Congressional Record: July 13, 2005 (Senate)

LEADERSHIP AND COORDINATION IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the foreign
language needs of the country, a problem that is receiving renewed
public attention because of the ongoing war in Iraq and the impact the
lack of language expertise is having on our foreign policy. As John
Limbert, president of the American Foreign Service Association, was
quoted in the Federal Times last month, the shortage of linguists
“makes our mission of representing the American people that much
harder.”
Frankly, I agree with Mr. Limbert. The stability and economic
vitality of the United States and our national security depend on
American citizens who are knowledgeable about the world. We need civil
servants, area experts, diplomats, business people, educators, and
other public officials with the ability to communicate at an advanced
level in the languages and understand the cultures of the people with
whom they interact. An ongoing commitment to maintaining these
relationships and language expertise helps prevent a crisis from
occurring and provides diplomatic and language resources when needed.
My own State of Hawaii is a leader in promoting language education
and cultural sensitivity. As a gateway to Asian and Pacific nations, we
in Hawaii understand the importance of knowing other languages and
cultures, which help to develop strong relationships with other people.
For example, according to the 2000 Census, more than 300,000 people in
Hawaii, or about 27 percent of those 5 years and older, spoke a
language other than English at home. This is compared to about 18
percent nationwide. In addition, the University of Hawaii is a leader
in teaching Korean and is the host of one of two National Korean
Flagship Programs established by the National Security Education
Program. Hawaii is also host to the internationally recognized East-
West Center, an education and research organization established in
Hawaii by Congress in 1960, which is a leader in promoting and
strengthening relations between the United States and the countries of
the Asia Pacific region.
In 2000 the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, then chaired by Senator
Cochran, held a hearing on the foreign language needs of the Federal
Government. At that hearing Ellen Laipson,

[[Page S8208]]

vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, testified as to the
language shortfalls in the intelligence community and how these
shortfalls could impact agency missions, especially in emergency
situations. For example, a lack of language skills limits analysts’
insight into a foreign culture which restricts their ability to
anticipate political instability and warn policymakers about a
potential trouble spot. In addition, Ms. Laipson testified that
thousands of technical papers providing details on foreign research and
development in scientific or technical areas were not being translated
because of the lack of personnel to interpret the material, which could
lead to the possibility of “a technological surprise.”
Understanding the importance of improving our language capabilities,
I introduced with Senators Durbin and Thompson the Homeland Security
Education Act and the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act. Our
bills proposed a comprehensive strategy to improve language education,
as well as science and math education, at the elementary, high school,
and college levels and to provide incentives for individuals possessing
such skills as a result of these programs to enter Federal service in
critical national security positions. The Senate passed the Homeland
Security Federal Workforce Act on November 5, 2003, and provisions of
the bill were included in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. In
addition, I successfully added an amendment to the Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 requiring the Department of
Defense to report on how it will address its language shortfalls in
both the short and long term. Earlier this year, the Department issued
its Defense Language Transformation Roadmap which lays out an ambitious
plan for improving the language education of its employees.
While Congress has adopted several provisions to improve language
education, including some that I have proposed, it has not been easy to
gain a wider acceptance of this need. It has been said that the events
of September 11, 2001, were a modern day Sputnik moment, demonstrating
that shortages of critical skills can have dire national security
consequences. While Sputnik pointed out the importance of science and
math education, September 11th reminded us that language skills and
cultural awareness are essential for improving relations with the
international community and strengthening our national security.
However, nearly 4 years after that terrible day, we are still without
sufficient language skills. We still have not learned the lesson that
the Soviet launch of Sputnik taught us in 1958: investment in education
is just as important to our national security as investing in weapons
systems. As such, we need sustained leadership and a coordinated plan
of action to address this on-going problem and to ensure that this
Nation never falls short in its language capabilities again or fails to
communicate effectively with our neighbors around the world.
That is why I have introduced the National Foreign Language
Coordination Act with Senators Dodd and Cochran. Our legislation, S.
1089, is designed to provide the needed leadership and coordination of
language education. Primarily, the legislation creates a National
Foreign Language Coordination Council which is composed of the
secretaries of various executive branch agencies and chaired by a
national language director. The national language director would be
appointed by the President and is to be a nationally recognized
individual with credentials and abilities necessary to create and
implement long-term solutions to achieving national foreign language
and cultural competency. By having the key players of the executive
branch on the Council, I hope that each agency will come away with an
understanding of what their role is, how they can reach out to their
stakeholders for input, and become engaged in addressing this problem.
The Council would be charged with developing and overseeing the
implementation of a national language strategy. In particular, the
Council would identify priorities, increase public awareness, advocate
needed resources, and coordinate efforts within the Federal Government
to ensure that we are meeting our goal of improved language education
and cultural understanding. As former Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Bob
Kerrey recently said, “Someone in the executive branch has got to say,
`Here’s where we are today, here’s where we want to be in five years,
and here’s what it’s going to take to get there.’ ” The National
Foreign Language Coordination Act will do just that.
There have been several articles issued recently that have
highlighted the need for more language training and the need for
leadership in this area. I ask that the following articles be printed
in the Record:
Tichakorn Hill, Does Anyone Here Speak Arabic? ( or Farsi, or
Pashto?) The Government’s Push to Close the Language Gap, Federal
Times, June 20, 2005. John Diamond, Terror War Still Short on
Linguists, USA Today, June 20, 2005. John Diamond, Muslim World Isn’t
Big with U.S. Students, USA Today, June 19, 2005.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From USA Today, Jun. 20, 2005]

