammatical relations are typically controlled; however, there are areas of 

weakness. In the commonly taught languages, these may be simple markings 

such as plurals, articles, linking words, and negatives or more complex 

structures such as tense/aspect usage, case morphology, passive constructions, 

word order, and embedding. 

Limited Working Proficiency Plus: Able to satisfy most work requirements 

with language usage that is often, but not always, acceptable and effective. The 

individual shows considerable ability to communicate effectively on topics 

relating to particular interests and special fields of competence. Often shows a 

high degree of fluency and ease of speech, yet when under tension or pressure, 

the ability to use the language effectively may deteriorate. Comprehension of 

normal native speech is typically nearly complete. The individual may miss 

cultural and local references and may require a native speaker to adjust to 

his/her limitations in some ways. Native speakers often perceive the 

individual's speech to contain awkward or inaccurate phrasing of ideas, 

mistaken time, space and person references, or to be in some way 

inappropriate, if not strictly incorrect. 

Examples: Typically the individual can participate in most social, formal, and 

informal interactions, but limitations either in range of contexts, types of tasks 

or level of accuracy hinder effectiveness. The individual may be ill at ease with 

the use of the language either in social interaction or in speaking at length in 

professional contexts. He/she is generally strong in either structural precision 

or vocabulary, but not in both. Weakness or unevenness in one of the 

foregoing, or in pronunciation, occasionally results in miscommunication. 

Normally controls, but cannot always easily produce general vocabulary. 

Discourse is often not cohesive. 

General Pr<?!essional Proficiency: Able to speak the language with sufficient 

structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and 

informal conversations in practical, social and professional topics . 

Nevertheless, the individual's limitations generally restrict the professional 

contexts of language use to matters of shared knowledge and/or international 

convention. Discourse is cohesive. The individual uses the language 

20 
73 

3+ 

acceptably, but with some noticeable imperfections; yet, errors virtually never 

interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker. The 

individual can effectively combine structure and vocabulary to convey his/her 

meaning accurately. The individual speaks readily and fills pauses suitably. In 

face-to-face conversation with natives speaking the standard dialect at a normal 

rate of speech, comprehension is quite complete. Although cultural references, 

proverbs and the implications of nuances and idiom may not be fully 

understood, the individual can easily repair the conversation. Pronunciation 

may be obviously foreign. Individual sounds are accurate: but stress, intonation 

and pitch control may be faulty. 

Examples: Can typically discuss particular interests and special fields of 

competence with reasonable ease. Can use the language as part of normal 

professional duties such as answering objections, clarifying points, justifying 

decisions, understanding the essence of challenges, stating and defending 

policy, conducting meetings, delivering briefings, or other extended and 

elaborate informative monoIOf,'Ues. Can reliably elicit information and 

informed opinion from native speakers. Structural inaccuracy is rarely the 

major cause of misunderstanding. Use of structural devices is flexible and 

elaborate. Without searching for words or phrases, the individual uses the 

language clearly and relatively naturally to elaborate concepts freely and make 

ideas easily understandable to native speakers. Errors occur in low-frequency 

and highly complex structures. 

General Professional Pn!!iciency Plus: Is often able to use the language to 

satisfy professional needs in a wide range of sophisticated and demanding 

tasks. 

Examples: Despite obvious strengths, may exhibit some hesitancy, 

uncertainty, effort or errors which limit the range of language-use tasks that 

can be reliably performed. Typically there is particular strength in fluency and 

one or more, but not all, of the following: breadth of lexicon, including lowand medium-frequency items, especially socio-linguistic/cultural references 

and nuances of close synonyms; structural precision, with sophisticated 

features that are readily, accurately and appropriately controlled (such as 

complex modification and embedding in Indo-European languages); discourse 

competence in a wide range of contexts and tasks, often matching a native 

speaker's strategic and organizational abilities and expectations. Occasional 

patterned errors occur in low frequency and highly-complex structures. 

Advanced ProfeSSional Proficiency: Able to use the language fluently and 

accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. The 

individual's language usage and ability to function are fully successful. 

Organizes discourse well, using appropriate rhetorical speech devices, native 

cultural references and understanding. Language ability only rarely hinders 

him/her in performing any task requiring language; yet, the individual would 

seldom be perceived as a native. Speaks effortlessly and smoothly and is able 

to use the language with a high degree of effectiveness, reliability and 

21 
74 

·H 

precision for all representational purposes within the range of personal and 

professional experience and scope of responsibilities. Can serve as in infonnal 

interpreter in a range of unpredictable circumstances. Can perfonn extensive, 

sophisticated language tasks, encompassing most matters of interest to welleducated native speakers, including tasks which do not bear directly on a 

professional specialty. 

Examples: Can discuss in detail concepts which are fundamentally different 

from those of the target culture and make those concepts clear and accessible to 

the native speaker. Similarly, the individual can understand the details and 

ramifications of concepts that are culturally or conceptually different from 

his/her own. Can set the tone of interpersonal official, semi-official and nonprofessional verbal exchanges with a representative range of native speakers 

(in a range of varied audiences, purposes, tasks and settings). Can play an 

effective role among native speakers in such contexts as conferences, lectures 

and debates on matters of disagreement. Can advocate a position at length, both 

fonnally and in chance encounters, using sophisticated verbal strategies. 

Understands and reliably produces shifts of both subject matter and tone. Can 

understand native speakers of the standard and other major dialects in 

essentially any face-to-face interaction. 

Advanced Professional Proficiency Plus: Speaking proficiency is regularly 

superior in all respects, usually equivalent to that of a well educated, highly 

articulate native speaker. Lanb'Uage ability does not impede the perfonnance of 

any language-use task. However, the individual would not necessarily be 

perceived as culturally nati ve. 

Examples: The individual organizes discourse well employing functional 

rhetorical speech devices, native cultural references and understanding. 

Effectively applies a native speaker's social and circumstantial knowledge; 

however, cannot sustain that performance under all circumstances. While the 

individual has a wide range and control of structure, an occasional nonnative 

slip may occur. The individual has a sophisticated control of vocabulary and 

phrasing that is rarely imprecise, yet there are occasional weaknesses in 

idioms, colloquialisms, pronunciation, and cultural reference or there may be 

an occasional failure to interact in a totally native manner. 

Functional Native Proficiency: Speaking proficiency is functionally equivalent 

to that of a highly articulate well-educated native speaker and reflects the 

cultural standards of the country where the language is natively spoken. The 

individual uses the language with complete flexibility and intuition, so that 

speech on all levels is fully accepted by well-educated native speakers in all of 

its features, including breadth of vocabulary and idiom, colloquialisms and 

pertinent cultural references. Pronunciation is typically consistent with that of 

well-educated native speakers of a non-stigmatized dialect. 

22 
75 

UNCLASSIFIED 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Statement for the Record 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs 

United States Senate 

At a Hearing Entitled 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government" 

Introduction 

Presented 

May 21, 2012 

Chainnan Akaka and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss the FBI's Foreign Language Program. 

The FBI's Language Services Section ("LSS") is responsible for the organization's entire 

Foreign Language Program. LSS SUPP011S the FBI's mission by providing quality language 

services to the FBI, law enforcement communities, and the Intelligence Community ("TC") as a 

whole. These services include foreign language recruitment, hiring, testing, training, 

translations, interpretations, and other foreign language related functions in the FBI. 

The FBI relies on foreign language capabilities to quickly and accurately infonn 

operations and its executives. The success of the FBT's mission is dependent upon high quality 

language services and the ability to translate and analyze information in a timely manner. 

The FBI's Foreign Language Program has made great strides in its ability to meet the 

rising demand oflanguage needs since September 11,200 I, and has built a sustained and robust 

program. The program has moved forward through specialized training, increased hiring, 

retention, technology, and collaboration. The FBI has invested in multiple strategies to increase 

its foreign language capabilities. 

Prioritization 

The IC and the FBI have identified priorities to ensure the safety and security of 

Americans at home and abroad, as well as that of the citizens of our allied partners. Within the 

FBI, the Directorate ofIntelligence's Language Services Section ("LSS") manages the workload 

across the Foreign Language Program as a reflection of the IC and FBI priorities. 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") collection is further prioritized by tiers to 

direct resources consistent with the immediacy and nature of the threats. Whenever there are 
76 

UNCLASSIFIED 

multiple cases competing for resources, the FBI's Foreign Language Program consults with the 

FBI's Operational Divisions for guidance on prioritization of cases. 

Since September 11,2001, our FISA collection in counterterrorism and 

counterintelligence-related matters has increased significantly. These national security matters 

often involve the need for translation of various foreign languages in a time-sensitive 

environment. The FBT is also experiencing an increase in demand for foreign lan/:,'Uage 

assistance in other programs. Based on the continual increase in collection and requests for 

foreign language assistance since 200 I, we project that demand for translation services across 

FBI programs will continue to steadily increase. 

The FBI has challenges achieving the goal of translating all of the material it collects, 

largely because of the ever increasing volume and types of data that are being collected. This is 

consistent with trends throughout the IC. The FB! currently reviews the highest priority material 

it collects in a timely manner and must wisely use its linguist resources on the most productive 

sources of information. 

Recruitment, Hiring, and Retention 

Prior to September 11, 2001, translation capabilities, like most other FBI programs, were 

very decentralized and managed in the field. The Language Services Section ("LSS") is located 

at FBI Headquarters and now provides centralized management of the Foreign Language 

Program. LSS provides a command and control structure at FBI Headquarters to ensure that our 

linguist resource base of over 1400 linguists, distributed across 56 field offices, Legal Attaches, 

and Headquarters, is strategically aligned with priorities set by our operational divisions and with 

national intelligence priorities. 

Since September 11,2001, Foreign Language Program recruitment efforts have resulted 

in the addition of over 800 new Contract Linguists and over 100 new Language Analysts. The 

FBI has increased its overall number of linguists by 85%, with the number of linguists in certain 

high priority languages, such as Arabic, increasing by 261%, Urdu increasing by 733%, and 

Farsi increasing by 142%. 

The FBI has been, and continues to be, successful in hiring new linguists in most 

languages. Based on workload metrics and review data, the FBI has devised and implemented a 

workforce planning model with recruitment efforts targeted toward languages where there is a 

shortfall or anticipated need. These recruitment efforts focus on those languages needed for the 

higher priority investigations. The FBI also harnesses the flexibility of a mixed labor force of 

linguists consisting offull-time government employees and contract linguists. 

- 2-
77 

UNCLASSIFIED 

With a current workforce of over 1400 linguists, over 600 are Language Analysts and 

over 800 are contractors. We have also reduced our average applicant process cycle time. 

Additionally, when national security interests dictate, this cycle time can be compressed even 

further without compromising the quality of the process. 

The FBI uses its pool of tested, cleared, and quality-vetted contract linguists as a direct 

hiring pool for the employee Language Analyst position. As such, we convert approximately 40 

contract linguists each year to Federal service, replacing retiring or departing Language Analysts. 

The FBI faces a few challenges with recruitment and hiring. At the outset, it is difficult 

to identify the right people. It is difficult to find individuals who are capable of passing the 

foreign language test battery at the level the FBI requires, a polygraph examination, and a fullscope background investigation. The FBI tests applicants across multiple language skills, 

including translation and foreign language speaking. On average, one out of every ten applicants 

gets through the entire contract linguist applicant process. Furthermore, there is a limited 

availability of qualified speakers of vital foreign languages who are U.S. citizens and have the 

English skills to support our requirements. We are competing against multiple government 

agencies and private companies for the limited pool of qualified linguist applicants in certain 

high priority languages. 

We have taken several steps to mitigate these challenges, including: 

Hosting several dedicated contract linguist recruiting fairs each year, primarily focused in 

native and heritage speaking communities. We focus on field divisions with significant 

foreign language collection, space for growth, and large foreign-speaking populations in 

their domain. For each event, we advertise in local foreign language media sources, send 

out press releases and distribute flyers throughout the heritage communities. We conduct 

an initial foreign language screening on site and briefings about the Foreign Language 

Program that include topics such as working as a contract linguist and information about 

how to apply to become a contract linguist. By the end ofFY2012, we will have had four 

such events. 

Attending heritage community and university hiring events, the American Translator's 

Association annual meeting, and actively participating in the annual IC Virtual Career 

Fair. 

We are leveraging other language-enabled employees in the FBI to address the need for 

critical language ability. There are currently over 3,000 FBI employees and contractors 

who have certitied foreign language proficiency scores at or above the working 

proficiency level, including Language Analysts and Contract Linguists. Thus far in 

FY2012, the FBI has awarded Foreign Language Incentive Pay ("FLIP") to over 2,000 

FBI employees with validated foreign language skills in critical languages. This allows 

-3-
78 

UNCLASSIFIED 

the FBI to leverage a larger pool of language-enabled employees in times of need. 

Financial incentives such as FLIP are a valuable tool to build, sustain, and track language 

resources in the FBI. 

Leveraging IC and other partners through cross-community resource sharing, joint duty 

assignments and interagency short-term temporary duty assignment opp0I1unities. We 

work with the National Security Education Program's National Flagship Universities and 

Georgetown's English for Heritage Language Speakers programs to funnel languagecapable people into the contract linguist process. We reach out to the IC, specifically the 

National Virtual Translation Center and the National Language Service Corps, when we 

have language needs that we cannot meet with in-house language resources. We currently 

have a linguist out on joint duty, an IC linguist in onjoint duty, and we are preparing to 

receive two additional joint duty linguists with critical language skills from other 

agencies. We anticipate that the practice of sharing linguists will continue to grow. 

FBI Language Analysts are part of the FBI's Intelligence Workforce, which includes all 

FBI intelligence professionals, including Intelligence Analysts ("lAs") and Special Agents 

("SAs"). The Intelligence Workforce is supported by validated competency models which drive 

selection and hiring, training and development, performance management, and career 

progression. Career paths which reward and develop technical experts in intelligence operations 

are essential to the Bureau's ability to retain a world-class national intelligence workforce. 

Top Foreign Language Needs 

Our challenges in assessing our foreign language needs and capabilities are due to the 

unpredictability of emerging threats, thus our needs are fluid and vary depending on current 

events and threats. However, currently our top foreign language needs include Arabic (Yemeni), 

Chinese, Farsi, Pashto, and Somali. Again, these are common needs across the IC. 

Training 

The FBI's Foreign Language Program strives to improve our skills and retention rates 

through training. We don't offer foreign language training only to develop proficiencies of 

Language Analysts, but also to stimulate career-long language learning among all FBI 

employees. 

In order to meet the rising demand oflanb'Uage needs since September II, 2001, the 

FBI's Foreign Language Training Program ("FL TP") has significantly increased the range and 

volume of the foreign language training it offers to personnel who need to develop language 

proficiency to do their jobs. In FY 2011, the FLTP offered 88,855 hours of classroom training in 

50 languages to 616 students. Ninety-one percent of these students met or exceeded our 

- 4-
79 

UNCLASSIFIED 

language proficiency training goals. Since September 11, 2001, the total number of students 

participating in the FL TP has increased by 379%. 

Programs through which training is provided include academic immersion training, study 

abroad, and tailored language courses. Since 2005, the FBI has been working with a long-time 

partner to offer intensive Arabic training to Special Agents. Since 2009, long-term foreign 

language training at the US. Department of State's Foreign Service Institute ("FSI") has been 

made available. Several agents have graduated from the program, and additional agents will 

enter the program in August 2012. 

Since September 11, 2001, the FBI's Language Professionals Training Program has 

moved the Foreign Language Program forward by providing increased training opportunities to 

its linguists who already possess the foreign language skills they need to do their jobs. Training 

programs provided to linguists include Language Analyst Specialized Training ("LAST") 1.0, a 

two-week class intended for all linguists to take at the beginning of their careers at the FBI. 

More than 800 linguists speaking more than 40 languages and dialects have been trained since its 

inception in FY 2006. LAST 1.0 is followed by LAST 2.0, a two-week class intended for 

linguists with more than five years of Bureau experience. Since its inception in March 2010, 

over 100 linguists have been trained. In addition to these programs the FBI has offered a 

language cross-training program for linguists to develop proficiency in other critical languages 

through long-term training at the FSI. To date, over 30 linguists have graduated from this 

program, gaining proficiency in six critical languages. 

Between September 11,2001, and the end ofFY 2010, the FBI provided training in 

consecutive interpretation to Bureau linguists at contract vendor schools. In FY 2011, the FBI 

worked with ODNI and assumed the administration of a series of general and language-specific 

translation and interpretation workshops open to all qualified linguists in the Ie. Since the 

program's inception in February 2011 the FBl has trained over 450 linguists in the FBI and 

throughout the [C. 

- 5 -
80 

UNClASSIFIED 

Technology 

Investment in Human Language Technology ("HLT") measures productivity and allows 

for optimal use of our human resources by saving man hours. HL T tools are efficient and 

provide the ability to triage and process large volumes of information while enabling the 

workforce to enhance productivity. We have increased our capability to meet rising language 

demands since September 11,2001, through the introduction of state-of-the-art triaging 

technology tools such as Speaker ID, Language ill, Terminology Management, Translation 

Memory, and Spam Filters to streamline automated processing so that linguists can focus on 

essential content. These technologies have been developed in partnership with other IC 

components. 

We have a secure network that allows us to efficiently route translation requests to any 

field office where linguistic resources are available. This business model and capability enable 

the Foreign Language Program to better manage the workload, address critical requirements in a 

timely fashion, assign the best qualified Iinl:,'Uists to the task, lessen travel expenses, and add 

great flexibility in recruitment. 

Other Efforts 

A certain portion of our foreign language surveillance collection is mixed with English 

material. As a result, LSS created an English Monitoring Facility in June 2002, and we now 

have two such facilities. This unit is comprised of English Monitor Analysts charged with 

reviewing the English language material in these mixed language cases, thereby allowing 

Language Analysts to focus on the foreign language material and reducing the workload of 

Special Agents and Intelligence Analysts. 

Implemented in 2005, the FBI's Language Quality Control Program rapidly developed 

into a mature robust program with other intelligence partners and other government agencies. 

This Language Quality Control Program has been replicated and serves as the benchmark across 

the Ie. This program provides valuable feedback regarding the quality of translations to 

linguists and managers. 

NVTC 

The National Virtual Translation Center ("NVTC") was established in 2001 under the 

authority of Section 907 of the USA Patriot Act to provide accurate and timely translations for 

the USIC in support of national security. On February 11, 2003, the Director of Central 

Intelligence designated the FBI as the Executive Agent for the NVTC.. The NVTC operates 

within a cost-effective virtual model that connects NVTC program staff, translators, and 

customers nationwide via a common workflow management system. Since its inception, the 

NVTC has complemented language capability gaps and provided translation support (including 

- 6-
81 

UNCLASSIFIED 

surge) for the IC and Combatant Commands. The NVTC also complements other Defense 

Department organizations and civilian U.S. Government agencies that serve U.S. residents with 

limited English proficiency, using a resource-effective and cost-for-service business modeL 

NVTC's Doha (Qatar) unit in particular has supported in-theater USCENTCOM, USAFRICOM, 

and U.S. regional Embassy translation requirements in the areas of counterterrorism, military 

intelligence and combat operations, and public diplomacy and foreign relations. The NVTC has 

translated more than 500,000 pages of text and 2,000 hours of audio files into English from 

approximately 100 different languages and dialects since 2009 alone. The NVTC is also an IC 

leader in facilitating innovative multilateral collaboration in the fields of Human Language 

Technology and Computer-Assisted Translation. 

Conclusion 

Me Chairman, the FBI remains committed to meeting its language needs and partnering 

with the greater IC, as we confront common challenges that threaten our national security. 