Muslim World Isn’t Big With U.S. Students

(By John Diamond)

Washington–Despite an expansion of federal efforts to
promote learning Arabic and other languages of the Islamic
world, there has been no dramatic increase in Americans
studying in countries where such languages are spoken,
according to the latest statistics on overseas study. That’s
the case even though the number of Americans studying abroad
has more than doubled since the mid-1990s.
There are some signs of growing interest among American
students in learning Arabic, which the U.S. intelligence
community hopes will help bolster its ranks with specialists
for the war on terrorism.
But as Karin Ryding, a professor of Arabic at Georgetown
University, points out, U.S. intelligence can’t get by with
“hothouse” Arabic speakers who have learned the language
sitting in American classrooms. They must travel to the
region and immerse themselves to become fluent.
Overall interest in foreign languages hasn’t surged either
since the Sept. 11 attacks. The difficulty of learning Arabic
and other Middle East languages means it will be years before
academia can produce significantly more graduates fluent in
languages important to U.S. national security.
“It’s going to take a good, long while. It’s going to be a
lot more expensive. And it’s a question of whether you can
afford to wait,” says Andrew Krepinevich, head of the Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based
defense think tank.
Numbers aren’t good
For 2002-03, the first full academic year after 9/11, 1,293
Americans studied in predominantly Muslim countries in
Africa, the Middle East and Asia. That’s a 4.5% increase over
the yearly average of 1,237 for the five years leading up to
Sept. 11, according to an analysis of figures compiled by the
Institute of International Education, which administers
several federal study-abroad scholarship programs. The
figures cover students who financed their own education as
well as those who received private and public scholarships.
The list of majority-Muslim countries in which students
studied is not identical from year to year but typically
includes countries in the Middle East and North Africa such
as Senegal, Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait,
Lebanon and Turkey; and nations in Asia such as Pakistan,
Indonesia and Malaysia.
The institute’s figures show that more Americans are
studying abroad: 174,629 in 2002-03, up from 84,403 in 1994-
95. Yet fewer are focusing on foreign languages: Two decades
ago, 16.7% of Americans studying abroad listed foreign
languages as their primary field of study, according to the
institute’s figures. A decade ago, it was down to 11.3%; for
2002-03, 7.9%.
“Despite our growing needs, the number of undergraduate
foreign language degrees conferred is only 1% of all
degrees,” Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said last month. Dodd is
sponsoring legislation that would increase federal spending
on language and foreign study and create a “national
language director” to coordinate language programs.
The stakes are high, according to a January Pentagon
report: “Conflict against enemies speaking less-commonly
taught languages and thus the need for foreign language
capability will not abate.”
Language ability is critical not just for fighting wars or
spying, says Thomas Farrell, deputy assistant secretary of
State for academic programs. It also means having a better
knowledge of “regions of the world that are important to the
United States,” Farrell says. “We’re seeking to
demonstrate, especially to countries with Islamic
populations, that people in the United States have respect
for their societies and want to learn about them.”
Uptick in Arabic studies
For years, U.S. students didn’t learn much about Arabic. In
2002, the latest nationwide figures available, 10,584
students were studying Arabic, whether as a major or an
elective. That was a 92% increase from 1998 but

[[Page S8209]]

still amounted to fewer than 1% of all students enrolled in
foreign language courses in 2002, according to a report by
the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages.
The Department of Education is spending about $10 million
this year for language study centers based in the Middle
East, U.S. language development centers and scholarships for
study abroad. The Pentagon is spending $3.6 million for
Middle East language scholarships and other language
programs. Some of the money is tied to promises that students
will commit to jobs in national security.
The State Department handles the bulk of federal money for
language scholarships through its Fulbright programs for
undergraduates and scholars. Last year, the department spent
$86 million on Fulbright and other programs out of a total
education and cultural exchange budget of $231 million. Not
all of that $86 million was focused on Muslim countries,
however.
Concerned that no one coordinates the federal programs, a
group of senators–including Dodd, Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and
Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii–wants to start a National Foreign
Language Coordination Council.
For now, U.S. military and intelligence agencies compete
with one another for a small pool of qualified candidates.
Arabic professor John Walbridge of the University of Indiana
is worried about the push to fill hiring quotas.
“They’re desperate for people,” Walbridge says. “They’re
recruiting people who by no reasonable standard are ready to
do intelligence work using Arabic.”
____

[From USA Today, June 20, 2005]

Terror War Still Short on Linguists

(By John Diamond)

Washington.–Nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks,
the federal government has created a profusion of programs to
train students in languages and cultures important in the war
on terrorism. But government leaders and language experts say
the effort is an uncoordinated jumble too slow to produce
measurable results.
“We’re not there, and we’re not moving fast enough,” says
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee.
Since 9/11, Congress and the White House have pumped money
into new and existing programs for training in Arabic and
other Middle Eastern languages and cultures. Annual spending
has jumped from about $41 million in 2001 to $100 million
today. While the funding and programs have grown, the results
are, so far, insufficient, according to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-
Conn. The government needs to hire 34,000 foreign-language
specialists, particularly Arabic speakers, for homeland
security, defense and intelligence agencies, he says.
The effort to produce more speakers of Arabic and other
languages of the Islamic world is needed because many
Americans fluent in these languages have difficulty getting
security clearances if they have relatives in the region.
Producing a “homegrown” speaker of Arabic, with its
different alphabet and many dialects, can take 10 years, says
professor John Walbridge of the University of Indiana, “if
you apply yourself.”
No government agency coordinates this effort, and there are
no readily available statistics on how many students get
federal money intended to produce more speakers of Arabic,
Urdu and other strategic languages and more experts on the
Islamic world.
Based on public records and interviews with relevant
officials, about $9.5 million in federal money goes to
programs designed specifically to produce job candidates for
U.S. intelligence and other national security agencies. Only
about 40% of that total, roughly $3.8 million, is focused on
the Middle East.
The number of students in these programs–named for current
and former chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee–is
modest: 150 in the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program
and 230 in the David Boren Scholarship program. About one-
third of the students focus on Middle Eastern languages.
“Someone in the executive branch has got to say, Here’s
where we are today, here’s where we want to be in five years,
and here’s what it’s going to take to get there,” ‘ says Bob
Kerrey, a Democrat who served on the federal commission that
investigated 9/11. That panel pointed out last year that only
six students received undergraduate degrees in Arabic in
2002.
Walbridge and other Arabic scholars agree that living in
the Middle East is essential to becoming fluent. But the
number of Americans studying in predominantly Muslim
countries has remained about the same as pre-Sept. 11 levels.
In 2002-03, the most recent year for which figures are
available, fewer than 1,300 Americans were studying in Muslim
countries, or less than 1% of the Americans studying abroad.
“As a nation, we just don’t have any sort of organized
language policy, and it shows,” says Kirk Belnap, director
of a federally funded National Middle Eat Language Resource
Center at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
____

[From the Federal Times, June 20, 2005]

Does Anyone Here Speak Arabic? Or Farsi, or Pashto . . . The
Government’s Push To Close the Language Gap

(By Tichakorn Hill)