Since September 11,2001, the FBI has made considerable progress on the Foreign Language 

Program human capital and technology fronts. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this 

written Statement for the Record on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

- 7 -
82 

Introduction 

Statement for the Record 

on Behalf of the 

Office ofthe Director of National Intelligence 

Before the 

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

May 21, 2012 

Mr. Glenn Nordin 

Principal Foreign Language and Area Advisor 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 

The United States faces a complex and rapidly shifting international security landscape in 

which the capability to accurately transfer into English the meaning of words written or spoken 

in another language is of paramount importance to successful intelligence operations around the 

world. Human skills in foreign languages, knowledge of cultures, and expertise in regions all 

playa key role in or directly support all foreign intelligence disciplines. For example, accurately 

translated documents obtained through open or covert sources often provide the information 

essential for precise interpretation of imagery, and accurate translations require cultural and 

regional expertise. 

The complexity of the Intelligence Community's mission and the variety of countries and 

cultures relevant to our national security make it an absolute imperative that we have a deep and 

highly nuanced understanding of those cultures and the ability to communicate with their people. 

Human skills in foreign languages open the door to understanding the cultures and societalgovernance structure of nations, non-state actors, and diverse interests of populations within 

geographic regions of interest to U.S. security. An intelligence analyst without language skills 

must rely on others' translations and interpretations, which may include error and unintentional 

or malicious bias in the transfer of meaning. 

Over the last decade, since the terrorist attacks on our homeland, the Intelligence 

Community (IC) has taken aggressive and sustained measures to increase and integrate its 

foreign language capabilities in support of intelligence operations across the global spectrum. 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is committed to developing the IC 

workforce and adopting language processing tools and technologies to meet National 

Intelligence Priorities. The following statement provides both the continuing challenges the IC 

faces and examples of integrated forums and programs that have been activated since the signing 

of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 and establishment of 

theODNI. 
83 

Challenges 

Of the 7,000 recorded languages of the world, the Intelligence Community is challenged 

to collect and process infonnation in about 150, many of these are among the less and least 

commonly or never taught languages. The technologic advances in communications and 

publications across the world and our ability to collect infonnation in those lan!,'Uages have 

outpaced our capability to process that infonnation. Our challenge is to identify or build and 

enable proficient human capability to process that infonnation into actionable intelligence for 

decision makers at strategic and tactical levels. Insufficiency and lower proficiency with the 

federal and IC workforce continue to present barriers to timely exploitation of collected 

infonnation in its period of usefulness. Thus, we add information to the historical files, but fail 

to add value within the context oflive operations. 

No "silver bullet" will solve the IC's language problem-not even an unlimited budget 

for contractor support or the build-up of machine translation tools. It takes time to learn a 

language well; no real shortcuts exist, despite claims to the contrary. Even with an unlimited 

budget, which is not a possibility in our current economy-the IC could not "buy" its way out of 

the current situation by using contractors-there simply are not enough clearable people 

available who have the high foreign lan!,'Uage proficiency levels the IC needs. Neither will 

technology be the ultimate solution in the near future. No machine "universal translator" will 

replace humans. Consequently, the IC will always need to train a portion of its workforce in 

languages critical to its mission. 

Fortunately, the federal government has led the nation in transforming how language is 

taught to the higher proficiencies and has made great progress in transforming classes. Language 

classes taught today at the Defense Language Institute's Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), 

the Foreign Services Institute (FSI), and the National Cryptologic School (NCS) differ greatly 

from those taught in high school and college. Today's language training graduates are better 

prepared and much more capable of speaking and interacting in the ways needed. 

For the long-term, we have to dedicate the time and effort needed to educate; 

transforming how our schools and universities regard and teach foreign language and culture. 

Today's academia simply will not produce, for the foreseeable future, the number oflinguists the 

federal, state, and local governments need. 

Research has shown the need to start at an early age to build superior skills in learning 

second or multiple languages. Our nation needs to overcome its resistance to learning lan!,'Uages. 

Language education must start younger than high school. The federal government needs to push 

for requiring daily, challenging language classes in our kindergarten through sixth (K-6) grades. 

The IC's STARTALK program, which supports language students and teachers in the primary 

and secondary school system, is an essential first step. The Ie's and DoD's investment in the 

National Security Education Program (NSEP) and similar scholarship programs of the 

Department of Education and State Department take our nation a critical step further in 

producing a viable pool of future employees and service members equipped in language and 

motivated to continue language study and work. 
84 

For the IC to truly succeed, the government and academia also need to encourage 

learning a language along with primary disciplines. Scientists and engineers can learn another 

language in addition to their occupational studies. Every other nation in the world emphasizes 

learning another language-usually English-and their scientists, doctors, engineers, and 

military leaders all learn other languages. The incorrect perception that learning a language 

takes too long and detracts from learning primary skill sets is detrimental to our capabilities. 

Instead, we need to promote the reality that language adds to those skill sets in a critical way. 

Realistically, the IC's lanf,'Uage needs will likely continue to outpace its capability. 

Consequently, the IC has focused on developing and applying new Human Language 

Technologies (HL T) that will enhance the performance of human linguists, collectors, and 

analysts in their diverse mission sets. While the automated technology of today can facilitate and 

enhance the application of human language skills, it cannot and will not replace the need for 

foreign language expertise in most analytic or collection tasks. Machine translation and speech 

communication tools are based on paired lexicons that must be vetted by true language experts. 

Human language technology has made breakthrough advances in the last five years, and the HL T 

tools available to the IC today can greatly enhance productivity. The challenge is to get linguists 

not using HLT resources today to do so. 

Integration and Collaboration 

The IC's lanf,'Uage community is very collaborative; it shares ideas, curriculum, and tests. 

The present and past Directors of National Intelligence and the directors of key IC components, 

such as CIA, NSA, and DIA, have encouraged innovative concepts for integration and 

enhancement of foreign language capabilities across the community. Moreover, leaders ofIC 

and other federal government institutions and programs work closely with academic leaders 

across the nation to improve the techniques used in the classroom. 

The ODNl's Foreign Language Program Office (FLPO), under the Assistant Director of 

National Intelligence for Human Capital (ADNIIHC), was established to serve as a focal point 

for integrating community needs and for advocating enhancement of foreign language skills, 

cultural knowledge, and regional expertise on a cross-organizational scale. The ODNI, in 

collaboration with the USD(I), has led an aggressive campaign to support seventeen IC elements 

by increasing recruiting, training, education, and retention and by adopting language 

technologies to better tackle the collection and exploitation challenges. 

An IC-wide forum of executive level language experts, the Foreign Language Executive 

Committee (FLEXCOM), addresses foreign language and cultural issues across the Ie. Expert 

Groups reporting to the FLEXCOM now collaborate routinely in five enterprise segments: 

1. operati ons, 

2. education and instructional technology, 

3. testing and assessment, 

4. human language technology, and 

5. culture and regional knowledge. 
85 

The Culture and Regional Knowledge Expert Group has implemented a community-wide 

review to determine the baseline of cultural and regional professional development resources 

currently existing in the IC with an eye to creating, with the Education and Instructional 

Technology Expert Group, a "one-stop shop" for IC language, culture, and regional expertise 

programs in the future. The group envisions a site similar to the Joint Language University's 

(JLU) portal, which offers "one-stop shopping" for community-wide lanh'Uage training and 

resources. 

In FY2012, the Director of National Intelligence released an IC Foreign Language 

Strategic Plan for 2012 to 2016. This plan sets two overall goals: 

I. Double the capacity for IC foreign language exploitation and production in critical 

languages by 2016. 

2. Ensure 25% of personnel in IC foreign language-enabled occupations have 

Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) level 2 "Limited Working Proficiency" in a 

foreign language or recognized cultural knowledge or regional expertise at a similar 

level of understanding. 

The desired outcomes and objectives of the IC Foreign Language Strategic Plan outline 

important steps the IC can adopt to most effectively leverage existing foreign language talent and 

to establish career-long programs for building and sustaining additional foreign language and 

cultural knowledge capabilities. 

Enhancement Programs 

The following categories exemplify the IC's efforts to support and enhance capabilities in 

foreign lallb'Uage proficiency, cultural knowledge, and regional expertise: 

>- Requirements: The ODNI has led an effort to track and document foreign language 

requirements and capabilities across the IC, enabling the community to better analyze 

gaps and prepare for future programming decisions. In an effort to avoid duplicative data 

calls, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(l)) partnered 

with ODNI to collect data through FLPO to track and document both National 

Intelligence Program (NIP) and Military Intelligence Program (MIP) language 

requirements and capabilities across the IC. The DoD Foreign Language Program also 

supports improved identification, vetting, and tracking of military and civilian personnel 

with language skills across the General Purpose, Special Operations, and Intelligence 

forces. 

>- Recruiting: The STARTALK program, managed by the National Security Agency, is a 

nation-wide, long-term educational initiative to provide foreign language learning 

opportunities to students (K-16) and professional development opportunities for foreign 

language teachers across the nation. The IC has also hosted two IC Virtual Career Fairs 

that focus on individuals with proficiency in critical foreign languages or with diverse 

backgrounds and who have the potential to further enable IC missions. The Heritage 
86 

Community collaborates with the both IC and 000 to assist recruitment efforts with 

native and heritage speakers. 

»- Training: Congress authorized the DNI to provide backfill equivalents, through the 

training FLOA T, allowing managers to release their workforce for critical foreign 

language and training in area skills. ODNI has established beginner-level acquisition and 

mid-level enhancement training opportunities for IC members to increase their skills and 

better support their operations. The ODNI has been collaborating with numerous agencies 

such as FBI, DIA, and CIA to execute this initiative. The ODNI also provides enterprisewide licenses for self-paced on-line training in language and cultural orientation and 

established training and networking opportunities for IC foreign language instructors 

across the community. Expert vocabulary and domain training for technical and 

scientific translation and reporting is available, as are translation and interpretation 

workshop programs for IC linguists. Finally, the Services and DLIFLC support building 

national foreign language capabilities in the less and least commonly taught languages. 

Graduates go to federal careers with their newly acquired language capabilities. 

»- Education: The IC is investing in education and the nation's future. Our National 

Foreigu Language Initiative provides support to undergraduate and graduate language 

studies at select universities across the US., even providing opportunities for select 

students to study abroad. By sponsoring the DoD-managed National Security Education 

Program (NSEP), the IC has invested in undergraduate and graduate level scholarships 

for students to study language abroad under the auspices of the Boren Awards Program, 

which recently expanded the scope of its offerings to the languages of Africa. NSEP also 

provides a scholars program for native/heritage speakers of critical languages to improve 

their English skills and prepare them for federal government service. 

»- Operational Support: The IC integrates its foreign language capability by allowing 

linguists to work across the community via Joint Duty Assignments. Additionally, the 

National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC) serves as a translation processing service to 

the IC and the federal government, processing translations in over 120 languages. 

»- Human Language Technology (HLT): The Ie's linguists, collectors, and analysts 

encounter information in numerous formats (text, video, audio), languages, dialects, and 

domains, and they are beginning to use language technologies routinely to meet the wide 

range of challenges presented them. Throughout the IC, agencies are supporting 

integration ofHL T, such as language and speaker identification, optical character 

recognition (OCR), speech recognition, and machine translation, in desktop tools and 

workflows. They are developing reusable and shareable digital resources, such as 

glossaries and parallel corpora, that individuals, instructors, students, and technologists 

can use in a variety of ways for different purposes. Finally, IC elements have begun to 

share HLT software across the community either as stand-alone systems or via web 

services. 
87 

Way Ahead 

The IC is on a strategic trajectory to improve its capability through four harmonized 

focus areas: the foreign language-skilled workforce, human language technology, work process 

improvements, and an alignment of resources. The outcome of this strategic effort will include 

the following: 

'r A workforce with strong language skills, deep cultural knowledge, and regional expertise 

that will greatly increase IC capability and readiness. 

» An increased IC capacity and capability for processing and exploiting foreign language 

material by integrating and deploying cutting-edge foreign language technology and 

tools. 

'r A fully integrated IC foreign language capability. 

>- Collaboration across the IC to understand and document the breadth and depth of foreign 

language capabilities and identified IC resources needed to maintain and enhance those 

capabilities. 

Conclusion 

The IC operates as an integrated enterprise that strives to collect, analyze, and 

disseminate accurate, timely, and objective intelligence. It is implementing the proper balance 

between long-term recruiting, workforce training, developing human language technology tools, 

and increasing the numbers of languages supported at professional levels of capability. 

Foreign language skills, cultural understanding, and regional expertise constitute essential 

baseline capabilities for the IC's core mission objectives to combat violent extremism, counter 

the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, provide strategic intelligence and warning, 

integrate counterintelligence, enhance cyber security, and support diplomatic, military, and law 

enforcement operations. 
88 

by 

Hans Fenstermacher 

Chairman of the Board of Directors, Globalization and Localization Association 

with contributions from 

Andrew Lawless 

Member, Globalization and Localization Association 

President, Dig-IT Globalization Consulting 

Testimony before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

The Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

on 

A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language 

Capabilities in the Federal Government 

Monday, May 21, 2012 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY 
89 

Every sector of the U.S. economy depends on language services for revenue, 

profit growth, job creation, product innovation, and research and development. 

There are no exceptions. All U.S. industry sectors produce content to sell and market 

their products or services to audiences whose native language is not English. 

American companies are competing in the global economy for market share, 

customers, and resources. Meanwhile, u.s. corporations are investing in reaching 

Latinos in the u.s. and other domestic language populations. Whether it is a 

multinational enterprise selling software, a governmental agency monitoring 

chatter, or an NGO helping disperse information about water sanitation, the end 

user must understand the language of the message, service or product. News, 

political statements, websites, movies, product literature, software, safety 

information, labeling, digital games and customer support are all translated every 

day in over 500 major language pairs worldwide. As U.S. companies target 

multilingual populations at home and abroad, there is a growing need for language 

services and a strong linguistically trained workforce. 

Languages are not just a prerequisite for international commerce; they are 

business drivers for the U.s. economy in three key areas: 

U.S. businesses derive significant percentages of their revenue from markets outside 

the United States. The U.s. Census Bureau reports that total U.s. exports resulted in 

about $1.5 trillion oftotal U.S. goods traded in 2011.1 For example: 

Apple generated over 60% of its $108 billion of last year's revenue abroad.2 

Facebook's international revenue grew from 33% in 2010 to 44% last year.3 

1 Source: U.s, Census Bureau News, U.s. Goods Trade: Imports & Exports by Related-Parties 2011, 

http://www,census.gov /foreign-trade/Press-Release/2011 pr/aip/related_palty /rp 11.pdf 

2 Source: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html 

3 Source: http://traderanalysis.com/49/s1-fiIing-facebooks-revenue-generation-sources 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page 2 of 13 
90 

Wal-Marfs international business comprised 26% of total sales, or $28 

billion. Wal-Mart's profits and its international business remains its growth 

engine and it expects growth in emerging markets to accelerate.4 

International sales rose almost 9% for its 4th quarter, while Wal-Mart's U.s. 

business slipped 0.5% during the same period. 

Not surprisingly, foreign sales for U.s. companies correlate closely with the scope of 

their language (or "localization") programs. Multilingual versions of products and 

services significantly drive revenues gained from abroad. Industry research shows 

that companies spend an average of 0.5% - 2.5% of gross revenues on localization, 

often contributing to more than half of their total income.s In other words, a small 

investment in languages produces a huge return on investment for U.s. businesses. 

Major world markets like Europe, Japan, and China are already well-known 

areas for economic expansion. But new markets are also emerging. Places like India, 

Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa have some of the fastest growing 

economies in the world. The World Bank reports that economic growth in SubSaharan Africa remains strong and is poised for lift-off after growing at 4.9 percent 

in 2011.6 The language requirements for entering those markets are new and 

significant Africa alone has some 2,000 languages! 

Simply put, languages are the enabler that helps U.s. businesses expand and 

the U.S. economy grow. 

Companies in North America (U.S. and Canada) produced approximately $15.5 

billion in outsourced language services in 2011. Those services were provided by 

thousands of small- to medium-sized enterprises, with the vast majority in the 

United States. With average revenue per full-time employee of $81,500, this means 

that the outsourced language industry in North America was responsible for about 

4 Source: http:j jwww.usatoday.comjmoneyjcompaniesjearningsj2011-02-22-walmart_N.htm 

5 Source: Common Sense AdVisory. 

6 Source: World Bank, Press Release No:2012j401jAFR, 

http:j jweb.worldbank.orgjWBSITEjEXTERNALjCOUNTRlESj AFRICAEXTjGAMBIAEXTNjO"contentMDK:2317 

4058-menuPK:50003484-pagePK:2865066-piPK:2865079-theSitePK:351626,OO.html 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page 3 of 13 
91 

190,000 full-time jobs in 2011, most of them in the U.s. This does not even account 

for the vastly larger pool of part-time and freelance U.S. linguists or languageprogram-related staff that U.S. businesses also maintain. Nor does it account for jobs 

the language industry has indirectly created, such as the people who help market, 

sell, deliver and support U.S.-made products to consumers worldwide. 

Languages - and the business that they enable - may be the most powerful 

force in job creation in the United States. Without languages, there would be $1.5 

trillion missing in total goods sold in the U.s. today'? 

Operating on a global scale is one ofthe biggest challenges companies face. 

Competition from abroad is fierce, whether you are a tiny start-up or a multi-billiondollar corporation. English was long considered the global language for doing 

business, but it is losing that status. Less than 27% of the Internet is now in English, 

and growth in other languages - especially Chinese - is much faster.s 

Social media and on-line communities are creating an explosion of nonEnglish content. Collectively, they constitute a whole new category of information 

that barely existed five years ago, called "user-generated content" eUGC). For 

example, every single day: 

• 60,000 new websites are added to the Web. 

• Over 140 million tweets are created on Twitter. 

• 1.5 billion pieces of Facebook content are created. 

• 1.6 million blog posts are written. 

• 2 million videos are added on YouTube9 

UGC is the new frontier of business interaction with customers and markets. And the 

critical point here is that the majority of user-generated content is not in English. 

7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau News, U.s. Goods Trade: Imports & Exports by Related-Parties 2011. 

http://www.census.gov /foreign-trade/Press-Release/2011pr /aip/related.party /rp l1.pdf 

8 Source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm 

9 Sources: Pingdom, Technorati, TechCrunch. Contently. Facebook. Twitter 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page40f 13 
92 

If U.s. companies wish to stay relevant and compete in the global 

marketplace - they must adopt more comprehensive language strategies. If you sell 

products in Germany, your customers will tweet back at you in German, and your 

customer support team needs to be ready. 

President John F Kennedy sitting with Berlin Mayor WillY Brandt, White House, March 13,1961: "ItI'm 

selling to you, then I'll speak English. It you're selling to me ...... dann miJssen Sie Deutsch sprechen." 

Apple provides an excellent example ofianguages as a driver for growth and 

international competitiveness. In their latest product release, on March 16,2012, 

Apple launched the new-generation iPad in 9 countries simultaneously. One week 

later, the iPad launched in 25 more countries. This is a massive feat of localization, 

engineering, sales, marketing. and distribution. Apple's product platform CiOS) was 

immediately available in 34 languages. Sales of the iPad topped 3 million unitsover $1 billion in new revenues - in the first three days. International sales of the 

iPhone 4 S accounted for 64% of Apple's revenue in its last quarter.10 Apple's 

comprehensive and globally oriented localization program is, without a doubt, one 

10 Source: USA Today, Apple trumps earnings expectations: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story /2012-

04-24/apple-earnings/54510014/1 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page 5 of 13 
93 

of the key drivers that has helped Apple become the most valuable company in the 

world. 

It is the localization and language industry that helps organizations reach their 

targets in the right language and cultural context. Language industry research 

shows that the worldwide language services market is growing at an annual rate of 

7.4%.11 Estimates for 2014 put the world market at some $39 billion, with nearly 

$20 billion in North America, most of which is in the U.S. 

The language industry consists of many different types of entities providing both 

outsourced language technology and services and in-house support within 

multinational companies. The major components of the industry are: 

1. Localization service providers (LSPs) and translation companies. With more 

than 6,700 languages spoken in 230 countries worldwide, these providers adapt 

products and services so they are accessible to a region's residents. This process 

involves adaptation to the language, culture, customs, and other characteristics of 

the target locale. Among the U.S. companies providing language services, the vast 

majority are small businesses. 

2. Technology developers. Technology companies are a key element of the language 

industry. From machine translation (like the well-known Google Translate), to 

terminology, content mining, analytics and many other technologies, we are seeing 

innovation and start-up companies create solutions to accelerate time-to-market for 

customers going global. 

3. In-house localization and translation departments. Many multi-national 

companies have in-house teams that coordinate translation strategy and 

implementation internally, and most work with outsourced LSPs. 

4. Translators & Interpreters. Individual translators and interpreters are at the core 

of the corporate language sector, often working as independent contractors and 

free lancers or as full-time staff. 

11 Source: www.commonsenseadvisory.com 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page6of13 
94 

Currently nearly 20% of the world's language services companies are located in 

North America, with the great majority in the U.S. North American language services 

companies hold nearly 50% of the global language services market, and 6 of the top 

10 ranked of these companies were U.S. companies in 2011. 

No official language exists at the federal level in the U.s., and the latest U.s. Census 

Report on Language Use in the United States illustrates evidence of the continuing 

and growing role of non-English languages as part of the national fabric.1 2 Because 

American English is the primary language used for legislation, regulations, executive 

orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements, it has 

also been the global language of business for the last decades. But there were two 

events in the last decade that brought a ten-fold change, bringing other languages to 

the forefront: 

The explosion of the Internet (sometimes called Internet 2.0), and 

The terror attacks on 9/11 

The issue of language competency has become one of homeland security and 

national economic security. 

U.S. business and government agencies are addressing their need for 

language competence, but with little cooperation between private sector, 

government and academia, even though they have almost identical needs. Linguistic 

and language-management skills cross over from one sector to the other with 

considerable ease; technology requirements are almost identical; language pairs for 

the most part overlap. There is great potential for addressing gaps in language 

capabilities through close collaboration. 

12 Source: U.s. Census Bureau, Language Use in the United States: 2007 (ACS) 

http://www.census.gov jhhesjsocdemojlanguagej datajacsj ACS-12.pdf 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page 7 of 13 
95 

Language skills take time, repeated exposure, and practice to develop. The U.s. 

needs programs that incentivize deep language learning, including in-country 

experiences and training. Words are only one part of communicating; culture is the 

other, and experience on how to perform before the background of a foreign culture 

can't be acquired in a classroom or textbook. But this skill is equally critical in all 

settings, whether it is gathering intelligence, fighting corporate espionage, or 

creating an international marketing campaign. 

Additional training is required to develop key competencies in disciplines, 

such as translation, localization, terminology, localization technology, engineering, 

and multimedia. All of these come into play in order to communicate information 

between languages. For example, it does little good for an intelligence analyst to 

understand Arabic radio chatter if he or she cannot first filter out which piece of 

information is relevant to homeland security and then transmit its meaning in 

English to those who immediately need it. Such skill is in high demand and will 

continue to be sought after,13 

New technologies provide government, industry, and academia with a unique 

opportunity to partner in addressing today's gaps in language capabilities, such as: 

• Exploiting opportunities for research and development that require scope, 

scale, funding, duration, resources, and testing 

• Promoting connections and links between the three sectors and 

international collaborators 

Engaging talent in the u.s. to conduct language research and education 

• Fostering research, especially in areas that promise to create or enhance 

technologies 

13 Source: Readers Digest, http://www.rd.com/money/9-recessionproof-careers 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page B of 13 
96 

Such a three-pronged partnership can produce concrete outcomes that benefit the 

language needs of U.s. businesses and government, for example, by: 

• Developing, funding and supporting new and existing language technology 

companies (through spinoffs, joint ventures, and the like) 

• Promoting language-related research and development that is aimed at 

strengthening competitiveness and capabilities in key areas (emerging 

markets, homeland security, cyber-crime, etc.) 

• Expanding the educational and career opportunities for U.S. workers in 

language-related fields 

Training specialized workers, law enforcement officers, intelligence 

community, etc., in targeted skills 

As the largest non-profit language trade association in the world, GALA is in a 

unique position to facilitate the collaboration between the three sectors. We 

cordially invite public-sector, academia and for-profit organizations to collaborate 

in exchanging and disseminating best practices within the language community. 

GALA plays a pivotal role in warehousing, exchanging, and disseminating best 

practices within the corporate language community; for example, GALA is a key 

body in the area of language standards for business, serving as a neutral player 

interfacing with such global standards organizations as ISO, ASTM, OASIS, ETSI, and 

others. 

GALA already drives and fosters such collaboration with the European Union 

in several programs aimed at increasing the visibility of languages, promoting 

language standards in international business, and training the next generation of 

linguists. One current example is the Horizon 202014 program that provides 

research and development to ensure that by 2020 the information of European 

government will be delivered to all the citizens of Europe in their native language. 

14 Source: The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 

http:// ec.euro pa.eu Iresea rch Ihori zo0202 0 !index en.cfm 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page 9 of 13 
97 

Individual countries are also making their own investments in domestic 

language capabilities, even during these tough economic times. For instance, Science 

Foundation Ireland, created by the Irish government, has been funding the Center 

for Next-Generation Localization (CNGL)15 - in partnership with industry and 

academia - with 4-5 million euros per year to research and develop language 

technologies, processes, and resources. 

Not acting on the challenges may have dire consequences on the US private 

sector to compete in the near future. We are already seeing a chronic shortfall of 

qualified language specialists and stagnant translator productivity. As a result, 

corporations increasingly rely on less qualified translators and unrefined machine 

translations, rendering their products less competitive in the global market place.16 

GALA pro-actively informs and educates its members to intelligently apply 

machine translation and other translation automation solutions to alleviate the 

looming crisis. But we cannot do it on our own. We will need the close collaboration 

between translation services/technology providers, the buyer community from 

government and private sector as well as academia. 

GALA would welcome the opportunity to expand on this testimony and the 

recommendations included herein in more detail. 

15 For information visit: http://www.cngl ie 

16 In its recent report, Future Shock, Common Sense Advisory predicts 'major structural and technological 

changes in a short timeframe for which [localization] providers are simply unable to address market demand 

without changing how they operate. 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page 10 of 13 
98 

The Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) is the largest non-profit 

association for the language industry in the world. We provide resources, education, 

knowledge and research for thousands of global companies. GALA members are 

primarily companies who specialize in language services or technologies, including 

translation vendors, localization service providers, interpretation companies, 

globalization consultants, and language technology developers. A growing portion of 

the GALA members are multinational corporations who buy language services and 

technologies. GALA is comprised of over 320 member companies from 50 countries. 

The largest group of members by country within GALA is from the United States (64 

member companies). 

GALA is a go-to source for objective information about the language business. 

We regularly interact with tens of thousands of companies - over 1,600 in the U.S. 

alone - through our outreach programs, newsletters, Language afBusiness 

conference series, webinars, global standards initiatives and partnerships with 

national and international organizations. 

GALA actively promotes translation as a key component of global business 

strategy. In addition to educating businesses worldwide on the benefits of 

translation and localization, GALA offers localization companies and teams a global, 

non-biased corporate language and translation community. We provide 

communities for the global language industry to share knowledge and collaborate, 

giving professionals within our member companies the tools, knowledge and ideas 

to do their jobs better. GALA disseminates information and facilitates discussion 

about best practices in the corporate language sector, from working with translators 

to selecting service providers and technology vendors. 

GALA is headquartered in the United States and is a registered 506( c} trade 

association. The organization is run by a permanent executive staff and an allvolunteer Board of Directors, elected annually from among the membership. 

For more information, visit 

Globalization and Localization Association (GALA) Page 11 of 13 
99 

Statement Prepared for a Hearing Before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Governmeut Mauagement, the Federal Workforce, and the District 

of Columbia 

U.s. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

21 May 2012 

By Dr. Allan E. Goodman 

President aud Chief Executive Officer 

Institute of International Education 

This Subcommittee periodically focuses on a subject we would all rather forget. Foreign language study 

in our nation today is at its lowest level in history. In part, this has happened because English is 

becoming the world's lingua franca in science and much of higher education. Nevertheless, our nation 

needs - perhaps more than ever - a corps of people who serve in official capacities that can speak other 

languages. So I thank the Subcommittee for holding this and other hearings on our national skills deficit 

and for giving me the chance to offer a perspective on what we can do to move the ncedle to \\i'here it 

should be. 

The Institute ofhltemational Education, which I represent, is an independent not-for-profit organization 

founded in 1919, and we are privileged to assist the federal government in administering key academic 

exchange and public diplomacy initiatives such as the David Boren scholarships and fellowships, the 

Benjamin Gilman scholarships. and the nation's flagship Fulbright Program to which over 100 other 

governments also contribute. I have been invited to testify because of the Institute's history and role in 

these programs and based on my participation on a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force that 

convened throughout 2011 and which recently published a report entitled "US Education Refoffil and 

National Security." The chairs ofthe Task Force were Joel Klein, fornler Chancellor ofthc New York 

1 
100 

City Department of Education, and Condoleezza Rice, the fonner Secretary of State. While the Report 

focuses on K-12 education, it has profound implications for higher educational institutions, too, as they 

prepare our ncxt generation for global citizenship and work in an intercultural world. 

For the Unitcd States, knowledge of foreign languages and cultures is essential to our national security 

and to preparing Americans to meet the dcmands of the global workforce. The Task Force reached a 

strong consensus that our young pcople "must master essential reading, writing, math, and science skills, 

acquire foreign languages, learn about the world, and-importantly-understand America's core 

institutions and values in order to be engaged in the community and in the international system." And the 

Report issued an emphatic warning that "educational failure puts the United States' future prosperity, 

global position and physical safety at risk." To me, its most important recommendation is the call for a 

national security "readiness audit" to detennine on a nation-wide basis how many students are mastering 

"important national security skills, such as learning foreign languages .... " Such an audit would help us 

all to achicve the better coordination among federal, state, and local governments, the private sector, and 

academia in addressing the gaps about which this Subcommittee has been so persistently and correctly 

concerned. 

Of particular relevance to this hearing, the Task Force concluded that "the United States must produce 

enough citizens with critical skills to fill the ranks of the Foreign Service, the intelligence community, and 

the anncd forces. For the United States to maintain its military and diplomatic leadership role, it needs 

highly qualified and capable men and womcn to conduct its foreign affairs." 11,C pipeline for this is not 

currently being filled by tlle skills taught in our nation's K-12 schools, and our higher education system is 

not yet committed to making up the deficits. That is why it is very important to support efficient and 

effective higher education initiatives that are strategically targeted to build these capacities. And, indeed, 

the Federal Govcmment currently provides a number of programs that are making a difference both in 

2 
101 

tenus of the number of young Americans wbo are getting the language training and area studies expertise 

needed for govemment service. But we do have a very long way to go and the govemment alone cannot 

close the gaps that have troubled this Subcommittee. 

In my view, higher education institutions should reinstitute foreign language proficiency as a graduation 

requirement. A hundred years ago this was, in fact, the case for virtually all our colleges and universities. 

Today, this is tOle literally for just a handfiIl. And we also need to do much better at encouraging those of 

our studcnts with real aptitude for critical languages to extend and deepcn their studies and skills. 

According to the U.S. Department of Education, there were only 121 Bachelor's degrees in Arabic 

language awarded by US colleges and universities in 20091 I 0, the most recent year for which data is 

available. There were 456 Bachelor's awarded in Chinese and just 356 in Russian. That same year, by 

comparison, there were nearly 92,000 Bachelor's degrees awarded in visual and performing arts. While 

more American students are studying overseas than ever before, the total is still less than 2% of all the 20 

million enrolled in U.S. higher education in any given year, and the majority of those students are 

studying abroad in Westem Europe and only for short periods that arc not conducive to significant 

language gains. 

The Federal progranls represented at this Hearing are very strategic govemment investments in 

intemational education and academic exchanges that are working to counter these trends. Without these 

programs and their global focus and networks, the reality is that most of our young Americans in highcr 

education today would end up studying abroad in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia and 

New Zealand and mostly in summer. 

The National Security Education Program's Boren Scholarships and Fello\vships provide funding for 

study abroad that focuses exclusively on parts ofthc world where most Americans do not go. More than 

3 
102 

80% of Boren Scholars and Fellows study overseas for a full academic year. As NSEP initiatives, thc 

Boren Awards focus on countries, languages, and fields critical to U.S. national security, recognizing a 

broad definition that includes traditional concerns of protecting American well-being, as well as 

challenges of global society, such as sustainable development, cnvironmental issues, disease, migration, 

and economic competitiveness. Boren Scholars and Fellows represent a vital pool of highly motivated 

individuals who wish to work in the federal national secnrity arena. In exchange for scholarship and 

fellowship TIll1ding, Boren Award recipients commit to working in the federal government for at least one 

year after graduation. 

Also under the auspices of the National Security Education Progranl, The Language Flagship is creating 

an entirely new approach to language learning, building an innovative partnership among the federal 

government, education, and business to produce global professionals with a superior proficiency in 

critical languages. Programs include rigorous language study at home, content courses taught in the 

target language, and an articulated program of at least 1 year overseas that includes an internship and/or 

community service expericnce, designed to ensure that the student can negotiate academic and workplace 

culture, and solidify professional level language skills. Dr. Laura Junor, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Readiness, who oversees these programs, will describe them in greater detail in her testimony 

to this committee. 

The State Department's educational and cultural exchanges, notably the Fulbright and Gilman Programs 

and Critical Language Scholarships, emphasize leadership skills, cultural competence and language 

learning. These progranls arc managed by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. 

Each year, more than 1,700 of our brightest students, young professionals and future leaders from 

increasingly diverse backgrounds go abroad through the Fulbright U.S. Student Program for study and 

4 
103 

professional development and to serve as English teaching assistants, many in underserved regions and 

schools. Applications forthc U.S. Student Fulbright Program are at an all-time high. Through a multifaceted and vigorous outreach effort, we have expanded participation by African-, Hispanic- and NativeAmerican students and the public, private, large, and small colleges and univcrsities where thcy study. 

The Critical Language Enhancement Awards clement of the Fulbright Program provides 3-6 months of 

intensive language study in host countries for U.S. Fulbright students prior to and concurrcnt with their 

Fulbright awards. Emphasis is on gaining proficiency in Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Turkish and 

the Indic languages. 

11,C Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant (FLTA) Program (a component of the Forcign 

Student Program) helps V.S. students learn and reach proficiency in criticallanguagcs such as Arabic, 

Chinese, Russian, Hausa, Kiswallili, Pashto, Persian, and Turkish by bringing to V.S. campuses recent 

graduates from abroad who serve as teaching assistants and cultural anlbassadors. 111is year, over 250 

U.S. institutions, including historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and 

community colleges, are hosting FL TA 's and over 12,000 American undergraduates arc being taught. 

U.S. colleges and high schools also receive Fulbright teaching assistants in morc commonly taught 

languages (French, Spanish, and Gennan) who cnrich the classroom as native speakers and share their 

cultures. 

An additional activity ofthe Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is thc Critical Language 

Scholarship Program, which provides awards to V.S. undergraduate and graduate students for intensive 

summer study of important world languages. In summer 2012, over 600 students will study 13 languages 

at these intensive summer institutes abroad. Similarly, ECA supports language study abroad by more 

than 600 high school students each year through its National Security Language Program for Youth -

NSLI-Y. 

5 
104 

The goal of the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program, also sponsored by ECA, is to 

diversify the kinds of U.S. students who study abroad and the cOlU1tries and regions where they go. 111is 

program, which currently provides 2,300 grants each year, was created to reach students at the 

undergraduate level who arc talented and ready for an international experience but who cannot undertake 

such an experience \vithout financial assistance. Eligibility requircs students to be recipicnts of U.S. 

federal financial aid. Selection criteria focus on academic merit, destination of study (with preference 

toward non-traditional destinations and languages), and student diversity. To reach a diverse applicant 

pool, we together with the State Department have developed a robust and integrated outreach approach. 

This year, 54% of all Gilman recipients are from underrepresented ethnic minorities, compared to 21 % of 

the U.S. study abroad population. More than half of the Gilman alumni were the first in thcir fanlilies to 

go to college. Gilman alumni have successfully competed for Fulbright and Boren Scholarships to 

continue to develop their cultural and linguistic abilitics. 

All these progranls address different clements of preparing the next generation of citizens to address our 

national security needs. Many graduates from these programs are serving in the federal government in a 

variety of critical capacities, including offices as varied as the Foreign Service, NASA, the International 

Trade Administration, thc military, and the intclligencc community. 111erefore, I want to thank the 

Subcommittee and the other members of the Senate and the House for establishing such programs and for 

their consistent support in sustaining them over the years. 

America's foremost cultural historian, Jacques Barzun, noted in his landmark study 'From Dawn to 

Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life" that "It is a noteworthy feature of 20th century culturc 

that for the first time in over a thousand years its educated class is not expected to be at least bilingual." 

Not to try to correct this deficit in the 21" century would be a costly mistake. Lcal11ing and using 

6 
105 

another's language teaches that we cannot solve world problems on our own no matter how many Chinese 

and Indians speak English. Languages convey more than facts; they enable people to reach conclusions 

in different ways and are the standard bearers of cultures from which we can also learn. It has never been 

more important for more Americans to know that, especially as they prepare for and enter careers of 

service to the nation and in departments and agencies that all aim at making the world we share a less 

dangerous place. 

11,ank yOl!. 

7 
106 

E I 

STATEMENT 

CROSS-SIX'TOR AND INYT;;RAGENCY COLLABORA rIVE MODELS FOR 

BUlU)ING u.s. CAPACITY IN WORLD LANGUAGES 

by 

Dr. Dan E. Davidson, President 

American Councils for lntemational Education: ACTRIACCELS 

Wasbington, DC 

and 

Professor of Russian and Second Language Acquisition 

Bryn Mawr College, PA 

to the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Govenllnent Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia 

on 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Improving the 

Federal Government" 

Thursday, May 21,2012 

2:30pm 

342 Dirksen Seuate Office Building 

Washington, DC 
107 

Senator Akaka, Members of the Subcommittee: I am grateful for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to present my views, experiences, and research results on the current 

state offoreign language learning in the US., directly connected with improving the Federal 

Government's Foreign Language Capabilities in the year 2012. 

For the past 32 years, I have worked extensively in research, training, and assessment of 

the foreign language skills of Americans at key junctures in our educational system, including 

the evaluation ofK-12 programs, college entrance testing, and the assessment of language 

gains connected with overseas immersion learning of a large number of school and universitylevel students preparing to enter careers in government, business or academic fields. Most of 

my work has focused on the study and teaching of Russian, but over the past decade, 1 have 

worked extensively with colleagues in Arabic, African, Chinese, Persian, and Turkic languages 

with similar interests and responsibilities. 