When a congressman asked David Kay, the former head of the
U.S. team searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
how many on his 1,400-person team spoke Arabic and understood
the technology of weapons of mass destruction, the answer was
discouraging.
“I could count on the fingers of one hand,” Rep. Rush
Holt, D-N.J., recalled Kay as saying about a year ago.
Similarly, Holt asked special forces who were combing
through Afghan mountain ranges for Osama bin Laden how many
of them spoke the local language of Pashto. They said they
picked up a little while they were there.
“If Osama bin Laden is truly American public enemy No. 1,
how do we expect to track him down if we cannot speak the
languages of the people who are hiding him?” Holt said.
Whether it is military troops, intelligence analysts,
translators, interpreters, or just federal employees
delivering services to an increasingly diverse American
population, there is a troubling shortage of people with
foreign language skills. And the shortage is most critical in
Middle Eastern and South Asian languages: Arabic; Pashto;
Dari, which is spoken in Afghanistan; Farsi, spoken in Iran;
Kurdish, spoken in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Syria; and
Urdu, spoken in India and Pakistan.
The consequences, say experts, are disturbing. The problem
threatens government efforts to keep the peace and rebuild
infrastructure in Iraq, translate foreign documents and
interpret foreign conversations that could prove to be
valuable intelligence, explain U.S. policies to foreign
populations, investigate terrorists, and track down illegal
aliens.
The shortage of linguists “makes our mission of
representing the American people that much harder,” said
John Limbert, president of the American Foreign Service
Association and a former ambassador to Mauritania. “Most of
that mission involves communication–speaking and listening
to what others are telling us. I don’t see how we can do that
without knowing the language of those with whom we are
communicating.”
The Defense and State departments, intelligence agencies,
the FBI and many other agencies were suffering severe
shortages of linguists even before 9/11. The FBI, for
example, complained to Congress in 2000 that it had large
stockpiles of audio tapes and documents awaiting translation.
The Defense Department didn’t have a single Dari-speaking
employee. And it had only one Marine and one sailor who spoke
Pashto.
Kevin Hendzel, a spokesman for the American Translators
Association, estimates it will take intelligence agencies
between 10 and 15 years to catch up in translating tons of
materials recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan. “As a
society, we pay a huge price for not being competent in
foreign languages. This is particularly true in the national
security area where the people who want to do us harm do not
speak English,” he said.
Federal agencies are expected to hire more than 10,000
contract and staff linguists this year.
But while hiring of linguists since 9/11 has exploded, it
still hasn’t kept pace with the government’s needs–
especially for people who know Arabic and South Asian
languages.
The problem
Federal managers blame the American education system.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
out of 2 million college graduates in 2004, only 17 earned
bachelor’s or advanced degrees in Arabic. Only 206 earned
degrees in Chinese, the world’s most popular language.
“Academia is not producing enough of the right kind of
linguists fast enough,” said an FBI official. “And we
simply cannot wait for the education system to catch up.”
But the government is trying to kick-start the system. Last
year the Defense Department began awarding grants to
universities for foreign language studies in Chinese, Arabic,
Korean and Russian.
And in Congress, Holt introduced this year the National
Security Language Act, which would subsidize colleges and
universities that teach critical languages and offer
intensive study programs overseas. The bill, which has 43
cosponsors, also would repay student loans for those who
study critical foreign languages and then work for federal
agencies or as elementary or secondary school language
teachers.
The recruiting challenge
In their rush to recruit people with hard-to-find language
skills, agency managers are trying a variety of tactics.
They hold job fairs in minority communities, such as Arabic
communities in California and Michigan. They advertise in
foreign-language newspapers, offer thousands of dollars in
sign-up bonuses, and recruit at colleges and universities
where needed languages are taught.
But there are a lot of factors working against them. One is
stiff competition for a limited pool of candidates.
“We’re always in competition with other federal agencies
and the private sector for that talent,” said Reginald
Wells, deputy commissioner for human resources at the Social
Security Administration.
Many candidates are foreign-born and foreign-educated,
which presents another challenge for agencies trying to
verify their credentials.
And as if finding people who speak difficult languages is
not difficult enough, finding