Currently, I also serve as elected president of the Joint National Committee for 

Languages (JNCL), an umbrella organization composed of 75 different national, regional, and 

state-level professional associations with combined memberships of more than a quarter of a 

million professionals at all levels of the educational system. I am a member of the K-16 

Foreign Language Standards Collaborative, the World Languages Committee of the National 

Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), the College Board Academic Advisory 

Committee for World Languages, and as immediate past chair of the Council of Language 

Flagship Directors. 

2 
108 

As President of American Councils, [oversee programs focused on advanced and 

professional-level language acquisition at overseas universities and immersion centers funded 

by the U. S. Department of State and the National Security Education Program of Department 

of Defense, which contribute to the preparation of more than 1,500 Americans annually 

including the nationally competitive State Department NSLI-Y program for high school 

students and the undergraduate overseas Critical Language Scholarships overseas summer 

institutes, the Department of State's Title VITI training program, USED Fulbright-Hays Group 

Project Abroad, the Defense Language and National Security Education Office's (DLNSEO) 

innovative "Flagship" Overseas Programs in Arabic, Chinese, Turkic, Persian, Russian, and 

Swahili, as well as the African Language Initiative (AFLI). We also administer several 

smaller but critical federal teacher training programs in these languages, including overseas 

immersion training which is made possible by federal support through the State Department's 

ISLI and TCLP programs and the USED's Fulbright-Hays (GPA). 

Many of the participants in the above programs, probably more than half, select study in 

these demanding training programs because they expect to enter into government service upon 

completion of their studies. Because students combine their professional level language and 

cultural proficiency with concurrent study in other majors (international relations, government, 

business, security studies, engineering, or economics), they are well positioned to go on to a 

broad range of positions in government, including DHS, DOD, ODNI, State, Commerce, 

Justice, Energy, EPA, branches of the military, and the National Language Service Corps. 

Mav17.20l2 3 
109 

And that brings me to the first observation I would like to share ,\lith you today: to the 

extent that Americans undertake the study of the major world languages in extended course and 

program sequences that provide adequate opportunities for overseas immersion study 

(preferably at younger ages, as well as in the university), our citizens may now expect to 

attain professional level linguistic and cultural proficiency in those languages and be well 

prepared for careers in government or in the private sector as strong contributing 

members of a globalized U.S. workforce. 

The major shift in preparing U.S. citizens in world languages has begun only recently, 

but its effects are clear and measureable - and cannot be overstated. My longitudinal studies, 

appealing the referred j ournals Foreign Language Annals (Davi dson, 2010) 1 and Russian 

Language Journal (Davidson, Lekic M., 2011)2 2address the issue of the foreign language 

learning career of American learners of Russian, taking into account the relative contribution of 

K-12 study, summer, semester, and year-long immersion programming, as well as a range of 

individual learner variables. The subjects for the study include (for the first time) participants 

in the NSEP Language Flagships, as well as at-large students supported at the Flagship level by 

the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Department of Education's Fulbright-Hays 

programs. 

1 Davidson, Dan E. "Study Abroad: When. How Long, and with What Re~mlt<;? NeW Data from the Russian Front,"Foreign LangllageAnna/s, 

Sprillg(2010),3-27. 

2 Davidson, Dan E. and Lekic, Maria D. Associated 

Mal' 17,2012 4 
110 

Policy decisions taken by the U.S. government in 2005 officially raised the bar for 

federal employees in language-designated positions to ILR Level 3, or ACTFL "Superior" level 

or higher. DOS has also called for training beyond level 3 for critical diplomatic postings. 

Similar high expectations oflanguage and cultural competency are increasingly present today 

in both the academic and business worlds, as well. DOD's landmark "Roadmap Initiative" 

became the model for the most important cross-agency language training effort since 1'.'DEA -

the National Security Language Initiative (NSLl), launched formally by the White House in 

January of2006. 

A key component ofNSLI is the STARTALK program, funded by ODNI, which last 

year offered 150 high-quality summer programs for teachers and students of the critical 

languages in 48 states and the District of Columbia. STARTALK'S goal is to provide 

innovative language instruction for students, facilitate stateside curriculum development, and 

provide much-needed faculty development for US teachers of the critical languages at the K-12 

level. 

Success in acquiring and maintaining proficiency in a foreign language is closely 

associated with substantial periods of immersion in the target language and culture, yet access 

to appropriate high-quality overseas immersion training has been unavailable or beyond the 

reach of most American students and teachers, particularly those in the critical languages, until 

recently. Over the past five years, the notable cross-agency collaboration represented by the 

"NSLI-generated" programs have increased or in many cases generated entirely new overseas 

May 17.2012 5 
111 

immersion opportunities for American learners of the critical languages through the State 

Department's NSLl-Youth for secondary school students and Critical Language Scholarships 

overseas summer institutes (CLS) for university students, and the DOD's Language Flagship 

Program, with its year-long overseas capstone program designed to bring students from ILR 

Level 2 (advanced) to Level 3 (professional/superior) or higher. The Flagship programs have 

successfully built on the achievements oflong-standing federal investments in advanced 

language and area studies research and training through Tile VI, FulbrightlHays, and FLAP, 

programs which in the past two years have experienced substantial cuts at the U. S. Department 

of Education. 

MEASURED OUTCOMES FROM OVERSEAS IMMERSION 

It is relevant for policymakers and educators alike to be familiar with the growing body of 

empirical research on the impact on language gain of different durations and levels of overseas 

immersion training. The relative contribution of overseas immersion at different points along 

the language learning career to lanf,'Uage proficiency development for Americans is the subject 

of the 2010 FLA study, noted above. The RLJ (2010) study looks more closely at the 

relationships between time-on-task and types of activities to ultimate outcomes in the overseas 

immersion environment at different levels of instruction. 

In producing these studies, American Councils has maintained records over the past 25 

years pertaining to the general academic and in-country language performance of many 

thousands of American high school, undergraduate, and graduate students who have undertaken 

May17,2012 6 
112 

summer, semester, or academic year language training programs under its auspices in countries 

around the world. The population is significant for today's discussions because it represents the 

leading edge of American college graduates who go on to enter government service. 

I. PREDICTORS OF GAIN IN SEMESTER AND ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAMS: RESULTS 

Of particular note in the analysis are the clear relationships between second language 

gains and other variables such as program duration, initial level of proficiency, listening 

comprehension, previous immersion, early learning, and control oflanguage structure. 

Listening proficiency emerges as a critical predicator variable for speaking gain at the 

Advanced and Superior levels, the academic year and Flagship programs. It stands to reason 

that students at these levels must be able to comprehend clearly and monitor effectively the 

feedback they receive from native speakers in the form of re-castings and informal corrections 

in daily discourse, if they are to raise their oral proficiency to the next level. Unfortunately, the 

research also indicates that listening comprehension is the least developed linguistic skill of 

those who begin their study oflanguages at the college level. For those who start at the K-12 

level, listening comprehension, by contrast, is likely to be more highly developed. 

Leamer control and awareness oflanguage structure prior to study abroad is correlated 

positively with second language gain in all modalities during study abroad. Moreover, 

language structure re-emerges at the Advanced and Superior levels as salient for effective 

communication and appropriate levels of rapport-building with native speakers at those levels. 

May 17,2012 7 
113 

AC students regularly report surprise at being held to a higher standard oflanguage production 

and perfonnance as they approach the AdvancedlHigh and Superior levels, even by their longtime contacts and professional associates overseas, Improper word choices or inappropriate 

collocations, which would not have attracted notice at the 1 + or 2-level, become salient for 

native speakers at higher levels (Fedchak, 2007)3 Structural errors can undercut confidence 

and undermine trust among native speakers for the non-native speaker operating at or near the 

professional level. 

Effective study-abroad programs make use of both linguistically supported and 

unsheltered activities in tandem with improved metacognitive learner and teacher preparation 

in self-managed learning, learning strategies, and "identity competence" (Pellegrino, 2005, p, 

High school instruction, it should be noted, in light of the fact that 27.8 percent of the 

infonnants had studied Russian in high school emerges as significant statistically as a predictor 

of reading and listening gain, and approaches significance as a predictor of speaking gain for 

the academic year and Flagship models, As noted above, listening competence, in tum, is 

critical for the development of professional-level speaking proficiency, 

In",,,ti,ationofRu,,,ian IntcrJanguage at the superior level and the perspective ofthc educated native 

Pennsylvania. 

4 Pellegrino. \' A (2005).Consfructmg the selfm the study ahroad context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Mal' 17,20]] 8 
114 

Initial level of proficiency also has an impact on gain within the study-abroad 

environment (see Brecht & Robinson, 1995f For example, of those participants entering the 

academic year program with 2-level reading skills, 81 percent crossed the threshold to 3-level 

proficiency in reading, as compared to 44 percent of those in the semester program, and 39 

percent of those in the summer program. 

The development of speaking proficiency is most often cited by study-abroad students 

as their primary motivation for studying language overseas. Students with an initial oral 

proficiency of2 (Advanced) have about an equal chance of remaining at the 2 level after one 

year of study, of advancing to the 2+ level, or of attaining the 3 (Superior) level of proficiency. 

Chances of attaining level 3+ in the course of a single semester, by comparison, are 

approximately seven percent. What is also clear is that students aspiring to attain the highest 

levels of oral proficiency should take advantage of every opportunity, stateside and overseas, to 

develop proficiency in the language prior to the critical long term of study-abroad instruction. 

An exception to this pattern is represented by the Overseas Language Flagship program 

in Russian at St. Petersburg University, which accepts students on a selective basis for a highly 

intensive program of immersion study focused on the full development of professional 

language skills. With weekly contact hours and direct language utilization measured at 65-70 

hours per week (and higher), the nine-month Flagship program has produced six graduating 

classes of U.S. students with post-program proficiencies at 3, 3+, and 4 (in both the lLR and 

On the value offonnal instruction in Study abroad: Student re-actions in conte;"'1. In B.F. Freed (Ed.), Second 

317-334). Amsterdam: John Bcnjanims. 

May 17,2012 9 
115 

European Union [CEF] frameworks) in three skills, which are increasingly the expected 

outcomes for Flagship participants. 

Comparable outcomes have been measured using multiple systems of language 

assessment by the Arabic Overseas Flagship Programs in Alexandria (Eb'YPt) and Damascus 

(Syria), the Chinese Flagship in Nanjing, and the Persian Program in Dushanbe (Tajikistan). 

Obviously, existing language skill measures should not be seen as exhaustive 

statements of cross-cultural competence, but they represent nonetheless a good level of 

consensus across government and academia regarding constructs viewed as important for 

operating effectively in a professional environment in a second language and culture. Multiple 

studies of the long-term impact on personal lives and professional careers of overseas 

immersion learning of critical languages provide considerably further validation of studyabroad learning (Davidson & Lehmann, 2005)6 

Research has shown that language learning in the overseas immersion environment 

holds enormous potential for meeting the linguistic and cultural training needs for the 

government work force in the 21 st century. But to function effectively, it must be properly 

integrated into K-12 and undergraduate curricula and adequately supported by faculties, 

administrators, policymakers, and funders. In short, a sustained effort across government and 

the academy in support of world languages and cultures will necessitate a concomitant 

approach to overseas language immersion study, as well. The above data make it clear that such 

May 17, 2012 10 
116 

a concerted effort is possible and can succeed, but the commitment required of students, 

universities, and society at large is great. I would like to present some key elements of the 

highly successful Flagship programs: 

Articulated school-to-college proficiency-based programs and curricular sequencing 

e.g., the K-16 outcomes-based standards for foreign languages in the U. S.; * 7 

Intensive summer immersion institutes (stateside) for non-beginning students engaged 

in developing language skills beyond 0+, I, and 1+ levels; 

II! Effectively supported study abroad immersion language programs for non-beginning 

students engaged in developing language skills beyond I, 1+,2, and 2+ levels; and 

1II Stateside university-based advanced level and content-based courses, taught in the 

target language, to support language maintenance and language development at or near 

the 3 level for learners returning from substantial study abroad programs and/or 

previously trained heritage speakers. 

State Department (NSLI-Y and CLS) and DOD Flagship programs exist today for many 

of the critical modern languages. Flagship domestic programs are housed within major 

research universities (Arizona State, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Mississippi, 

Oklahoma, Texas, UCLA and Wisconsin); others within smaller institutions that have made 

particular commitments of resources and faculties over time to advanced language study, such 

6 David~on. Dan E. and Lehmann. SlL<;an G, "An Ovcrvkw of Language Lcuming Careers of 520 ACTR Alumni of the Study Abroad Programs in 

Russia:- preliminary report on version poskd 4\1/11[0:' 1nn J!ctr.wo. 

rore'g'" Lm1gU('ges: K-16. Foreign Language Standards Collaborative. Allen Press. Unl,TenCe, KS, 

iday 17, ]012 11 
117 

as Bryn Mawr College (Pennsylvania), Hunter College (New York), Portland State University 

(Oregon), and Rhode Island. 

II. CENSUS OF LESS COMMONLY T AUGIIT LANGUAGES IN U.S. SCHOOLS 

Critical to this discussion of U.S. national capacity in the critical languages is a 

discussion of the state oflanguage instruction in American schools. American Councils has 

conducted a nationwide survey ofless commonly taught language instruction in U.S. high 

schools to identify those schools, and to collect basic data on instruction in order to support 

ongoing efforts to strengthen critical foreign language education. 

As of May 2009, there were 3,500 high schools in the U.S. offering instruction in the 

less commonly taught languages. I cannot emphasize enough the critical importance of 

developing a pipeline of young students who begin foreign language instruction at an early age. 

It is important that the funding that is invested in language programs, such as the Language 

Flagship, is invested early from the stateside STARTALK and USED/ FLAP and overseas 

NSLI-Y programs to the Language Flagship - so that we have an established system in place 

that produces foreign language speakers at the highest levels of achievement, at levels 3, 3+, 

and 4. As a result of these programs, we are indeed producing speakers that do achieve at these 

high professional levels. 

12 
118 

III. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The latest research on critical language acquisition provides support for several basic 

assumptions underlying the formation of policy regarding the present "language gap" in the 

federal government's foreign language capabilities: 

A. Americans are now achieving professional-level proficiency (lLR-3 or higher in 

multiple skills) in these languages thanks to the NSEP Flagship Program and its many feeders. 

B. Americans are interested, as never before, in learning the critical languages, as is 

evidenced by the notable growth ofK-12 programs in Chinese, Arabic, Japanese and Russian 

across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

C. Americans who begin the study of a foreign language and continue with that study 

over an extended number of years are well positioned to reach high-levels of functional 

proficiency in a second language, while gaining a range of cultural and cognitive advantages 

for functioning as citizens and effective members of the work force of the 21 ,t century. 

What is needed, then, is a mechanism for drawing greater public attention to the 

successes and proof of concept for US success in this area that now exists, so that more 

students in institutions of all kinds can pursue long-term study of world languages, just as their 

counterparts in other parts of the world are doing in unprecedented numbers. That 

mechanism, both informational and financial, would address: 

AIav 17, 2012 I3 
119 

1) The general lack of knowledge, particularly at state and local levels, of how to plan and 

implement language training careers from early childhood through tertiary levels of the 

educational system that will bring larger numbers of our citizens to the 3-level, and also 

enable them to maintain that language through their professional lives; the Flagship K-12 

experimental models in several American school districts should be emulated by other 

districts and states. 

2) The need for increased federal support of proven models oflong-term language proficiency 

development on the level of ESEA, as well as through specific programs activities with 

proven track records, such as FLAP, the "NSLI" complex of programs inaugurated during 

the past decade; the support of high quality pre- and in-service teacher professional 

development for those with responsibility for world languages at all levels; and the 

availability of standards-based assessments at grades 4, 8, 12 (such as AP) and 16 to pennit 

learners and their teachers to demonstrate measureable progress in world language study. 

3) Continued support of essential overseas immersion programs for students and teachers at 

the high school, undergraduate, and Flagship levels of training on site in the target country 

and culture where the language is native. Federal support for overseas study is critical, as 

such training and related travel is difficult for students and teachers, especially K-12 

teachers and their districts, to afford on their own. 

4) The support of continued research in the field of world languages and language acquisition, 

particularly the need for greater understanding of the processes of adult second lan!,,'Uage 

acquisition and the assessment of language competencies at the advanced- and superior 

levels of proficiency. 

;ilav 17, 2012 14 
120 

Currently, students who participate in the Flagship Programs, whether or not they have 

had the opportunity to study the language in school, have the real possibility of attaining 3-level 

proficiency by the time they are ready to enter the workforce upon graduation. Those that have 

started language study earlier in their schooling, reach professional levels of fluency at an earlier 

stage in their education and are better positioned to take advantage of international study and 

overseas internships at the undergraduate levels. 

Flagship is clearly a model that should be disseminated generally, for it guarantees a 

capacity and an on-going source of well-educated US speakers of all the major critical languages, 

even while the larger educational system is adjusting to meet the new demands for high-level 

linguistic competence in virtually all government agencies and professional fields. 

Unfortunately, Flagship programs are available only on 22 American campuses at the present 

time, usually in no more than one or two languages per campus. The Flagship model, which 

serves government language capacity directly, should now be expanded, at least to the size of 

Title VI, which has provided the building blocks oflanguage and area expertise at our major 

research universities, which has made the Flagship programs of recent years possible. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions 

.\Jay ]7,2012 ]5 
121 

Testimony of 

SHAUNA KAPLAN 

5th Grade Student 

Providence Elementary School - Fairfax, VA 

Before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee 

Subcommittee on the Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal 

Government" 

May 21, 2012 

Da jia hao, we jiao Shang Na. We shf YI sui, we shang Providence xiao xue wu nian 

if. We ZUI XI huan shang zhong wen ke, yin wei shang zhong wen ke hen hao wan. 

I just said in Chinese: Hello everyone. My name is Shauna. I am eleven years old. 

am in 51h grade at Providence Elementary School. I like Chinese class very much 

because Chinese class is fun. 

I have been taking Chinese since the 151 grade, which was the first year it was taught at 

my school. My Chinese teacher is Ms. Yuan, who has been my teacher all five years. 

There is a second Chinese teacher at my school, Ms. Su, who is teaching my little 

sister. 

I really like learning Chinese. Class is a lot of fun because we learn using a lot of 

games and activities that include everyone in the class and teach us new things. My 

regular teacher, Mrs. Pratt, told me she works with Ms. Yuan so that sometimes they 

are teaching about the same things at the same time. This year, when we learned 

about ancient civilizations in Mrs. Pratt's class, Ms. Yuan taught us about ancient China 

and different dynasties while we were learning Chinese. It's cool that they go together. 

Sometimes we even do math in Chinese. 

I want to keep learning Chinese. I want to be fluent in Chinese. I would like to visit 

China, and I want to be able to talk to the people there. I also like showing people in 

Virginia how I have learned Chinese, like when I count in Chinese the number of things 

we ate at my favorite dim sum restaurant. The people working there were very 

surprised that I could count in Chinese. 
122 

Thank you for helping Fairfax have Chinese classes. I also want to thank Ms. Yuan for 

being such a great teacher, all the people who help her, and my mom and dad who 

encourage me to learn Chinese and to work hard in school, and even my sisters who 

also got to take Chinese. I am very excited to be here representing them, all of 

Providence Elementary School, and Fairfax City. 

Xie xie da jia. We jln tian hen gao xing neng he da jia shuo VI xie zhong wen. Xue 

zhong wen bu nan, nl ve keVI xue zhong wen. 

That means: thank you everyone. I am happy to speak some Chinese today. Learning 

Chinese is not hard. You also can learn Chinese. 
123 

2006-2009 FLAP Grant 

Fairfax County Public Schools 

Fairfax County Public Schools prepares students with the necessary skills that are desperately 

needed in the federal workforce, national security, and on the economic front by providing a variety of 

language offerings to students in Kindergarten - 12'h grade. Funding provided by the federal 

government allowed Fairfax to implement Chinese and Arabic programs that would not have been 

implemented otherwise. Policy makers simply felt the languages were too challenging for all students 

to learn. Federal "start-up" funding made it possible to implement Chinese and Arabic when district 

funds were not available. Once policy makers could see the success of the programs, they gladly 

provided funding to ensure students could continue the language through high schooL 

The Foreign Language Assistance Program grant or FLAP grant addressed the need of studying the 

critical needs languages. The funding provided a firm foundation for language study that ultimately 

increased the number of students learning Chinese and Arabic and provides them the opportunity to 

become proficient in these critical needs languages. Prior to the grant, we had only 125 high school 

students studying Chinese - today we have close to 5,000 elementary, middle and high school 

students learning Chinese. In 2005, there were only 162 high school students studying Arabic and 

today we have over 1,000. 

The FLAP grant awarded in 2006 actually funded projects at every level. With the funding we .. 

o developed a virtual (or online) Chinese language course for the Virginia Department of 

Education which allows more students the opportunity to learn Chinese, not just in Fairfax 

County but throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

o developed an electronic classroom that broadcasts synchronous Arabic courses to Fairfax 

County high school students attending schools that do not have sufficient enrollment to 

offer Arabic. 

o developed a Chinese program in the Fairfax HS pyramid which gives students in grades 1-

12 an articulated program of study. 

o supported Chinese and Arabic programs at eight additional elementary schools and four 

high schools by providing professional development and materials. 

o partnered with Georgetown University and George Mason University for student 

mentoring, seminars, guest speakers, and summer language camps and workshops 

Fairfax County Public Schools Page 1 
124 

o provided teachers of Arabic and Chinese the opportunity to study abroad to enhance 

instruction. 

We now have ample research that proves what all other countries have known for a long time - we 

must start language learning at an early age when the brain is most receptive to language acquisition. 

Mastering a foreign language takes time, sequential study and practice. When language supervisors 

propose starting a languge program, they are often denied due to already stretched district and state 

budgets. Policy maker view them as a "want" and not a "need" for students. Federal funding is the 

only way we can initiate programs that will prove to the tax payers that the money is well spent once 

people see what these children CAN do with a second language. We don't know what the world will 

be like in 2025 - we cannot say we are educating our students for the 21 st Century if we are not 

giving them the tools they will need to protect this country and keep America the super power that it is 

today. In closing, I'd like to say that Fairfax County Public Schools is thankful for the FLAP funding 

that we received and 6,000 FCPS students studying Chinese and Arabic are thankful, too. 

Fairfax County Public Schools Page 2 
125 

STATEMENT 

by 

Michelle Dressner of Bethesda, Maryland 

to the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities 

ill the Federal Government. " 

2:30 p.m. May 21, 2012 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 342 

Good afternoon. It is an honor to be here to share my NSLI-Y experience. My name is 

Michelle Dressner, I live in Bethesda, MD, and studied Russian in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia 

for the 2010 fall semester. I am currently a student at Smith College studying Russian. I am 

grateful to the U.S. Department of State for this life-changing opportunity. 

I have always been an adventurer. I enjoy puzzles, exploring, and learning new 

things. These qualities led me to apply for the National Security Language Initiative for 

Youth. When I applied, I had been studying Russian in high school for two years. In my 

high school Russian class, there were forty students ranging from levels one through six. 

The atmosphere was independent learn-at-your-own pace, and I although I studied 

diligently; I still found it difficult to improve my language skills to a conversational level. 

decided that the ideal way to learn language was through immersion, so I was encouraged 

by my Russian teacher to pursue study abroad programs. In my senior year of high school, 

I applied for NSLI-Y, a scholarship funded by the United States Department of State. When I 

1 
126 

won a semester NSLI-Y scholarship to study Russian in Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia, I was 

ecstatic. However, I had no idea how immensely NSLI-Y would change my perception of 

culture, language, and study abroad and shape my educational and career aspirations. 

During my time in Russia on my American Councils implemented NSLI-Yprogram, I 

lived with a host family. On my first day with my host family, they were unsure of how to 

behave around me, how to speak to me, and even how to feed me. Bread? Pancakes? 

Soda? What do Americans eat for breakfast? Unfortunately, my ability to communicate 

was limited to prepared phrases I learned in high school Russian classes and at my predeparture orientation. I knew how to say hello, goodbye, please, thank you, and "very 

tasty." ''Very tasty" was helpful in relation to the food issue. However, I felt unable to 

communicate my emotions and learn more about the family kind enough to keep me as 

their guest for a semester. I wanted so badly to speak to them and tell them how grateful I 

was for their generosity and hospitality. My host family inspired me to learn Russian. 

Before NSLI-Y, learning language was simply a challenging exercise. Living in a Russian 

home made my reason for language learning personal and emotional. 

My goal to communicate in Russian was achieved through practice speaking with 

my family, practice around the city, and my studies at the Nizhniy Novgorod Linguistics 

University. At university, I received intensive language lessons for four hours each day. 

The lessons were with my group five American NSLI-Y students. Our professors, Natalia 

and Svetlana, put an unbelievable amount of effort into teaching us Russian. We practiced 

our speech, writing, grammar, and phonetics. They enthusiastically taught us complex 

aspects of the language, persistently and encouragingly explaining each of their lessons. 

Through these intensive lessons, I quickly became able to express myself. My host mother 

2 
127 

was delighted when I asked her about her day and told her about a poem I was reading - all 

in Russian. 

When I returned to the United States, I missed Russia very much. My friends, 

professors, and host family had inspired me. Before NSLI-Y, I was hesitant to study Russian 

in college, afraid that it would not be the right path for me. After returning from Russia, I 

was confident that I not only wanted to study Russian in college, but that I wanted to 

pursue a career involving Russia and international relations. In 2014, I will be receiving a 

degree from Smith College with a double major: Russian Civilization and Economics. I hope 

to work in public service for the either the US Department of State, a sector of the Federal 

Government, or a nonprofit business or organization. By pursuing a career involving public 

service and Russia, I know that I am pursuing career that I will love. My NSLI-Y experience 

opened my eyes to a new language unlocking the key to learning a new culture. I now 

know that by studying Russian aiming for a career involving Russia, I will be studying and 

working in a field that I am passionate about. 

3 
128 

STATEMENT 

by 

jeffrey Wood of Washington, DC 

to the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities 

ill the Federal Government." 

2:30 p.m. May 21, 2012 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 342 

Thank you Senator Akaka for allowing me to testify. 

The National Security Language Initiative for Youth (NSLI-Y) is a federally funded program at 

the U.S. Department of State that has allowed me to do unimaginable things. Without the support 

from NSLI-Y, I would not have been granted the opportunities that I have experience such as 

going to Beijing twice in my lifetime along with speaking in front of you all today. Additionally, 

I would not have pursued learning the Chinese language. This program highlighted the 

importance oflanguage, especially the Chinese language and how learning the language can 

benefit me. 

Prior to graduating from high school, I had no interest in learning another language. As a student 

who attended Roosevelt High School in Washington, DC, the only goal on my mind was trying 

to graduate and maintain a GP A. However, during my 10'h grade year, 1 was granted an 

opportunity that changed my life forever. After much convincing from my AP government 

teacher I applied for the Americans Promoting Study Abroad program also known as APSA. I 

figured this would be a way to view the world outside of my local periphery. But I took a chance 

and it paid off. I was offered the opportunity to study abroad in Beijing, China for six weeks to 

study Chinese language and culture. 

I am forever grateful that NSLI-Y's funding granted me the opportunity to go to China. As a 

student who had never been on a plane prior to going to Beijing, this was a life-changing 

experience. I appreciate that APSA targets students that live in underrepresented communities 

across the nation because that's where dire attention needs focus now. It's not just the students 

who can afford these opportunities that are deemed "globally-aware" because of their travel 

experiences, but also through the lenses of students like me, and ones in underrepresented 
129 

communities because every student deserves a global experience. Trust me, it changed my life 

forever; it will do the same for another. 

Since my experience, I decided to pursue a future career in the Foreign Service, an international 

development organization, or IGOINGO. I recently finished my freshman year at George Mason 

University where I am pursing a double major in Global Affairs with a concentration in 

international development and Chinese. I am also currently in the Chinese language buddy 

program at George Mason where you chat and build relationships with native Chinese citizens 

who come to study at Mason. Without NSLI-Y's funding, I would have probably pursue a career 

very different from the one I'm pursuing now. 

After coming back from China, my life was forever changed. My perspectives, the stereotypes, 

and most importantly, my views about the globe and my career changed. I no longer viewed the 

world as uneven across the playing field. In my view, the world is on an even ground because 

going to China made me realize that I, and everyone else in the U.S. are not as different. We all 

are all seeking the goal offriendship, knowledge, and unity. 

Programs such as Americans Promoting Study Abroad, which are funded through NSLI-Y and 

the State Department, are extremely necessary for the development of our future young 

generation because without them, we have limited views on the world. As the United States 

becomes more diverse, more interactive, more developed technology-wise, we have to 

understand that the only barrier that we have to break through is communication, especially 

through languages such as Chinese. Improving the foreign language capacity of the nation is 

crucial to the United States' success over this lifetime. In order to become powerful, we have to 

learn to adapt and learn new knowledge. Through language and immersion, you achieve both 

requirements. As our nation grows, we cannot forget the most important concept that allows us 

to the freedom to communicate, and that concept is language. 

Thank you for your time. 
130 

RECORD VERSION 

STATEMENT BY 

MAJOR GREGORY MITCHELL 

G-3/517 TRAINING DIRECTORATE 

UNITED STATES ARMY 

BEFORE THE 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE 

FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

SECOND SESSION, 112 TH CONGRESS 

ON FOREIGN LANGUAGE CAPABILITIES IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

MAY 21, 2012 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS 
131 

STATEMENT BY 

MAJOR GREGORY MITCHELL 

G-3/517 TRAINING DIRECTORATE 

UNITED STATES ARMY 

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Johnson, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and 

the District of Columbia, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss my experiences as a 

Boren Fellow and the impact the program has had on my career as an Army Officer. 

Before entering the Army, my Boren Fellowship afforded me the opportunity to spend a 

semester at the American University in Cairo's Arabic Language Institute. It was an 

experience which Significantly shaped my decision to enter the military and has 

significantly impacted my career as an Army officer specialized in the affairs of the Arab 

world. I have served a total of 48 months in the Middle East as both a combat arms 

officer and a Foreign Area Officer. Throughout my career I have leveraged my Arabic 

language training to build partnerships at the tactical, operational and strategic levels 

with our partners in the region. I have studied Arabic in variety of venues to include the 

Foreign Service Field School in Tunis, Tunisia, Princeton University and my Alma Mater 

Washington University in St. Louis; however it was the semester I spent in Cairo as a 

Boren fellow where I laid the groundwork for a high degree of spoken Arabic proficiency. 

Impact in Iraq 

I enlisted in the Army in 1997 and was commissioned through the Army Officer 

Candidate School in 1998. I would not put my language skills to work in the Army until 

2003 when I served in al Anbar province with the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment. My 

commander saw the valuable role I could play in the unit's efforts to build rapport with 

2 
132 

local Iraqi officials and he placed me charge of the Squadron's government support 

team. I credit the National Security Education Program for the linguistic and cultural 

knowledge I leveraged throughout my first and second deployment to Iraq. The rapport 

I built in cities such as Fallujah, Habaniya, al Ramadi and al Rutba saved American and 

Iraqi lives and greatly contributed to mission accomplishment. In 2004 I took command 

of a tank company in the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment and trained my men for a 

second tour beginning in April 2005. Because I could speak Arabic, my commander 

again placed me in a unique role partnered with an Iraqi Army battalion on the outskirts 

of Tal Afar in Ninewa Province. Our tour was very successful and our partnership with 

our Iraqi battalion was recognized as one of the strongest American - Iraqi tactical 

partnerships at that time. With my Arabic I was able to plan and execute tactical 

operations with my Iraqi counterparts without an interpreter. I have the National 

Security Education Program to thank for that. 

Duties as a Foreign Area Officer 

Upon my return from Iraq in 2006, I was accepted into the Army's Foreign Area Officer 

program and began my advanced Arabic training with Department of State and 

subsequently began my graduate studies at Princeton University. My previous Arabic 

studies as a Boren fellow made a great difference in my later FAO training. It prepared 

me for a level of Arabic and related regional studies I would not have attained without 

my previous undergraduate experience in Cairo as a Boren Fellow. I have continued to 

make contributions to our security cooperation and security force assistance missions in 

the region having recently completed year long tours in Tunisia and Yemen. 

3 
133 

Closing Comments 

My undergraduate education, specifically my time as a Boren Fellow in Egypt, gave me 

the Arabic language skills I needed to make a unique contribution to the 3d Armored 

Cavalry Regiment's success in al Anbar and Tal Afar, Iraq. I came to the Army with a 

unique skill set that I leveraged to conduct combined tactical operations with our Iraqi 

Security Force partners. I have the National Security Education Program to thank for 

my initial Arabic proficiency. Boren Fellows and National Security Education Program 

alumni like me are currently serving across the Department of Defense and other 

governmental agencies. Boren Fellows and other National Security Education Program 

alumni arrive at the federal workplace language enabled and regionally astute, ready to 

address complex problems and build lasting partnerships across the globe. 

4 
134 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable Eduardo Ochoa 

From Senator Daniel K. Akaka 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government" 

May 21,2012 

1. At the hearing, you discussed a number of initiatives that the Department participates in 

to coordinate language programs with its federal partners. 

a. How does the Department measure the effectiveness of these efforts to ensure that 

these efforts are addressing our national security needs? 

While it would be difficult to measure the effectiveness of our coordination efforts on any 

scientific basis, we believe that the consensus that we have been able to achieve with the other 

agencies is a strong indication that those efforts have been successful. The Department consults 

annually with all of the Cabinet Agencies to obtain recommendations on areas of national need 

in foreign languages and world regions, and these consultations include agencies engaged in 

national security matters. These recommendations are posted each year on the Department's 

Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/aboutloffices/listlope/iegps/languageneeds.html. Through this 

consultation and through other interagency efforts like the Interagency Language Roundtable, the 

Department is able to achieve consensus across agencies to ensure that national security needs 

are being addressed. 

The Department staff members who administer the Title VI, Title VII, and Fulbright-Hays grant 

programs meet periodically with officials from other federal agencies to discuss the activities the 

Department is supporting to promote the teaching and leaming of foreign languages. The 

Department's senior international education officials also participate on advisory committees and 

advisory boards of other federal agencies such as the Departments of Defense and State to share 

relevant information and coordinate efforts related to foreign language education and national 

security needs. For example, the Department participates on the National Security Education 

Board, an interagency group that includes representation from the Departments of State, 

Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Energy, as well as the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence. 

The Department has instituted a survey of Foreign Language Area Studies (FLAS) alumni that 

collects data for up to eight years after program completion in order to track their careers and 

achievements. These data will provide valuable information on the role ofFLAS alumni in 

contributing to our nation's capacity to teach foreign languages and area studies at the higher 

education level as well as provide information on whether FLAS alumni serve in the federal 

govemment and national security fields. The Department completed evaluation of the Language 

Resource Centers program that demonstrates its value to the field, and has commissioned studies 

of the National Resource Centers and other programs in response to the 2007 NRC 

recommendations. This information will provide data that will enable the Department to better 

ensure that these programs address the needs of higher education and the national security 

community. 
135 

b. What steps has the Department taken to leverage resources and coordinate efforts 

with nongovernment stakeholders? 

Grantees that receive fimds for foreign languages programs generally augment activities with 

their own resources in order to achieve program objectives. In addition, the Department is in 

regular communication with numerous nongovernmental stakeholders such as higher education 

associations and chambers of commerce to discuss the advancement of international educational 

opportunities for U.S. citizens. After consulting with nongovernment stakeholders, the 

Department has also developed an international strategy, and we plan to work with a variety of 

these stakeholders in its implementation. 

2. Mr. Glenn Nordin's written testimony emphasized the importance ofleaming a language 

alongside primary academic disciplines and recommended promoting the idea that 

language adds to those primary skill sets in a critical way. 

a. How does the Department ensure primary disciplines, such as math and science, 

are integrated with foreign language learning? 

Most decisions affecting the integration of foreign languages and other disciplines at the K -12 

level are made at the state and local levels. However, the Department recognizes and promotes 

the importance of integrating primary disciplines and foreign language study. To help further 

this important goal at the K-12 level, the Department has included in its proposal to reauthorize 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act the "Effective Teaching and Learning for a WellRounded Education" program. This program would, among other things, provide competitive 

fimds to school districts and nonprofit organizations that propose innovative strategies to teach 

subjects such as foreign language and to integrate such instruction with other disciplines, such as 

mathematics and science. 

In addition, at the higher education level, the Department has provided opportunities for U.S. 

college students to study a variety of primary disciplines-including STEM fields, business, and 

social sciences-in a foreign language. These prograrns, most of which are in the final year of a 

four-year fimding cycle, have supported collaborations among consortia of universities, with a 

focus on Brazil, Russia, the European Union, and CanadalMexico. The main objectives of the 

programs have been to support institutions and students through their work on the development 

of joint curricula, foreign language learning, and exposure to other cultures; increased student 

and faculty mobility; the development of student apprenticeships or other work-related 

experiences; and the mutual recognition and portability of academic credits. For example, in one 

of these programs, a consortium funded in FY 2010 under the U.S.-Brazil Higher Education 

Consortia program is focused on creating a new interdisciplinary course in marine sciences to be 

taught in Brazil and San Diego. The U.S. partners are San Diego State University and the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California at San Diego. A major goal 

of this consortium is to provide students with hands-on experience in fieldwork, including in 

sample collection, data sequencing, and data analysis. 

b. What more can be done to further integrate these disciplines? 
136 

The Department's National Resource Centers (NRCs) program provides grants to establish, 

strengthen, and operate language and area or international studies centers that will be national 

resources for teaching any modem foreign language. Among other things, the grants support 

work in the foreign language aspects of professional and other fields of study. In addition, the 

Department's fifteen Language Resource Centers (LRCs) work to improve U.S. capacity to teach 

and learn foreign languages effectively. The NRCs and LRCs are also required to engage in 

outreach to K -12 schools, in addition to sponsoring research, training, performance testing, 

educational technology, and materials development. 

One potential way to further support the integration of primary disciplines and foreign language 

learning would be to require NRC and LRC grantees to strengthen outreach services that focus 

on such integration at both the K-12 and higher education levels. 
137 

POST-HEARIXG QLESTIOXS 

FROM SENATOR CARL LEVI" 

FOR 

EDUCATION ASSISTAl'iT SECRETARV EDLARDO OCHOA 

FOLLOWI'iG THE 

OGM SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING 

"A "IATIONAL SECFRlTY CRISIS: FOREIG1I' LA'iG [;AGE CAPABILITIES 111' THE 

FEDERAL GOVER;"iMf:1I'T" 

:l<lay 21, 2012 

National Resource Centers between those 

in strategic \vorld areas 

rates that occuned within the 
138 

The data on the ;-.rational Resource Centers above s11o'v".' increases in 

For enrollment in the critical 

year. 

,n addition. the Ful,brighl-HlYS 

of foreign hmguagcs, 

below. 

more than doubled from 

continue to make a strong contribution to the teaching 

commonly taught languages, as demonstraicd by the data 
139 
140 
141 
142 

(2J Over the past several years, universities have been forced to eliminate or reduce less 

commonly taught language classes, area studies, and international business opportunities for 

students, as well as outreach to teachers, business, and government, including the military. 

Funding levels have been pushed back to pre-September 11, 2001, levels in current dollars, and 

six of the 14 Title VI/Fulbright-Hays "pipeline" programs have been eliminated. 

(aJ In what way will further erosion ofthese programs have an adverse long-ternl impact 

on our national security, global leadership, and economic competitiveness? 

Rednctions in the Title IV !Fulbright Hays program could significantly reduce the number of 

students studying, and teachers trained in, less commonly taught languages. The erosion of these 

programs could also significantly reduce access to overseas research resources in strategic host 

countries. This means fewer gradnates with expertise in key strategic areas and languages, 

including international business expertise. Ultimately, tlus loss of expertise could negatively 

impact national security and global competitiveness. 
143 

(b) At a time when our nation's shortfall of deep foreign language and area experts 

continues to grow, how does the Department of Education plan to address this national 

need? 

The Department has developed an international strategy with the overall goal of strengthening 

U.S. education and advancing national priorities. To that end, in FY 2013, the President's 

Budget includes an additional $2 million dollars over the FY 2012 level for the National 

Resource Centers, and maintains funding for the Title VI Foreign Language and Area Studies 

Fellowships program at the FY 2010 level. Additionally, a primary objective of the strategy is to 

increase access to foreign language courses for all U.S. students, including those from 

traditionally disadvantaged groups. The Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs administered 

under the Department's Office of Postsecondary Education playa significant role in 

implementing this strategy. These programs are key to strengthening the Nation's capacity to 

develop deep foreign language and area experts. 

(c) How is the Department of Education coordinating with the other federal agencies to 

develop a long-tenn foreign language teaching and training strategy? 

The Department consults annually with all of the Cabinet Agencies to obtain recommendations 

on areas of national need in foreign languages and world regions. These recommendations are 

posted each year on the Department's Web site at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/languageneeds.html. 

In addition, the Department works routinely with the State Department, through an interagency 

agreement, on the administration of the Fulbright-Hays programs. The Department has cosponsored international summits and conferences on strategic world areas such as India, 

Indonesia, and Latin America with the Departments of State and Commerce. The Department's 

senior international education staff sit on the Department of Defense's National Security 

Education Board and the board for the Soviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act's 

Title VIII program of the State Department's Bureau ofIntelligence and Research (INR). 
144 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Director General Linda Thomas-Greenfield by 

Senator Daniel K. Akaka 

Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 

Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

May 21, 2012 

Question: 

In 2011, the U.S. Department of State established the Strategic Plan for 

Foreign Language Capabilities. What improvements has the Department 

seen in placing qualified candidates in language-designated positions since 

implementing the strategy? 

Answer: 

Since the implementation of the Foreign Language Strategy in March 

2011 and with the assistance of an increased training complement due to 

Diplomacy 3.0 hiring and a Department-wide effort to decrease language 

waivers, we have seen progress in assigning qualified candidates to language 

designated positions (LDPs). 

At the end of September 2003 we had filled 56 percent of language 

positions with language-qualified staff, and at the end of September 2007 we 

had filled only 54 percent. By comparison, in FY 2011, 78 percent of our 

FS employees assigned to LDPs met or exceeded the language requirements 

for their positions. At the same time, 43 percent of all FS employees 

encumbering LDPs actually exceeded the required score. Of the 22 percent 
145 

who were granted language waivers, ten percent at least partially met the 

language requirements. 

Question: 

In 2011, the U.S. Department of State established the Strategic Plan for 

Foreign Language Capabilities. The Strategic Plan establishes a goal of 

filling 90 percent of language-designated positions with qualified employees 

by 2016 or 2017. What is the status of achieving this goal? 

Answer: 

The Department has made important strides toward ensuring that our 

Foreign Service employees are fully language-qualified for their positions. 

The percentage of worldwide Language Designated Positions (LOPs) 

encumbered by fully language-qualified personnel has increased from 61 

percent in 2009 to 70 percent in 2011. By mid-year 2012, that number is 

approaching 75 percent. For cohorts of Entry Level Genemlist classes, for 

whom we direct assignments, the language-qualified placements have been 

close to 100 percent, with many of these officers exceeding the required 

score of their LOPs. 

We are still committed to increasing the rate of LOPs filled by fully 

qualified employees. Key to meeting this goal will be our ability to maintain 

a robust training complement to keep pace with our workforce and the 

resources to fund their training. Without these resources, we cannot ensure 
146 

the training complement necessary to develop employees with the skills they 

need to engage worldwide. 

Question: 

Previous Subcommittee hearings have revealed the need for a personnel 

training float to provide the Department enough flexibility to adequately 

train Foreign Service officers before sending them to their assigned posts. 

This was a key part of the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative and Diplomacy 

3.0, and your statement noted that the Department used a significant portion 

of a Foreign Service staffing increase to double the size of the long-term 

training complement. Please provide more detail about the status of the 

personnel training float. 

Answer: 

From 2008 to 2010, we doubled the size of our training complement as a 

result of increased hiring under Diplomacy 3.0. This had a positive, direct 

impact on our ability to fill language designated positions with qualified 

employees. However, our training complement remains at a level required 

for pre-Diplomacy 3.0 needs. This situation is likely to remain stagnant if 

we are restricted to hiring at or below attrition while taking on greater global 

responsibilities. 
147 

CHARRTS No.: SHSGACOVERSIGHTGOVTMGMT-02-001 

Hearing Date: May 21, 2012 

Committee: SHSGACOVERSIGHTGOVTMGMT 

Member: Senator Akaka 

Witness: DASD(P&R) Junor 

Question: # I 

Question: As funds for many federal programs are being reduced, agencies are looking to 

partner with outside stakeholders to leverage resources. Please discuss what steps the 

Department of Defense has taken to promote public-private partnerships in regard to language 

leaming. 

Answer: The Department has taken a strategic approach to promote public-private partnerships 

through the Department of Defense sponsored Language Flagship program. This program 

supports university-based Flagship Centers to teach high level language skills for the future 

workforce. As part of the National Security Education Program, the Language Flagship program 

supports pUblic-private partnerships through a number of efforts. This includes partnering with 

national language and educational associations, academic institutions, and the business 

community to address the nation's strategic need for language leaming. 

The most important effort has been the Flagship program's support of State Language 

Roadmaps, which have supported efforts at five different states to determine public and private 

needs at the state and local levels. The most recent Roadmap effort came about through a 

partnership with the University of Rhode Island Chinese Flagship Program, which brought 

together state government officials, education and business leaders to create a language roadmap 

for the state of Rhode Island. This Roadmap was launched in Providence, RI on June 8, 2012. 

Previous language roadmaps have been completed for the states of Utah, Oregon, Texas, and 

Ohio. These partnership efforts have also resulted in a national report entitled "What Business 

Wants: Language Needs in the 21 st Century." The Language Flagship program also encourages 

its academic programs to engage directly with private sector, non-profit associations and 

foundations to build long-term external support and sustainment for its programs. The 

Department will continue to work with the private sector to sponsor internships and scholarship 

opportunities for students participating in National Security Education Program initiatives. 
148 

Office of the As~istaflt Attorney Genen.\l 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

U.S. Department of Jnstice 

Office of Legislative Affairs 

\\ilshinKfOl!. D.C. 20530 

September 18,2012 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Please find enclosed responses to questions arising from the appearance of FBI Deputy 

Assistant Director Tracey North before the Subcommittee on May 21,2012, at a hearing 

entitled "A National Security Crisis: The Federal Government's Foreign Language 

Capabilities." We hope that this information is of assistance to the Committee. Please do not 

hesitate to call upon us if we may be of additional assistance. The Office of Management and 

Budget has advised us that from the perspective of the Administration's program, there is no 

objection to submission of this letter. 

Enclosures 

cc: The Honorable Ron Johoson 

Ranking Minority Member 

Sincerely, 

Acting t:A~'~ Assistant Attorney General 
149 

UNCLASSIFIED 

Responses of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

to Questions for the Record 

Arising from the May 21, 2012, Hearing Before the 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Regarding "A National Security Crisis: 

The Federal Government's Foreign Language Capabilities" 

Questions Posed by Senator Akaka 

1. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and a 2009 U.S. 

Department of Justice's Office ofInspector General report (The Federal Bureau of 

Investigation's Foreign Language Translation Program, Audit Report 10-02) raised 

concerns about the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation's (Bureau) backlog of material that 

linguists needed to translate and review. To what extent has the Bureau continued to 

address this backlog since 2009, and what challenges remain? 

Response: 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) developed its estimate 

of the accrued backlog for unaddressed counterintelligence and counterterrorism 

materials by examining monthly reports produced by the FBI's Foreign Language 

Program (FLP). The statistics included in these reports included total collection and total 

amounts processed. The statistics did not, though, quantify the backlog, and this number 

cannot be derived by subtracting reviewed materials from collection, which is the method 

used by the OIG. The OIG's method of computing backlog is problematic because it 

includes collection that does not require review or translation. For example, collection 

includes duplicate material produced when audio is forwarded from one site to another 

and material that investigative personnel have determined does not require review but 

that still resides on collection systems. 

The FBI is not able to quantify the current backlog because the system previously used 

for this purpose is in the process of being replaced. The new system was designed to 

address a broad set of FBI needs, with the FLP being only a small part. The system 

capabilities that are operationally oriented received a higher priority than the metrics 

portion, which is not yet fully available. Although the new system has not replaced all 

elements of the legacy system, we can obtain a sense of whether the backlog is increasing 

or decreasing by reviewing the relative progress from month to month in the aspects that 

can be tracked using the new system. For example, from February 2012 through May 

2012, the FLP reduced the amount of unaddressed work by more than 7.S percent. 

These responses are current as 0/7112/12 
150 

UNCLASSIFIED 

Additional information responsive to this inquiry is classified and is, therefore, provided 

separately. 

2. The 2009 Audit Report also found that the Bureau only met two of its 14 linguist hiring 

goals, and the Bureau's process to hire contract linguists took approximately 19 months, 

which was increase from 16 months cited in a prior audit. 

a. What steps has the Bureau taken to address the reasons for these 

shortfalls, and what progress has the Bureau made in meeting its hiring goals? 

Response: 

The FBI is on track to meet FY 2012 linguist hiring goals, which include reducing the 

number of unfilled linguist positions from 12 percent to 10 percent. In addition to 

identifYing linguists through the FBI's online job application portal, each year the FBI's 

FLP hosts several career fairs dedicated to recruiting linguists. These career fairs, which 

are often conducted in FBI field divisions with significant foreign language collection 

and large foreign language populations, focus primarily on what are often called 

"heritage communities." These communities include groups (not necessarily living in the 

same neighborhood) who speak a common language and who grew up in households in 

which a foreign language was spoken, but who did not receive their formal education in 

that foreign language. For the FBI's purposes, these are often 2nd or 3rd generation 

Americans who understand and speak a foreign language because it was used in the 

home. 

b. What steps has the Bureau taken to reduce the time it takes to hire 

linguists, and what challenges exist? 

Response: 

The FBI has taken several steps to reduce the time required to hire linguists, including the 

development of a more robust system for managing linguist candidates' applications and 

for tracking them through the process. We have also hired three full-time contract 

security adjudicators to focus solely on linguist security adjudications. This is important 

because many of the best qualified linguists have multiple foreign family members and/or 

foreign contacts, have spent extensive time overseas, or both. In part because of these 

security challenges, an average of only one of every ten contract linguist applicants 

completes the application process. Security adjudicators who are accustomed to these 

challenges are able to ensure that the background investigation process is completed 

efficiently and, as a result, the contract linguist hiring process has been reduced from an 

average of 19 months to 10 months. 

These responses are current as oj7112112 

2 
151 

UNCLASSIFIED 

Hearing Date: 21 May 2012 

Committee: SHSGAC 

Member: Senator Akaka 

Witness: Mr. Glenn Nordin 

Question: 1 

Question 1: (U) On March 30, 2011, the Chair and Vice Chair ofthe National Commission 

on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (9/11 Commission) testified before the U.S. 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. They recommended 

developing and implementing a strategy to incentivize young people to become fluent in 

difficult languages and that the Intelligence Community should playa role in the strategy's 

development. What are your views on this recommendation, and what, if any, progress has 

been made to implement it? 

Answer: (U) The Intelligence Community (IC) is one of the larger, ifnot the largest, U.S. 

Government consumers of foreign language services in translation, interpretation, language 

analysis, and instruction. The IC, which includes military intelligence. is also a major producer 

of high-end foreign language translators, interpreters, language analysts, and instructors, in that 

the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DUFLC) and its production of nov ice 

professional level language workers is funded within the Military Intelligence Program (MIP). 

Over the years the experience and instructional methods of the DUFLC have shaped much of the 

basic language education and evaluation of language proficiency at work in our public and 

private education of today. Therefore, it is logical that the IC and the Defense Intelligence 

Enterprise playa positive role in the strategic development ofthe nation's foreign languagecapable workforce by contributing to improvements to our country's capability and capacity to 

teach and learn foreign languages. 

The National Security Education Program (NSEP) - which includes the Boren Awards, Flagship 

University, and English for Heritage Language Speakers (EHLS) programs - provides many 

undergraduate, graduate, professional, and institutional incentives for U.S. citizens to become 

fluent in difficult languages of strategic importance to the nation. The Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence (ODNI) plays a positive, collaborative role in NSEP's development by 

applying National Intelligence Program (NIP) funding to underwrite the program. This 

sponsorship includes baseline resourcing as well as directed funding, such as a recent initiative to 

incentivize the development of educational programs in the languages of Africa. ODNI also 

provides policy oversight and advocacy for NSEP, to include assessing important return on 

investment matters. In fact, the ODNI Chief Human Capital Officer is the sole representative of 

the IC on the National Security Education Board (NSEB), which oversees the shaping and 

delivery ofNSEP's programs. In this regard, ODNI actively leverages its NIP sponsorship to 

shape the strategic development ofNSEP as a national focal point for foreign language education 

in terms of providing the programmatic emphasis, direction, advocacy, and resourcing for 

individual and institutional professional development opportunities. 

In 2006, the National Security Language Initiative (NSU) established an IC investment on the 

part ofODNI that was designed to incentivize language study and instruction under the auspices 

of the STARTALK K-16 foreign language program. Designed to incentivize organizations at the 

UNCLASSIFIED 
152 

UNCLASSIFIED 

community level to initiate and develop critical language programs across the nation, 

STARTALK exists today as the sponsor of over 200 student, teacher, and combination programs 

each summer across the nation in ten STARTALK-designated languages. The core function of 

the program is to offer students opportunities to experience the acquisition of a second language, 

or improve on a mother language learned in the home, with a goal of building and identifYing a 

larger pool of U.S. citizens with language talent. An additional task was developed to enhance 

the teaching of languages through summer workshops for language teachers, providing them the 

opportunity to learn and apply the best instructional practices as part of their professional 

development as foreign language educators. The response to this program, which is overseen by 

the National Security Agency (NSA) in an executive agency capacity and which is delivered by 

the University of Maryland's National Foreign Language Center (NFLC), has been tremendous 

and very meaningful in its six years of existence, now involving over 8,000 student and educator 

participants annually. In this regard, the STARTALK program has emerged as an important 

component of the NSLI pathway to foreign language professional development. 

We must now find ways to encourage the continuation oflanguage studies through secondary 

programs, such as those of Washington State and the Seattle Highline Public School system or 

Glastonbury Schools. Such programs should lead participants to early careers as language 

workers, enlistment for further language education with our military services, or to the collegelevel programs of Title VI and the family of language learning programs under the auspices of 

NSEP. 

In recent years, members of the IC have expanded their foreign language advocacy in a number 

of ways. The Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) comprised of representatives from the 

government, academic, and commercial vendor sectors - continues to contribute to the strategic 

development of the nation's foreign language discipline through the refinement of foreign 

language proficiency guidelines as well as through the introduction of new cross-cultural 

proficiency principles. These are important fundamental achievements to establish the national 

framework for foreign language education and instruction; testing and evaluation; and recruiting 

and utilization of a global workforce. 

Members of the IC also provide foreign language advocacy through a wide range of outreach 

programs and initiatives. The recent release by ASTM International of industry standards for 

assessing language proficiency is the result of a IS-month effort by an inter-disciplinary subcommittee to refine such standards and practices in terms of language test creation, use, and 

maintenance. A similar sub-committee is examining standards on language teaching, translation, 

and interpretation. Among other I C outreach initiatives are continued participation and advocacy 

in professional organization at the national level- such as the American Council on the Teaching 

of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), the American Translators Association (ATA), and the Modern 

Language Association (MLA) - where members of the IC interact with the heritage and 

academic communities to underscore the importance offoreign language proficiency and cultural 

competencies to national security. 

Many programs exist within the IC to inccntivize the learning and utilization offoreign 

languages, to include languages and skills that are critical to national security. Most IC agencies 

and components have robust foreign language incentive pay programs, to include hiring bonus 

UNCLASSIFIED 
153 

UNCLASSIFIED 

and proficiency pay opportunities. In addition, the IC offers many critical language training 

programs and initiatives, to include foreign language skill acquisition, sustainment, and 

enhancement courses delivered through U.S. Government schools, academic institutions, and 

commercial vendors. Many agencies also maintain foreign language strongholds programs that 

incentivize the learning of related languages and dialects among their foreign language proficient 

personnel. From the perspective of incentivizing professional skills development, the IC offers 

immersion and iso-immersion programs; domain-specific training in technical fields; and 

translation and interpretation workshops. These and other programs and initiatives are designed 

to incentivize the career development of foreign language professionals within the IC, to include 

providing equal opportunity assurances and personal and professional development opportunities 

for such personnel to realize their human potential across the arc of a career of public service. 

Beyond these ongoing IC external and internal programs and initiatives, the Under Secretary of 

Defense, Intelligence (USD(I) white paper on "Building Capabilities for Language and Culture 

in Defense Intelligence" outlined a concept for creating a professional language cadre or corps to 

serve professional language needs and designed to attract and retain the services of military 

language specialists. We are exploring the establishment of that cadre with rewarding career 

opportunities and full employment of language talents as an incentive for STARTALK and other 

secondary language talent to join our military language workforce. 

The USD(l) white paper also outlined a concept to recruit promising civilian high school 

graduates in a program similar to that of the current military service foreign language programs. 

In this program, candidates would agree to a six-year period of service as a civilian in exchange 

for receiving enhanced language education and training in the arts of translation, interpretation, 

and language analysis. After initial language education and language worker training, the civilian 

linguist would be assigned to full time duties with US agencies or assigned on call to agencies 

with temporary language work. Additional language enhancement courses would be offered 

during the remainder of the six-year commitment and tuition assistance provided to permit offduty attendance in college-level studies leading to a degree prior to completion of the six-year 

service period. 

Although the concepts outlined above are directed to service with the IC, the language specialists 

produced in the civilian language workforce could be made available for service across the 

federal enterprise during times of need or as assigned employees for their term of service. 

Highly-capable language workers - individuals with the skills, abilities, and desires to meet the 

challenging tasks of translation, interpretation, language analysis, active trans-language 

negotiation, and instruction - are in short supply. 

UNCLASSIFIED 
154 

UNCLASSIFIED 

Hearing Date: 21 May 2012 

Committee: SHSGAC 

Member: Senator Akaka 

Witness: Mr. Glenn Nordin 

Question: 2 

Question 2: (U) Your testimony emphasized the importance of learning a language 

alongside primary disciplines, such as math and science, and recommended promoting the 

idea that language adds to those skills sets in a critical way. Please elaborate on this 

recommendation. 

Answer: (U) Current literature contains many references to the findings of applied research that 

certain cognitive skills - such as working memory, cognitive control, and ambiguity resolutionof individuals with acquired or learned second or multiple languages enhance the performance of 

other human skills and abilities, such as mathematics and scientific reasoning. Studies indicate 

that the working memory, cognitive control, and ambiguity resolution skills of individuals who 

have acquired another language are transferred to other human skills in mathematics and 

scientific reasoning. For example, in 1992, the College Entrance Examination Board reported 

that high school "students who average four or more years of foreign language study scored 

higher on the verbal section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test than those who had studied four or 

more years in any other subject area. In addition, the average math score for individuals who 

completed four or more years of foreign language study was identical to the average score of 

those who had studied four years of mathematics." See College Bound Seniors: The 1992 Profile 

of SAT and Achievement Test Takers for additional details.! 

Specific research into the effects of bilingualism or a deep study of a foreign language attribute 

"greater cognitive development, creativity, and divergent thinking" as among the functional 

outcomes of being multilingual. Increased flexibility and creativity have been noted when 

children are exposed to multiple languages at an early age. Students in foreign language magnet 

schools in the Kansas City Public School system, who started foreign language study in first 

grade, were reported to have surpassed all national averages in all subjects by the time they 

reached fifth grade, and they performed especially well in mathematics (see Eaton, 1994). 

Perhaps the most cogent reason for requiring Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) program students to undertake language study relate to research findings 

that people with compctency in multiple languages outscore monolinguals on tests of verbal and 

non-verbal intelligence. See Bruck, Lambert, and Tucker (1974) and Weatherford (1986) for 

additional details. 2 

I Information from "Foreign Languages: An Essential Core Experience" Staff paper of the University of Tennessee 

at Martin citing the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages. See 

http://www.utm.edu/stafflbobp/french/flsat.html and http://www.ncsstl.org/papersiindex.php?rationale 

'Information from "Foreign Languages: An Essential Core Experience" Staff paper of the University ofTcnnessee 

at Martin citing the National Council of State Supervisors for Languages. Sec 

http://www.utm.edu/stafflbobp/frenchlflsat.html and http://www.ncssfl.org/papers/index.php?rationale 

UNCLASSIFIED 
155 

UNCLASSIFIED 

As I noted in my testimony, the University of Maryland's Center for Advanced Study of 

Language (CASL) plays a unique and significant role in the promotion of national foreign 

language capabilities. This is accomplished principally through focused research into 

methodologies to improve the instruction, learning, and employment of second and multiple 

language skills. As a Department of Defense-funded University Affiliated Research Center 

(UARC), CASL represents a unique partnership between the University of Maryland and the 

U.S. Government in which CASL serves the nation by improving the language capabilities of the 

U.S. Government workforce through applied research into topics of relevant interest. In this 

regard, CASL continues to be an important focal point for U.S. Government research and 

knowledge into the critical aspects of the foreign language disciplines, such as second language 

acquisition; technology use; performance and analysis; less commonly taught languages and 

cultures; and cognitive neuroscience. 

UNCLASSIFIED 
156 

The UnilJersity of Oklahoma' 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce and the District of Columbia 

Washington, DC 20510-6250 

Chairman Akaka, 

May 17,2012 

Thank you for your invitation for me to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia to 

discuss "A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government." 

As you know, increasing foreign language capabilities for the nation has been a priority of mine 

for well over two decades. You are completely correct in saying that we are in a crisis situation 

regarding language. It is my belief that without a strategic way forward on language, this crisis 

will only get more acute if nothing is done to bolster foreign language capability as the United 

States works to maintain its leadership role in the global community. 

As you know, this crisis is not new. I had recognized, over 20 years ago, the dire need for 

the United States to create a pool of highly intelligent and well-educated citizens who understand 

the cultures and speak the languages of people in areas of the world critical to national security. 

This resulted in the passage of the David L. Boren National Security Education Act and the 

National Security Education Program (NSEP). Though small in size, NSEP programs have been 

enormously successful. The Boren Scholars and Fellows program have provided over 4,500 

scholars and fellows a pathway to federal service in positions of national security. The Language 

Flagship program now has 26 institutions that teach high-level skills in language that are critical 

for both our national and economic security. 

Since the foundation of the NSEP programs, the world has gone through tremendous 

changes and these changes have strengthened the need for innovative approaches to increase our 

understanding of the languages and cultures so key to our nation's security and our role as a 

world leader. We need a future workforce with language skills not only to serve in the military 

and intelligence community, but also those who can be involved in the complex global economy. 

As a nation, we must lead as a partner with other nations in the world and we cannot build 

effective partnerships if we do not understand our partners. We must understand the values, 

cultures, histories, and religions of both our partners and enemies. Clearly, we cannot do this 

without language capabilities. 

Oklahomc\ 
157 

r have always said that we need a strategic reserve of talent to prepare us to operate in a 

changing global community. Enhancing language capabilities is a critical component of this 

strategy. Despite the headway we have made with the NSEP programs, too few colleges and 

universities are involved in the Flagship led effort to restructure their educational programs to 

incorporate effective language proficiency-targeted curriculum, which greatly enhances the skills 

of our nation's future workforce. One thing we do know is that we cannot predict very well 

exactly what language skills we will need in 10 or 15 years. As a university president, I know 

that it is very difficult to create programs to teach languages on demand. It is essential that the 

federal government continue to partner with the academic institutions to leverage the talent and 

skills of the faculty but also to reach high quality students who make up our future workforce. 

We must continue to invest in comprehensive language training so that we are prepared 

to face what will come in the future, and while the United States begins its drawdown of forces 

in Afghanistan, we must look to sustain language capacity within the Total Force. We are facing 

a crisis because we have not yet created a blueprint for America's new foreign and national 

security policy. The U.S. needs leaders such as you to step up and take on this challenge and we 

require a plan to improve the nation's foreign language capabilities or our role as a world leader 

and global partner will be compromised. 

Thank you for the opportunity for me to submit testimony to your committee. Please let 

me know if I can be of any help. 

Sincerely 

David 

d~ L. Boren. 

President 
158 

CHAlR OF THE BOARD 

&TRt.TST 

Loui$WCabrit 

l'ItESIPBl:'lT 

wiicCa/JenBrrfolJ!itz 

TREASuRER 

Johl1S. &cd 

SBCRETARY 

jCI"t""o/dlvItimt'l;tri 

COCHAIR 01' THE COUNCIL 

GI:1"IllriL.Ea.rly 

COCHAIR OF TH£ COUNCn.. 

NcalLarr& 

VICE CHAIR, MIDWEST 

John Katzr:m:llcnlwgt:11 

VICE CHAIR., WEST 

Jmt H. CfJlJfX.7' 

June 1,2012 

AMERlCAN ACADEMY OF ARTS &SCIENCES 

Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, Chainnan 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia 

340 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC, 20510 

Chainnan Akaka, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the Subcommittee: 

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is grateful for the opportunity to submit 

the attached statement for the record of the Subcommittee's May 21, 2012, hearing on 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal 

Government." 

The American Academy applauds Chairman Akaka and the Subcommittee for your 

continuing efforts to draw public attention to the critical importance of foreign 

language proficiency and knowledge of other cultures. These are topics that have long 

concemed the American Academy. 

As noted in the statement, the American Academy's Commission on the Humanities 

and Social Sciences, fonned at the request of four Members of Congress, plans to 

issue recommendations early next year. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss 

with you and your staff the Commission's recommendations for improving foreign 

language and area studies education and, more generally, for supporting the 

humanities and social sciences as disciplines critical to the nation's global 

competitiveness. 

Sincerely, 

Leslie 

~~~ C. Berlowitz t 

Attachments 

NORTON'S WOODS r36 IRVING STREET CAMBRIDGE) MA 02138-1996 USA 

tckphunc 6r7~576-5000 facsimile 617'~76-50S0 email aaas@amacad.org www.amacad.org 
159 

Statement-ofLeslie C. Berlowitz 

President 

American Academy of Arts and Sciences 

Before the 

United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia 

A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government 

May 21, 2012 

Introduction 

Chainnan Akaka, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the Subcommittee's 

hearing on "A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal 

Government." 

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences (the American Academy) is pleased to submit this 

statement regarding the importance of foreign language skills and cultural knowledge within the 

U.S. government workforce, and across society more broadly, to the Nation's security, economic 

competitiveness, and civic wellbeing. 

The American Academy applauds Chairman Akaka and the Subcommittee for your continuing 

efforts to draw public attention to the critical importance of foreign language proficiency and 

knowledge of other cultures. These topics have long been of concern to the American Academy. 

1 
160 

Founded in 1780 by John Adams, James Bowdoin, John Hancock, and other "scholar-patriots," 

!!te American Academy of AJ:ts and Sciences is ~~ indepeIldent, nonpartisan policy r~~~J:1: ____ _ 

center and honorary society headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Drawing on the 

expertise of 4,000 Fellows and 600 Foreign Honorary Members who represent the academic 

disciplines as well as the arts, business, and government, the American Academy provides 

authoritative advice to the Nation through multidisciplinary projects that focus on science and 

technology policy, energy and global security, institutions of democracy, the humanities, and 

education. 

In 2010, Senators Lamar Alexander and Mark Warner, along with Representatives David Price 

and Tom Petri, called on the American Academy to prepare a report that responds to the 

following question: 

What are the top ten actions that Congress, state governments, universities, foundations, 

educators, individual benefactors, and others should take now to maintain national 

excellence in Humanities and social scientific scholarship and education, and to achieve 

long-term national goals for our intellectual and economic well-being; for a stronger, 

more vibrant civil society; and for the success of cultural diplomacy in the 21 st century? 

The American Academy's Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences (the Commission) 

was formed in response to this request and has been working to identifY critical priorities and 

challenges for government, schools and universities, cultural institutions, businesses, and 

philanthropies. Duke University President Richard Brodhead and Exelon Corporation Chairman 

Emeritus John Rowe serve as Co-chairs of the Commission. Members of the Commission 

include distinguished higher education and business leaders, humanists, artists, journalists and 

former elected officials. (See the attached list of Commission members.) The Commission's 

report, to be issued in early 2013, will focus on education at the K-12 and post-secondary levels, 

as well as on other institutions critieal to the humanities and social sciences such as libraries and 

cultural institutions. 

2 
161 

During the past twelve months, members of the Commission have heard testimony, shared data, 

and considered draft recommendations for the Nation's commitment to the humanities 

and social sciences, of which language and area studies form a critical part. These deliberations 

have led the Commission members to identify proficiency in foreign languages and an 

understanding of other cultures as core competencies necessary for maintaining U.S. leadership 

in the global economy and for supporting the long-term security of the Nation. 

At its most recent meeting in April 2012, the Commission heard presentations by retired Army 

General and former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Secretary of 

Commerce John Bryson, National Endowment for the Humanities Chair Jim Leach, and former 

U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Cynthia Schneider, among others. All underscored the 

importance of foreign language and area studies to the effective use of both "soft" and "hard" 

power. 

While there is broad consensus about the need to increase foreign language acquisition at all 

levels of the U.S. education system, the Commission notes troubling trends in language studies. 

According to the Humanities Indicators (www.Humanitieslndicators.org), a comprehensive and 

regularly updated online compilation of empirical data about the humanities created and 

maintained by the American Academy, 15.7 percent of Americans consider themselves fluent in 

a language other than English. However, those who become fluent in non-English languages do 

so predominantly through exposure to languages spoken at home not through classroom 

learning. Only 3 percent achieve fluency through academic study. 

As noted, the Commission plans to issue recommendations in early 2013. In the meantime, we 

offer the following initial findings which we hope will infonn the Subcommittee's work on this 

important topic. 

3 
162 

Knowledge of the world's cultures, including foreign languages, is essential for U.S.national 

security and success in a global economy. Tomorrow's leaders will require transnational 

understanding and a cosmopolitan approach to cultural differences. Our traditional reliance on 

English will no longer suffice when we send our representatives-students, businessmen, and 

diplomats--to other countries. 

In speaking with a wide range of distinguished members of our military and diplomatic corps, 

the Commission has collected persuasive testimony concerning the importance oflanguage and 

area studies to our national security and to our role as a global leader. 

In a recent keynote address to the National Humanities Alliance, Commission Co-chair and 

President of Duke University Richard Brodhead shared a powerful example: 

"General (David) Petraeus is another humanist: Petraeus took a Ph.D. from Princeton in 

International Relations. To revise the Army's long out-of-date Counterinsurgency Field 

Manual, Petraeus drew on a diverse group of military officers, academics, human rights 

advocates, and journalists -- broad-based expertise on a problem that is not military 

alone. Petraeus wrote ofIraq: 'We have to understand the people, their culture, their 

social structures and how systems to support them are supposed to work -- and how they 

do work.' In short, we have to be better students ofthe otherness of cultures, the preserve 

of the humanities." (Richard H. Brodhead, "Advocating for the Humanities," Duke Today 

[March 19,2012]) 

Since the days of the National Defense Education Act, the federal govermnent has provided 

funding for foreign language acquisition and area studies. In January 2006, President George W. 

Bush announced the National Security Language Initiative, which was designed to "dramatically 

increase the number of Americans learning critical need foreign languages such as Arabic, 

Chinese [Mandarin], Russian, Hindi, Persian, and others through new and expanded programs 

from kindergarten through university and into the workforce." More recently, essential 

4 
163 

government funds for language acquisition and area studies have been cut and some propose 

even further reductions. 

II. To be effective in diplomacy, business, and other pursuits, Americans require 

deep understanding of other cultures and training in area studies. 

While foreign language study is perhaps the most important step towards a more productive, 

reciprocal engagement with foreign cultures and governments, language study alone cannot 

provide the cultural and historical context in which such exchanges take place. 

In addition to greater emphasis on foreign language acquisition, elementary and secondary 

school curricula should introduce students to basic concepts of globalization and teach the 

histories and cultures of Western and non-Western peoples. 

Area studies and study abroad programs should be expanded as a part of undergraduate 

education. Undergraduates should be encouraged to have a significant international experience in 

order to ease movement among different cultures. 

While it is critical that the nation's military, diplomatic, and intelligence agencies focus on 

addressing the need for language and cultural competencies in key countries and regions, we 

cannot always predict what the next high-priority region or language will be. Fluency in Farsi, 

for example, was not recognized twenty-five years ago as a skill that would have national 

importance. What is needed is a "deep and broad" pool oflanguage skills within the U.s. 

population. 

5 
164 

m. Language learning has far-reaching cognitive benefits. 

[he benefits of language studies are not limited to the acquisition of a second (or third or fourth) 

.anguage. In addition to the strategic value to the nation of a more multi-lingual citizenry, 

:esearch suggests that foreign language study also yields lasting improvements in students' 

critical thinking capacity. 

<\s Catherine Porter, past President of the Modern Language Association, stated in her 2009 

)residential address: 

Our failure to encourage and facilitate second-language learning throughout the 

population results in a devastating waste of potential. The benefits of bilingualism to the 

individual are increasingly attested by researchers in fields ranging from educational 

psychology and cognitive studies to neuroscience. Public school students who have had 

an early start in a long-sequence foreign language program consistently display enhanced 

cognitive abilities relative to their monolingual peers: these include pattern recognition, 

problem solving, divergent thinking, flexibility, and creativity. (Catherine Porter, 

Presidential Address 2009: "English Is Not Enough" PMLA, 125.3 [May 2010]: 546-555) 

In addition, second-language study-of any language-improves capacity to learn a third 

language in later life. 

IV. Current Census and other survey data necessary for tracking language 

acquisition is lacking 

We can only measure the impact of federal spending on language and area learning with welldesigned studies and data collection. Recently, some in Congress have advocated efforts to 

curtail data collection by the U.S. Census Bureau, including the administration of the American 

Community Survey. These cutbacks would yield modest budget savings, but would profoundly 

limit the availability of data for the social sciences in America. Eliminating the American 

Community Survey would severely reduce the scope and quality of data available to scholars and 

6 
165 

policy-makers advancing evidence-based policy recommendations on matters of national 

illlp.~rtance, including the state of language skills in the U.S. population. 

As noted in the American Academy's Humanities Indicators: 

For all the present concern about what is perceived as a national foreign-language deficit, 

existing data on multilingualism are of limited use in gauging the true extent of the 

country's achieved fluency in multiple languages ... [C]urrently, no system objectively 

measures and registers individuals' multilingual capabilities. The national trend data 

covering the greatest length of time, those collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, reflect a 

concern with immigrants' ability to acquire English-language skills. Thus these data do 

not capture those individuals who have gained their proficiency in non-English 

language( s) via formal instruction; nor do they account for those who may have learned a 

non-English language in their childhood homes (and still speak it fluently) but who do 

not use that language in their own homes as adults. Moreover, Census Bureau data do not 

measure the extent of individuals' proficiency in their non-English "home" language. 

Finally, data collected by the Bureau and other organizations on this topic are structured 

to measure Americans' proficiency in just one language other than English and thus do 

not reveal how many people have facility in three or more languages. 

V. Universities should be viewed as international actors. 

The American Academy urges the Subcommittee to view our colleges and universities as critical 

partners in the effort to strengthen the Nation's foreign language capacity. Universities are 

increasingly transnational in character, as many prominent institutions are opening overseas 

branches and forging international partnerships. Coupled with new developments in on-line 

learning, these collaborations offer an unprecedented opportunity for expansion of access to area 

studies resources. 

As education scholars Jason Lane and Kevin Kinser have observed in The Chronicle o/Higher 

Education, institutions of higher education do more than teach foreign languages and world 

7 
166 

studies. Through their international operations, universities can also "affect international 

relati~I1S_~ .. ·_.: l'0r eXaJllIJle,_N.<>~·tlr,:~l~~~_.Qni::,er.~it)'inQatar_':"()I~S ~!ll~J~~r"cthe.\'Iide.1.Y~ 

watched Arabic news channel; and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in Qatar 

is charged with training international affairs specialists for the Arab Gulfregion." (Jason Lane 

and Kevin Kinser, "What Is Higher Education's Role in International Relations?," The Chronicle 

of Higher Education, March 12,2012) 

VI. Foreign language skills are part of a broad liberal arts tradition of learning that 

is critical to the nation's future. 

Recognizing that the immediate focus of the hearing is on foreign language capabilities, the 

American Academy urges the Subcommittee to view this goal within the broader context of the 

liberal arts as they are taught from the elementary grades through post-secondary education. 

Today, government leaders at the state and federal levels today properly emphasize the need to 

strengthen and expand the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula. 

However, the skills cultivated by the humanities and social sciences are equally important to the 

Nation's competitiveness and, in fact, are prerequisites for the mastery of STEM subjects. 

During a recent talk at Duke University, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin 

Dempsey illustrated the essential role of the humanities and social sciences. After attending West 

Point, General Dempsey earned a Masters of Arts in English at Duke, where he studied Joseph 

Conrad and William Butler Yeats. Asked how his humanities experience translated into his 

subsequent military career, General Dempsey said: 

"It opened my mind to seek, not just to accept, but seek other ways of thinking about 

things. When I got to West Point, a teacher held up a dictionary and the Complete Works 

of Shakespeare and said, pointing to each in turn: 'This will tell you the definition of 

words, and this will tell you what they mean. '" 

Knowledge of U.S. history is a key element of a broad-based liberal arts education. Our 

diplomatic and strategic interests rely on a broad understanding of America's position in a 

dynamic global landscape. To be effective, our representatives must have an appreciation of their 

8 
167 

own history and civic institutions. In this regard, the American Academy's Humanities 

Indicators have recentl~ Il!ghl~shte~ ~is~rbil1g trend~: 

• In 2010, only 45 percent of high school students demonstrated at least a basic 

understanding of U.S. history. 

• A smaller share of students taking history classes was taught by a certified and degreed 

teacher than in any other subject area. Close to one-third (32 percent) of public high 

school students, the largest share found in any subject area, were taught history in 2008 

by a teacher who was neither certified nor degreed in the subject. This proportion was 

more than five times as great as that for students in natural science classes. 

• The percentage of middle school students taught history by a degreed teacher declined, 

so that by 2000, only 31 percent of middle school students were learning history from a 

teacher with an academic background in the subject. 

Conclusion 

Foreign language capabilities and knowledge of other cultures have been and should continue to 

be a critical national priority. Thc American Academy applauds the Subcommittee for focusing 

on the federal government's role in this area of national education. As with most complex 

challenges, no single action will yield immediate results, but a sustained investment in the areas 

we have identified can, over time, improve the ability of our diplomats, military, and private 

sector to more effectively advance their respective missions in an increasingly globalized world. 

The American Academy appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments to the 

Subcommittee and remains ready to support your efforts. We look forward to sharing the initial 

findings and recommendations on the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences in the 

coming months. 

9 
168 

AMERlCAN ACADEMY COMMISSION ON THE 

Humanities & Social Sciences 

Current Membership List 

Richard H. Brodhead, President, Duke University, Cochair 

john W.Rowe,ChalrITi:ffi and -Cruef EXCcuO:veofficer~- ExefotiCofliOrauoU; Co&ha<r 

Leslie C. Berlowitz, President, American Academy of Arts and Sciences 

Daniello S. Allen, Professor of Political Science, 

Institute for Advanced Study 

Kwame Anthony Appiah, Professor of Philosophy, 

Princeton University 

Norman R. Augustine, retired Chairman and Chief 

Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation 

Robert M. Berdahl, interim President, University of 

Oregon; former President, '&sodation of 

American Universities 

Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor, University of California, 

Berkeley 

Philip Bredesen, Jr., former Governor of Tennessee 

David Brooks, Journalist, The New Yark Tim" 

Louise H. Bryson, Chair Emerita, ). Paul Getty 

Trust 

Ken Burns, Director, Producer, Florentine Films 

Tom CampbeU, Dean, Chapman School of Law; 

former Representative from California 

Francisco Cigarroa, ChanceUor, University of Texas 

System 

G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, Smithsonian 

Institution 

James Cune, President and Chief Executive Officer, r Paul Getty Trust 

Gerald Early, Professor of Modern Letters; Director, 

Center for the Humanities, Washington University 

in St. Louis 

John Engler, Ptesident, Business Roundtable; 

former Governor of Michigan 

Drew Gilpin Faust, President, Harvard University 

Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Ptesident and Chief 

Executive Officer, TIAA-CREF 

Richard B. Freeman, Professor of Economics, 

Harvard U niversiry 

Dana Gioia, Professor of Poe tty and Public Culture, 

University of Southern California; former 

Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts 

Annette Gordon-Reed, Professor of Law, Professor 

of History, Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for 

Advanced Study, Harvard University 

Anthony Grafton, Professor of History, Princeton 

University 

Amy GntmaIUl) President, University of 

Pennsylvania 

Emmylon Harris, Musician/Songwriter 

Robert M. Hauser, Professor of Sociology; Director, 

Center for Demography of Health and Aging, 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

F. Warren Hellmant, Co-Founder, Hellman & 

FriedmanLLC 

John L. Hennessy, President, Stanford University 

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Professor of 

Communication; Director, Annenberg Public 

Poliey Center, University of Pennsylvania 

Rev. John 1. JenkIns, President, University of Notte 

Dame 

SteVen Knapp, President, George Washington University 

John Lithgow, Actor 

George Lucas, Producer, Screenwriter) Director, 

Founder and Chairman, Lucasfilm Ltd, 

Yo-Yo Ma, Musician 

Carolyn "Biddy" Martin, President, Amherst College 

Anthony W. Marx, President, New York Public Library 

W. James McNerney, Jr., Chairman, President, and Chief 

Executive Officer, "Boeing Company 

Eduardo J. PadrOn, President, Miami Dade College 

Carl H. Pforzheimer ill, Managing Partner, Carl 

H- Pforzheimer and Co_ 

Earl A. Powell III, Director, National Gallery of Art 

Hunter R. Rawlings ill, President, Association of 

American Universities 

John Sexton, President, New York University 

Donna E. Shalala, President, University of Miami; 

former U,S_ Secretary of Health and Human 

Services 

David J. Skorton, President, Cornell University 

David Souter, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of 

the United States 

Eric J. Sundquist, Professor ofEngtish, Johns Hopkins 

University 

Billie Tsien, Architect, Tod Williams Billie Tsien 

Architects 

Charles M. Vest, President, National Academy of 

Engineering 

Jobn E. Warnock, Chairman of the Board, Adobe 

Systems, Inc. 

Diane P. Wood, Federal Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals fur the Seventh Circuit 

Pauline Yu, President, American Council of Learned 

Societies 

The Commission will also involve additional representatives from two- and fuur-year colleges, learned 

societies, government, and business, as weU as additional experts in education serving as project advisors. 
169 

Statement for the Record for the Senate Subcommittee on 

Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia hearing on 

"A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities 

in the Federal Government/' held on May 21, 2012. 

Sense 

Advisory 

Donald A. DePalma and Nataly Kelly 

from Common Sense Advisory, Inc. 

May 18, 2012 
170 

National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities 

Common Sense Advisory is a global research firm and think tank dedicated exclusively to 

the language services market. Based in Massachusetts, our company advises public and 

private sector clients, including numerous Fortune 500 companies, in more than 30 

countries. We track the markets for translation, interpreting, localization, and other 

language services. We publish the sector's most widely cited estimates. We produce 

quantitative and qualitative studies on the importance of language for firms engaged in 

global trade, government agencies, and for companies and agencies dealing with 

multicultural life in the US. Organizations that have relied on our research, advisory, and 

consulting services include Apple, Dell, Coogle, Harley-Davidson, Hewlett Packard, IBM, 

the International Monetary Fund, McDonald's, Sony, Symantec, and the World Bank. 

Throughout our 10-year history, we have been vocal proponents of re-examining the US. 

government's approach to language services. Based on our experience monitoring other 

governments' approaches throughout the world, and given our knowledge of best 

practices in the private sector, we have often stated that the US. federal government has 

procured and managed language services in ways that put the best interests of taxpayers 

at risk, jeopardizing the nation's long-term economic, national security, and foreign policy 

objectives. In 2009, we conducted an analysis of federal government spending on language 

services over 20 years that confirmed our assertions about government inefficiencies1 

Immature Practices Have Led to the Current Language Crisis 

As this statement will show, we concur with past subcommittee findings about the lack of 

sustained leadership and coordinated efforts. Both factors are critical components of any 

successful language services program, and have also contributed to the lack of ability to 

identify its language shortfalls. Because such challenges were commonplace among large 

firms in the private sector, in 2006, we developed the Localization Maturity Model 

(LMM)2, a capability model that is widely used by Fortune 500 companies to benchmark 

their approach to providing language services. The primary areas of the model include: 

People. In both private and public organizations, a lack of consistent leadership for the 

language function leads to numerous problems, mostly due to the absence of clear 

oversight. When such leadership is lacking, it is impossible to link it to other strategic 

issues. At corporations, we have championed concepts such as a "Chief Globalization 

Officer'" and a "Chief Content Officer'" to ensure that language-related work supports 

global expansion and content strategy at the enterprise leveL For public sector work, 

we have seen similar models succeed in other countries, such as Canada, and even in 

transnational bodies. The US. federal government has not made use of such models. 

Process. Both private and public sector organizations fail when they do not define the 

best practices for delivering language services, measuring the quality and productivity 

of translators and interpreters, training staff and suppliers, deploying technology, and 

2 

Common Sense Advisory, Inc. 18Moy2012 
171 

National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities 

procuring services. We have long advocated systematic reviews of suppliers, service 

agreements to ensure consistent performance, and centralization of management and 

procurement to optimize budget and to avoid costly duplication of assets and output. 

3 

Technology. Technology can enable and accelerate localization maturity, thus 

allowing organizations to scale to meet the increasing demand for languages. In our 

research of translation automation solutions, we have been an early active proponent 

of intelligently using technology wherever a human touch is not required.s This 

advocacy includes the use of machine translation, sophisticated automated workflows, 

and advanced tools for scheduling both translator and interpreter assets. 

Post Efforts Hove Focused on the Wrong Issues 

We have criticized past government efforts to address strategic language issues, but our 

biggest critique has been of the underlying assumption that the crisis could be addressed 

simply by improving education in foreign languages. While such education is an 

important foundation, it is just a stepping-stone to a broader strategy that must also 

address educating professionals in the practices of translation and interpreting. 

By limiting its focus to educating students in foreign language, the U.S. government has 

neglected education in the professions of translation, interpreting, and localization. Our 

research shows that there is a global shortage of qualified individuals who are both 

proficient in other languages and who know how to use them for critical language services 

such as translation and interpreting" More language-savvy nations have been recruiting 

the u.s.'s top talent in translation and interpreting, resulting in a "language brain drain." 

In summary, we believe that the U.S. government has ignored some of the most critical 

issues facing the language services market today while undertaking a mix of fragmented 

and high-cost projects with no comprehensive language strategy. 

The 

Here are the most critical points to know about the language services market: 

Highly globalized market. The language services and technology sector turned over 

US$31.4 billion in revenue in 2011.7 This business is global- many language service 

providers operate, recruit staff, and their offerings in more than one country. 

North America's share. Nearly half of that revenue comes to U.s.-based language 

providers. However, large interpreting contracts to federal agencies account for much 

revenue. Translation revenue for U.S.-based service providers lags behind Europe. 

Most important services. Translation comprises nearly 60% of language service 

revenue; interpreting around 25%; and other offerings such as localization, website 

globalization, internationalization, and transcreation make up the balance. 

Common Sense Advisory, Inc. 18May2012 
172 

National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities 4 

Translation and interpreting automation. Technology has played a role in adding 

more value to the price paid for each word translated, and should enable service 

providers to dramatically increase their productivity. However, technology has yet to 

make an appreciable dent in the market for human-delivered translation services. 

Market imbalance. Demand for translation has grown along with the huge increase in 

digitized content, but prices for most languages have actually compressed due to 

global competition, automation, and changes in process and procurement practices.s 

Benefits of language services. Buyers have long debated the return on investment of 

adding support for international markets in their products and websites. Research for 

both business-to-business' and business-to-consumer'o demonstrates high returns for 

each category. Our study on translation at Fortune 500 companies shows substantial 

returns in improving the customer experience, enhancing the brand, and meeting local 

market requirements.l1 We have also found that many industry sectors in the u.s. 

derive less international revenue than might be expected." 

Comprehensive data, detailed analysis, and insight about the demand and supply sides of 

the language services and technology markets can be found at our .r~~earch w@;,j!~. 

Besides our longitudinal studies on the size of the market, pricing, and industry 

compensation," organizations frequently cite and use our research on interpreting 

practices,'· translation management systems,15 machine translation," and how to 

effectively manage large-scale globalization efforts. 

Recommendations for 

The problem isn't just about language. It's also about supporting all aspects of the 

experience that someone has interacting with a U.S. company or government agency. That 

includes cultural, commercial, legal, logistical, religious, and political aspects, each 

calibrated to what the organization wants to convey. The absence or quality of foreignlanguage support is often a visible symptom that something is wrong, as language often 

stands in the way of communications or transactions. However, the reality is that language 

affects many other aspects of international business and diplomacy. Our recommendations 

fall into three areas: strategy, procurement, and workforce development. 

Develop a Language Strategy 

The U.s. government sorely lacks a language strategy. It will take a committee or task force 

with an executive sponsor at the highest level- the President himself. This task force 

should assemble the best brains in global business, translation, interpreting, and language 

learning and importantly, technology to help create a national language strategy. It 

should consult specialists in managing and implementing such strategies for other nations. 

As part of its work in developing this strategy, the task force will require a comprehensive 

needs assessment and a realistic inventory of language resources and assets, public and 

private. We also recommend that it draft a report comparing the country's language 

resources and assets with those of other nations; this information will be helpful for 

Common Sense Advisory, Inc. 18May2012 
173 

National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities 

everything from immigration policy to economic and global trade policy. Technology 

needs to be a core component throughout this strategy development effort. 

We strongly suggest that this task force view language and translation through the 

economic lens of available and potential resources. Currently, we are in a state of 

"linguistic deficit" when it comes to such resources; we need to get to a "linguistic 

surplus" to achieve leadership status on the world stage in the areas of national security, 

diplomacy, international trade, and innovation in other areas. 

Modify the Procurement Processes 

5 

The status quo is for federal agencies to outsource language services to the lowest bidder. 

While this might seem like a smart strategy to save money in the short term, the long-term 

effects are extremely costly. Contractors need to make a profit, so they are incentivized to 

find the lowest-cost resources. This approach can leave military personnel with 

interpreters who do not even speak the correct language, or lead to people translating 

documents who are not skilled in a particular domain. Worse yet, this kind of procurement 

results in the most qualified people leaving the profession or working in other countries 

where their services will be better remunerated. 

Develop the Labor Market 

Because of the longstanding practices that have resulted in language-skilled individuals 

being paid less for their skills over time in the United States, we strongly believe that there 

needs to be investment in developing the linguistic capacity of the workforce. Here, we are 

referring not just to the ability to speak another language, but to use it for translation, 

interpreting, and other services that benefit national security and commercial endeavors. 

Translation and interpreting are the critical differentiators, not multilingualism. Around 

one in five people speak another language at home, so we already have a linguistically 

diverse society. However, we do not have a strategy that harnesses those resources, refines 

them, and manages them smartly. We need an approach that converts language-skilled 

individuals into the workers that the nation can use in professions such as multilingual 

media analysts, localization engineers, and machine translation technologists. Some of 

these positions do not yet exist, because we have not invested in developing them. 

Final Is Essential 

The federal government's linguistic deficit is a chronic problem that is addressed in 

response to strategic threats, changes in administration, or annual continuing fund 

resolutions. However, the need for foreign-language support in business and government 

is not sporadic or cyclical. It grows every year, but the supply of specialists has not 

increased commensurate with the need. If it is to end this linguistic deficit, the federal 

government must define a multi-year strategy that is not subject to disruptive, gameending changes in language policy. 

Common Sense Advisory ( Inc. 18 May 2012 
174 

Notional Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities 

1 Kelly, Nataly, et at, "'L?ngu;tg('_~l'ryi.\'t..'~_'~l!_~Uh~_ ~J.:5.J£cit~!al._C!_,)\:·t!!:nm~!1V' December 2009, Common 

Sense Advisory, Inc. 

1 DePalma, Donald A" and Stewart, Robert G., "~<;r;:~Jerati!1E I..,oc.~liz0!i{)n} .. 1A~.ur_i!Y/" January 2011/ 

Common Sense Advisory, Inc, 

:; DePalma, Donald A., "~bj~f ~\:~1.Q~?uli:.:~H.bJ)_1 __ Qffi\'}.;f/ January 2007, Common Sense Advisory, Inc. 

4 Sargent, Benjamin B., and DePalma, Donald A" "C;:~r)t9.D~.~\)l_~r~·1' qp~_ir~ni.~"!Jj~).~~/' May 2010, Common 

Sense Advisory, Inc. 

5 DePalma, Donald A" and Kelly, Nataly, "nw_ftl\_~.iI)~~:'S (0.s~_ for ~vb;hLns' Tr,!ns:J~1tj~\t:1-," Common Sense 

Advisory, Inc. 

'DePalma, Donald A., and Kelly, Nataly, "Trilnsiation Ftlt\lrg.~.ho(k," April 2012, Common Sense 

Advisory, Inc. 

, Kelly, Nataly, and Stewart, Robert G., "The I.angua~~N\'ices 'I~rl<e.t: 20[1," May 2011, Common Sense 

Advisory, Inc. 

a DePa1m~ Donald A., et al., "II€l.P8.illj_(?D_.0D!IJ--i:'S~U?_f1J~(~!~ trisinljr" July 2010, Common Sense Advisory, 

Inc. 

"DePalma, Donald A" et al., 1f1:~:C:01!£iili~n})\t<l~(~t~/' N"ovember 2008, Common Sense AdviSOry, Inc, 

10 DePalma, Donald A" and Beninatto, Renato, "~:.?!:t' tJ~~i!~L }~(!I}~ t B].lY: .YVl\y J-<~!lggQgg ~1'Jtt~r~. (~D _\;19~?;11 

l~t;J;>k!jJ~~/' September 2006, Common Sense Advisory, Inc. 

11 Ray, Rebecca, and Kelly, Nataly, "Tr~'ln~}0.tion _4t )~9r~!.V1~ ;;()t.l \.;'~~mE-'!.lJl~~," March 2012, Common Sense 

Advisory, Inc. 

12 DePalma, Donald A" et a1., "How ,'vluch Dl)e~ Ciobal Contribute to Revenue?," May 2011, Common 

Sense Advisory, Inc. 

II Kelly, Nataly, et aL "'Lmguagc Services Intlu"try Compcl1sa.tion/, September 2010,. Common Sense 

Advisory, Inc. 

H Kelly, Nataly, et aI., "Ih~.JJ!i~!J2E~tiDKkt0Xt~tR.h~/' June 2010, Common Sense Advisory, Inc. 

15 Sargent, Benjamin B., #Ug~~lt!Y~~!:~_~ii~l~J).:"m!.~J~ti~~) lVl0.n~&1JE.D1~j:::~I"!)~<'/, February 2012/ Common 

Sense Advisory, Inc. 

16 DePalma, Donald A., "))~Il~i:jn}v1~~b~1]~ Ir~~!iJ3JjQl}/" October 2011, Common Sense Advisory .. Inc. 

6 

Common Sense Advisory, Inc. 18 May2012 
175 

Æ 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Washington. DC 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

JUN f 8 2012 

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia for the hearing 

entitled, A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the Federal Government. 

I am honored that you invited me to participate in this hearing. Foreign language 

capabilities are vital to national security and the Department of Defense, As you know, these 

skills are enduring warfighting competencies that are critical to mission readiness in today's 

global environment. Although scheduling conflicts prevented me from attending this hearing in 

person, I request you submit this letter for the record. I want to take this opportunity to express 

my appreciation for your many years of support and your recognition of the value offoreign 

language skills to the Department and the Nation. Your efforts to continue to keep these skills in 

the forefront are greatly appreciated. 

Ensuring our forees are adaptable and capable of deterring aggression and providing a 

stabilizing presence, especially in the highest priority areas and missions in the Asia-Pacific 

region and the Middle East, are critical, Today's forces must have the ability to communicate 

with and understand the cultures of coalition forces, international partners, and local populations. 

These global missions require a Force that can engage in today's complex missions. 

I am pleased that the Department has made significant progress in establishing these 

skills, but we must and will do more to meet current and future demands. We can only do this by 

working in partnership with Congress, academia, our Nation's schools, and other Federal 

agencies, Thank you for your continued support in developing critical skills to defend our 

Nation. 

cc: 

The Honorable Ron Johnson 

Ranking Member 

OSD006839-12