[[Page S8210]]

people who know those languages at a professional or
technical level is even harder.
“Many of our assignments are highly technical and they
[native speakers] simply do not have vocabulary to move
between the two languages. That’s where our challenges lie,”
said Brenda Spraque, the director of Office of Language
Services at the State Department.
Not all candidates who meet the grade want to work for,
say, the Foreign Service and be posted far from their
families, said Nancy Serpa, former director of the Human
Resources for Recruitment, Examination and Employment at the
State Department.
“The Foreign Service is not a career for everyone, and
finding people who want to spend their career overseas away
from their family is very difficult to begin with, even
though we have a lot of people who take the Foreign Service
test,” Serpa said.
National Security Agency managers find that many candidates
are reluctant to move even to the agency’s Maryland
headquarters.
“We may be successful in attracting people to the type of
work we do and the opportunities and possibilities we have
available, but we’re not always successful in encouraging
them to move to Columbia or Baltimore,” said John Taflan,
NSA human resources director.
Getting new employees a security clearance is another
hurdle.
“We require, for all our full-time positions and even some
of our contract positions, that people have the ability to
obtain a security clearance, and that’s become extremely
difficult for those who are naturalized American citizens,”
Spraque said. “That limits your pool to a large extent.”
Hiring binge.
Despite the recruiting challenges, agencies have been
hiring.
Since 9/11, the FBI has hired nearly 1,000 linguists and
plans to hire 274 more next fiscal year. Currently it has
nearly 1,400 contract and full-time linguists who speak 100
languages. Ninety-five of those linguists are native speakers
of their languages. The bureau increased its linguists by 69
percent and the number of those in critical languages, such
as Arabic, increasing by 200 percent.
The State Department this year is hiring nearly 400 Foreign
Service generalists, many of whom will get training to speak
another language. It’s also hiring translators and
interpreters. Many of those new hires will staff new
embassies in Baghdad, Iraq, and Kabul, Afghanistan; and a new
liaison office in Tripoli, Libya. Currently the department
has about 7,000 employees speaking 60 languages working in
the United States and at 265 posts abroad.
Likewise, the National Security Agency is aggressively
recruiting: Currently at 35,000 employees, the agency plans
to hire 1,500 people every year until 2010, and many will
become language analysts. It offers sign-up bonuses of up to
20 percent of a person’s salary for those who speak critical
languages. NSA also hires 50 to 200 bilinguals a year whom it
then trains to speak a third language.
More training.
The shortage of linguists prompted the Defense Department
to overhaul its language program. The department in April
unveiled a plan, called the Defense Language Transformation
Roadmap, to build up its foreign language skills. It includes
directing money to colleges and universities to teach
languages. Also, the department plans to invest $45 million
more than current levels–$195 million in fiscal 2006–in its
Defense Language Institute. The department also will build a
database of active-duty personnel, civilians, reservists and
retirees who speak foreign languages.
“9/11 really changed our whole orientation to understand
that this is a major issue that’s going to be with us for a
long time,” said Gail McGinn, Defense deputy undersecretary
for plans. “It’s going to take a long time to solve it.”
Today, Defense has nearly 84,000 military linguists who
speak about 250 languages and dialects–up from 72,000 in
2000. The military services plan to train about 2,300
linguists this year. The Air Force is the most active and
plans to train 1,500 military linguists this year.
Agencies that cannot hire or train enough people with
foreign language skills borrow them from other agencies or
contract for them.
Congress in 2003 also created the National Virtual
Translation Center, an interagency clearinghouse that lets
agencies share translators with each other or to seek the
services of translators in the private sector and academia.
The center also performs translation work for intelligence
agencies.
Federal contracting for people with language skills has
taken off since 9/11. But as demand has shot up, so have
labor rates.
Before 9/11, a linguist speaking Arabic might get paid $15
or $20 an hour. Now, rates are about double that. And for
those with security clearances and expertise, rates are up to
between $70 and $80 an hour. A contract linguist working in
Iraq now can make $150,000 a year, Hendzel said.
Not all agencies are willing to pay so much, he said. Some
want to settle for $20 an hour and hire someone who can speak
a foreign language but may not be certified or have
experience or expertise in a particular field. By doing that,
Hendzel said agencies risk getting poor-quality work that
could undermine their missions.
“Mistranslation or distortion are as dangerous as a lack
of translation,” he said.

Mr. AKAKA. We all understand the importance of language education and
cultural understanding in this country; we just need to figure out how
we make it happen. I am confident the National Foreign Language
Coordination Council will provide the needed leadership and
coordination to reach our goal.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress