Requirements for Linguists in Government Agencies

CRS Report for Congress
Requirements for Linguists
in Government Agencies
Updated October 8, 2004
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Requirements for Linguists in Government Agencies
Summary
As part of the war on terrorism, it is widely recognized that the U.S. government
has a substantial and growing need for personnel with knowledge of foreign
languages and especially languages that may be spoken in limited and remote areas
of the world. In 2002, the federal government employed about a thousand translators
and interpreters in four agencies responsible for security-related functions. In
addition, these agencies employ nearly 20,000 staff in positions that require some
foreign language proficiency.Yet there is a widespread consensus that requirements
for foreign language qualified personnel are not currently being met. The report
issued by the 9/11 Commission in July of 2004 makes several references to this
deficiency and suggests corrective action to address it. In response, the House and
Senate passed bills that would encourage improvement in the language capabilities
of intelligence agencies — H.R. 10 (October 8, 2004) and S. 2845 (October 7, 2004).
Government agencies have addressed requirements for linguists in several
different ways. Persons with existing foreign language expertise can be hired on a
full or part-time basis. Employees can be trained in a foreign language either in a
government training program or by an academic or commercial institution. Language
skills can be obtained by contract or by use of a linguist reserve corps. Each of these
approaches has advantages and disadvantages.
Taken together, these approaches have helped agencies react to the changing
requirements of the past decade. Few observers believe, however, that they are
adequate to what appears to be likely escalating requirements of coming years. In
particular, greater human intelligence collection, widely advocated by intelligence
specialists, creates a need for officials with near-perfect qualifications in local
languages or dialects.
Persons with existing foreign language skills generally fall into two categories
— those who have learned the foreign language at home and those who acquire
foreign language skills in schools or colleges. Given growing requirements for skills
in a wide variety of less commonly taught languages, federal agencies are
increasingly turning to persons who have learned foreign languages at home. Foreign
language instruction at U.S. academic institutions has tended to concentrate on a
small number of languages, especially Spanish, French, other Romance languages,
Japanese, Chinese, and Russian, along with classical languages. In general, there are
far too few graduates who have acquired language skills currently needed by federal
agencies and fewer still whose skills enable them to interpret or engage in complex
conversations.
To a large extent finding language qualified personnel for government agencies
is a responsibility of the Executive Branch, but Congress must appropriate funds for
agency efforts, and it conducts oversight of programs. In addition, funding for
foreign language instruction in civilian institutions originates in legislation. At the
present time, a number of issues in regard to foreign language capabilities appear to
be receiving congressional attention. This report addresses many of these issues and
is intended as background only and will not be updated.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Language Training at Institutions of Higher Education.....................4
Language Heritage Communities in the United States....................11
Issues and Questions Before the Congress..............................14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Cumulative Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred in Foreign
Languages, by Language, 1993 to 2002............................5
Figure 2. Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred in Foreign Languages,
by Language, 1993 to 2002......................................6
List of Tables
Table 1. Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education,
1970 to 2002.................................................8
Table 2. Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctor’s Degrees Conferred by
Institutions of Higher Education, 1993 to 2002.......................9
Table 3. Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctor’s Degrees in Area Studies
Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education, 1993 to 2002...........10
Table 4. Language Spoken at Home for the Population Aged Five Years
and Over in the United States, 2000..............................11
Table 5. NSEP Languages of Emphasis, 1999-2000.....................12



Requirements for Linguists
in Government Agencies
The House and Senate passed bills that would encourage improvement in the
language capabilities of intelligence agencies — H.R. 10 (October 8, 2004) and S.
2845 (October 7, 2004). H.R. 10 would provide between a five-fold and six-fold
increase in funding for the National Security Education Program’s National
Flagship Language Initiative (see CRS Report RL31643, “National Security
Education Program: Background and Issues” for more information on this
program). H.R. 10 would also create three new programs. The first would provide
college scholarships to U.S. citizens who are native speakers of languages critical
to national security interests. The second would establish a Foreign Language
Program involving partnerships between education institutions and qualified
volunteer service personnel. The third would establish a Civilian Linguist Reserve
Corps of U.S. citizens with advanced language proficiency. S. 2845 would charge
the Director of the FBI with carrying out a program to enhance the Bureau’s
capacity to recruit and retain individuals with language skills. The bill also charges
the Director of the CIA with developing and maintaining an effective language
program within the agency.
Introduction
As part of the war on terrorism, it is widely recognized that the U.S. government
has a substantial and growing need for personnel with knowledge of foreign
languages and especially languages that may be spoken in limited and remote areas
of the world. In 2002 the federal government employed about a thousand translators
and interpreters in four agencies responsible for security-related functions (the Army,
the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central
Intelligence Agency); in the same agencies a total of nearly twenty thousand staff1
were employed in positions that require some foreign language proficiency. In
addition to these four agencies, other government offices have extensive
requirements for persons with foreign language skills.
Government agencies need personnel with foreign language skills for various
purposes — to translate the enormous gathering of printed documents and transcripts
of conversations made possible by the introduction of new technical means of
collection. An active diplomacy creates a need for officials who can advance U.S.
policies persuasively through conversations with local officials and opinion-makers.
Intelligence and law enforcement officials need to be able to converse with potential


1 Government Accountability Office, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed
to Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375, Jan. 2002, p. 4.

informants — a mission that often can require a mastery of a local dialect and
informal slang.
There is a widespread consensus that requirements for foreign language
qualified personnel are not currently being met. The report issued by the 9/11
Commission in July of 2004 makes several references to this deficiency and suggests
corrective action.2 There are widespread reports of difficulties involved in obtaining
the services of adequate numbers of translators and interpreters, of intercepted
communications going unexploited, of difficulties in contacting potential human
agents and in supporting deployed military forces.3 The federal government has, in
particular, acknowledged unfulfilled needs for persons qualified in Arabic, Hindi,
Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Pashto/Dari, Persian, Russian, Turkish, and Urdu.
Government agencies have addressed requirements for linguists in several
different ways. Persons with existing foreign language expertise can be hired on a
full or part-time basis. Employees can be trained in a foreign language either in a
government training program or by an academic or commercial institution. Language
skills can be obtained by contract or by use of a linguist reserve corps. Each of these
approaches has advantages and disadvantages. There are significant costs associated
with each of them.
Taken together, these approaches have helped agencies react to the changing
requirements of the past decade. Few observers believe, however, that they are
adequate to what appears to be likely escalating requirements of coming years. In
particular, greater human intelligence collection, widely advocated by intelligence
specialists, creates a need for officials with near-perfect qualifications in local
languages or dialects.
Persons with existing foreign language skills generally fall into two categories
— those who have learned the foreign language at home and those who acquire
foreign language skills in schools or colleges. Given growing requirements for skills
in a wide variety of less commonly taught languages, federal agencies are
increasingly turning to persons who have learned foreign languages at home. Foreign
language instruction at U.S. academic institutions has tended to concentrate on a
small number of languages, especially Spanish, French, other Romance languages,
Japanese, Chinese, and Russian, along with classical languages. In general, there are
far too few graduates who have acquired language skills currently needed by federal


2 On page 77 the report states that the FBI, “lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic
and other key languages, resulting in a significant backlog of untranslated intercepts.” On
page 92 the report discusses the CIA’s “difficulty in recruiting officers qualified for
counterterrorism. [and that] Very few American colleges and universities offered programs
in Middle Eastern languages or Islamic studies.” On page 415 the report states that the CIA
Director should emphasize, “developing a stronger language program, with high standards
and sufficient financial incentives.” On page 426 the report states that the “FBI should fully
implement a recruiting, hiring, and selection process for agents and analysts that enhances
its ability to target and attract individuals with...language, technology, and other relevant
skills.” The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington: GPO, 2004).
3 See Daniel Klaidman and Michael Isikoff, “Lost in Translation,” Newsweek, Oct. 27, 2003.

agencies and fewer still whose skills enable them to interpret or engage in complex
conversations.
Federal efforts to encourage the study of foreign languages by students at U.S.
schools fall into two categories. First, Title VI of the Higher Education Act (HEA)
authorizes programs designed to encourage the study of foreign languages in general.
Many of these programs date back to original passage of the National Defense
Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864). While Title VI authorizes several distinct
activities, approximately three-fifths of the funds are used for two programs —
National Research Centers (NRC) and Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS)
Fellowships. The NRCs provide support for institutional programs of advanced
instruction in FLAS at institutions of higher education. Centers are to maintain
linkages with overseas institutions and organizations as well as specialized library
collections. Funds may also be used for faculty/staff travel costs. The CRS Report
RL31625, Foreign Language and International Studies: Federal Aid Under Title VI
of the Higher Education Act, explains these programs in greater detail. The FY2004
appropriation for Title VI was $90.8 million.
Second, the National Security Education Program (NSEP) is designed to train
students in specific languages needed by agencies involved in international affairs.
Established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act (Title VII of P.L.
102-183, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992), NSEP provides
undergraduate scholarships and graduate school fellowships and related area studies
based on surveys of language needs of federal agencies. Students who receive
support from NSEP incur an obligation to subsequent periods of employment in
agencies concerned with national and homeland security. NSEP is funded by a trust
fund established in 1991, but currently funding is limited to some $8 million per year.
Supporters note the program’s success in placing students with language capabilities,
especially including less commonly taught languages, in positions with federal
agencies, including intelligence agencies. As of January 2003, 300 federal positions
had been filled by NSEP scholars and fellows. Congress also mandated in the
Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-306) the establishment of a
National Flagship Language Initiative to develop programs in key universities
designed to encourage proficiency in critical languages.



Language Training at Institutions of
Higher Education
In the 2000-2001 academic year, 2,009 Institutions of Higher Education (IHE)
conferred Bachelor’s degrees, 1,508 IHE conferred Master’s degrees, and 544 IHE
conferred Doctor’s degrees. The total number of Bachelor’s degrees conferred in
2000-2001 was 1.3 million, compared to 839,730 in 1970-1971. According to the
Department of Education (ED), “The pattern of bachelor’s degrees [awarded] by field
of study has shifted significantly in recent years. Declines are significant [as much
as 10%-15%] in some fields such as engineering and mathematics....In contrast, some
technical fields [such as computer science] have increased [70%].”4
Foreign languages and area studies were among the fields experiencing a decline
between 1970-1971 and 2000-2001. IHEs conferred 21,109 foreign language
Bachelor’s degrees in 1970-1971 compared to 15,318 in 2000-2001 (see Table 1 on
page 8). In more recent years, some language fields have experienced renewed
interest while others continued to decline. In the years between 1992-1993 and 2000-
2001, the total number of foreign language degrees conferred annually increased by

1,000. During that period, three major fields of study added to that increase:


Romance languages, Classics, and Linguistics. The major fields witnessing decline
include East European and Germanic languages. Figure 1 displays the cumulative
number of language degrees conferred between 1992-1993 and 2000-2001. The
dominance of Romance languages over all other fields is clearly apparent in this
graphic.
Figure 2 shows the trends in languages other than Romance languages between
1992-1993 and 2000-2001. This chart displays the percent of foreign language
degrees conferred in each year for each field. The ascending lines show the increase
in degrees awarded in Linguistics and Classics. The descending lines show the
declines in degrees awarded in Germanic and East European languages. The
remaining language fields show very little change over the past decade.


4 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of
Education Statistics, 2002, NCES 2003-060, by Thomas D. Snyder, Project Director and
Charlene M. Hoffman, Production Manager (Washington, D.C. 2003), [http://nces.ed.gov/
programs/digest/].

CRS-5
Figure 1. Cumulative Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred in Foreign Languages, by Language, 1993 to 2002
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
iki/CRS-RL32557 50, 000
g/w
s.or 40, 000
leak
://wiki 30, 000
http
20,000
10,000
0
1993- 20021993- 20011993- 20001993- 991993- 981993- 971993- 961993- 951993- 941993
For. Lang., general & LinguisticsEast and Southeast AsianEast European
GermanicSouth AsianRomance
Middle EasternClassical and Ancient Near EastForeign Languages, other
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, various years.



CRS-6
Figure 2. Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred in Foreign Languages, by Language, 1993 to 2002
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
iki/CRS-RL32557
g/w 800
s.or
leak 600
://wiki
http 400
200
0
2002200120001999199819971996199519941993
Foreign Lang. & LinguisticsEast and Southeast AsianEast European
GermanicSouth Asian
Middle EasternClassical and Ancient Near EastForeign Languages, other
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, various years.
Note: Romance languages have been omitted.



Some of the languages of particular interest in this analysis are those originating
from Middle Eastern countries. In general, the number of degrees conferred in this
major language area were in steep decline in the decade between 1970 and 1980 —
from 258 degrees in 1969-1970 to 91 in 1979-1980. Falling interest in obtaining a
degree in Hebrew accounts for all of this decline. The annual number of Arabic
language degrees conferred has remained relatively stable at about nine per year
between 1969-1970 and 2000-2001. The number of “other” Middle-Eastern
language degrees conferred annually was zero up to the 1981-1982 academic year
(when three were conferred) and has increased greatly in the past decade to as much
as 28 in 2000-2001.
In broad terms, the trends just described with respect to Bachelor’s degrees are
mirrored by the trends in Master’s and Doctor’s degrees. Table 2 presents the total
number of (Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctor’s) degrees conferred between 1992 and

2002. Out of the 183,990 foreign language degrees awarded during that time period,


110,518 (60.1%) were in Romance languages, 14,388 (7.8%) were in Linguistics, and
1,401 (0.7%) were in Middle Eastern languages. That is, (1) Romance languages
(and Spanish in particular) and Linguistics are also dominant in the percent (and
number) of Master’s and Doctor’s degrees conferred; (2) the number of Germanic
degrees awarded has declined while the number of East European degrees awarded
has stagnated; and (3) the number of Middle-Eastern language degrees awarded is
very small — less than 1% of all foreign language degrees.
Table 3 displays the percent of area studies degrees conferred in each year
between 1992 and 2002 by area of study. (Note that the categories for programs
conferring degrees in area studies are somewhat different than in languages.) The
decline or stagnation in interest in certain critical areas — such as Asia and the
Middle East — is of note here. These data also may be used to refute the idea that
demand for experts in critical languages might be filled with area studies degree
recipients.



CRS-8
Table 1. Bachelor’s Degrees Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education, 1970 to 2002
Av erage 2002 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970
ields 1,030,459 1,291,900 1,237,875 1,160,134 1,051,344 979,477 929,417 922,933 792,316
eign languages and literatures, total14,31115,31814,96813,77512,38610,82712,08918,52121,109
reign languages and literatures, general1,3241,8881,7601,5041,2991,1501,2411,339450
reign languages and literatures, general 7921,0411,044940785660689905236
nguistics532847716564514490552434214
t and Southeast Asian lang. and lit., total 365677588536402263187258151
Chinese123189183107144977914181
Japanese19439032131419311610811770
ast and Southeast Asian languages, other4898841156550000
ast European languages and literatures, total559307371629615500455666852
an languages 496277340572549432402598768
iki/CRS-RL32557avic languages (other than Russian)602527556659536884 ast European languages, other 354209000
g/w
s.orrmanic languages and literatures, total1,6521,1281,1651,3951,4821,4651,5062,3232,748
leak German1,6071,0921,1251,3521,4371,4111,4662,2892,652
andinavian languages 30252727332940340
://wikiermanic languages, other 1511131612250096
httputh Asian languages and literatures488320070
mance languages and literatures, total 9,41110,0349,9418,7187,7466,7057,88812,79315,212
French3,7602,3962,5142,7643,2592,9913,2855,7457,624
Italian255263237271247190272329242
ortuguese 2031332530290035
Spanish5,3287,2437,0315,6024,1763,4154,3316,7197,226
mance languages, other481011265634800085
iddle Eastern languages and literatures, total95475588608291163258
Arabic9136104813130
Hebrew76172157447178150258
iddle East languages, other 10172821123000
lassical and ancient Near East lang. and lit., total 7129998437225855095768021,004
Classics4928557385954573834044810
Greek (ancient and medieval) 923326353850771131,004
Latin (ancient and medieval) 12911179929076952080
reign languages, other189230237180195153145170434
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Integrated Survey and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.



CRS-9
Table 2. Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctor’s Degrees Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education, 1993 to 2002
Percent of
foreign languageAverage1993-20022002200019951993
ield s 1,669,295 16,692,949 1,818,178 1,739,739 1,602,209 1,576,895
eign languages and literatures, total18,399183,99019,02218,66317,81618,415
reign languages and literatures, general14.73%2,71027,0992,7822,7702,6902,642
reign languages and literatures, general6.91%1,27112,7111,2631,3001,3301,299
nguistics 7 .8 2 % 1 ,4 3 9 1 4 ,3 8 8 1 ,5 1 9 1 ,4 7 0 1 ,3 6 0 1 ,3 4 3
East and Southeast Asian lang. and lit., total 3.99%7357,346805726679747
Chinese 1.08%1991,993217216186191
Japanese 2.10%3873,865431364348386
ast and Southeast Asian languages, other0.81%1491,488157146145170
ast European languages and literatures, total3.58%6606,595439494825887
iki/CRS-RL32557an languages 2.72%5015,012316383641684avic languages (other than Russian)0.78%1431,42910998169194
g/wast European languages, other 0.08%151541413159
s.orrmanic languages and literatures, total9.13%1,68116,8061,4181,4531,7922,054
leak German8.76%1,61216,1241,3641,3851,7131,975
://wikiandinavian languages 0.17%3131235323829
httpermanic languages, other0.20%3737019364150
uth Asian languages and literatures0.08%1515317151010
mance languages and literatures, total 60.07%11,052110,51811,73011,55010,44910,557
French17.32%3,18831,8752,8412,9863,3523,891
Italian1.77%3253,253324298371337
ortuguese 0.23%4241743433651
Spanish39.33%7,23672,3648,2287,9246,4726,045
mance languages, other1.42%2612,609294299218233
iddle Eastern languages and literatures, total0.76%1401,401111148156153
Arabic0.08%1414017151213
Hebrew0.37%6868334659494
iddle East languages, other 0.31%5857860685046
Classical and ancient Near East lang. and lit., total 5.61%1,03110,3131,2371,058945945
Classics4.81%8868,8581,076934796784
Greek (ancient and medieval) 0.22%4140642344339
Latin (ancient and medieval) 0.57%1051,04911990106122
Foreign languages, other2.04%3763,759483449270420
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Integrated Survey and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.



CRS-10
aster’s, and Doctor’s Degrees in Area Studies Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education,
1993 to 2002
Percent Average 1993-2002 2002 2000 1995 1993
Fields1,669,29516,692,9491,818,1781,739,7391,602,2091,576,895
Area studies, general5,05050,4954,9214,9745,1385,296
African studies1.01%1,87651153696059
American studies/civilization37.15%66618,7571,9341,8131,9111,896
Latin American studies13.18%2596,656607694643616
Middle Eastern studies3.89%1,1251,963176221199202
Russian and Slavic studies5.14%2702,594169172332420
Asian studies22.27%8811,2459941,1441,1301,269
European studies5.35%1642,700266205312318
Area studies, other12.02%8266,069722656551516
iki/CRS-RL32557
g/w U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Integrated Survey and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.


s.or
leak
://wiki
http

Language Heritage Communities
in the United States
In the 2000 census, as in the two previous censuses, the U.S. Census Bureau
asked people if they spoke a language other than English at home. Among the 262.4
million people aged five and over, 47.0 million (18%) spoke a language other than
English at home. Those who responded “yes” were asked what language they spoke
at home. The write-in answers to this question were coded into about 380 categories
of single languages or language families. These 380 categories were further distilled
into the 39 major categories displayed in Table 4.
Table 4. Language Spoken at Home for the Population Aged
Five Years and Over in the United States, 2000
Total 262,375,152
Speak only English215,423,557
Spanish or Spanish Creole28,101,052
French (including Patois, Cajun)1,643,838
French Creole453,368
I talian 1,008,370
Portuguese or Portuguese Creole564,630
German 1,383,442
Yiddish 178,945
Other West Germanic languages251,135
Scandinavian languages162,252
Greek 365,436
Russia n 706,242
Po lish 667,414
Serbo-Croatia n 233,865
Other Slavic languages301,079
Arme nia n 202,708
Persian 312,085
Guj a rati 235,988
H i ndi 317,057
Urdu 262,900
Other Indic languages439,289
Other Indo-European languages327,946
Chinese 2 ,022,143
Japanese 477,997
Korean 894,063
Mon-Khmer, Cambodian181,889
Miao, Hmong168,063
Thai 120,464
La o tian 149,303
Vietna mese 1,009,627
Other Asian languages398,434
Tagalog 1,224,241
Other Pacific Island languages313,841
Nava j o 178,014
Other Native North American languages203,466
Hungaria n 117,973
Ara bic 614,582
Hebrew 195,374
African languages418,505
Other and unspecified languages144,575
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data.



The vast majority (28.1 million, 60%) of non-English speakers living in the
United States in 2000 speak Spanish. Six languages make up a second tier of the
most commonly spoken non-English languages including French (1.6 million, 3.4%),
Italian (1.0 million, 2.1%), German (1.4 million, 3.0%), Chinese (2.0 million, 4.2%),
Vietnamese (1.0 million, 2.1%), and Tagalog (1.2 million, 2.6%). The remaining 32
languages are represented by populations between 120,000 and 900,000 (or 0.3% to

2% of the non-English speaking population in the United States).


According to a National Security Education Program (NSEP) survey, the
languages shown in Table 5 were considered areas of particular need in 1999-2000.5
Those that match (or nearly match) one of the 39 categories used by the Census
Bureau are in bold. These languages are also in bold in Table 4. The languages
listed which are not in bold have typically been combined in some fashion into one
of the Census Bureau’s “other” categories.
Table 5. NSEP Languages of Emphasis, 1999-2000
Albanian Japanese Serbo-Croatian
Arab ic Kaz akh Sinhala
Armen i an Kh mer Swahili
Az eri Korean Tagalog
Bel a ru s i an Kurdish Tajik
Bu rm es e Li ngala Tamil
Cantonese Madedonian Thai
C z ech Malay Turkmen
Fa r s i Man d a ri n Turkish
Georgi an Mongolian Uighur
H eb rew Polish Ukrainian
Hindi Portuguese Urd u
Hungarian Romanian Uz bek
Indonesian Russian Vietn a mese
The distinguishing characteristic of NSEP is its stated goal of supporting
education in languages and area studies in response to requirements of agencies
responsible for national security affairs, “to produce an increased pool of applicants
for work in the departments and agencies of the United States government with6
national security responsibilities.” Some in the academic community, however, are
highly critical of this linkage and have urged that government support of foreign7
language training be limited to Title VI programs.
The federal government has extensive experience in training civil servants and
military personnel in foreign languages. The Defense Department operates the
Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California and the National Cryptologic


5 As reported in National Security Education Program, Analysis of Federal Language
Needs, 1999-2000, available at [http://www.ndu.edu/nsep/
federal_language _needs_2001.htm] .
6 50 U.S.C. §1901(c)(3).
7 See, for example, Anne Marie Borrego, “Scholars Revive Boycott of U.S. Grants to
Promote Language Training,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Aug. 16, 2002, p. 25.

School in Maryland; the State Department manages the Foreign Language Institute
in the Washington area. (Instruction in certain rare foreign languages is purchased
from commercial agencies when only a few students are involved; the Marine Corps
recently contracted with Berlitz for month-long courses in Arabic for Marines en
route to Iraq.) These institutions are known for the high quality of their instruction
and dedication to supporting their parent agencies.
Nevertheless, it is widely recognized that language training is an expensive
proposition, both in terms of the costs of instruction and administration and in the
investment of the time of students on the government payroll. Bringing students to
a limited working proficiency in foreign languages requires over a year of study;
achieving a professional level would take considerably longer, a period that is
considered excessive in terms of most assignments. According to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the Army spends some $27,000 to train a cryptologic
technician to reach a level 2 in one of the more difficult languages, but more than

45% of these linguists leave the service after completing their initial tour of duty.


GAO has also reported that in FY2001, the Army spent $27.3 million on foreign
language training while in FY2000 the State Department spent $23.1 million on
language training and $13 million on contract translators and interpreters. In FY2001
the FBI had access to some 463 contract translators and interpreters and used them
for an average of 16 hours per week at an annual cost of $15 million. Total DOD
costs for its foreign language requirements reportedly approach $250 million
annually. Although costs of language training for the CIA and NSA are not publicly
available, it is likely that they are sizable.
In recent years, attention has been given to the possibility of hiring native
speakers in order to avoid long periods of instruction. In many cases, however,
personnel with responsibilities for assignments requiring foreign language skills must
have security clearances that, in turn, require background investigations. GAO noted
that, “According to FBI and State Department officials, conducting background
investigations on native speakers can be particularly difficult, because many of these
individuals have lived abroad, in some cases for years.”8
In addition, language capabilities, once acquired, have to be maintained or they
will gradually be forgotten. The Defense Department and the Central Intelligence
Agency provide special incentive pay for their personnel to maintain foreign
language proficiency (the CIA also has a Corporate Language Hiring Bonus Program
for new employees with proficiency in a language that is critically needed).
During the Cold War, extensive requirements for linguists existed, but the
principal countries of interest were largely finite and static. Few would have
predicted the number of situations throughout the world in which U.S. military would
become involved after the early 1990s. As a result, in the past decade increasing
attention has been given to the employment of contract personnel, to greater reliance
on military reservists with language capabilities, and to consideration of the
establishment of a Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps. In response to a provision in the
FY2003 Intelligence Authorization Act, a report was prepared on behalf of the


8 Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed, p. 18.

Secretary of Defense.9 It concluded that such a corps is feasible and suggested a pilot
study. Members of such a reserve component would be called up in times of
emergency to work in either domestic or overseas roles serving as interpreters and
translators and perhaps as analysts and area specialists.
The Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-306) also mandated
the creation of a National Virtual Translation Center. The Center, established in
February 2003, is intended to serve as a clearinghouse for using technology to permit
translations to be made by linguists on a part-time, as-needed basis.
Issues and Questions Before the Congress
To a large extent finding language-qualified personnel for government agencies
is a responsibility of the Executive Branch, but Congress must appropriate funds for
agency efforts and it conducts oversight of programs. In addition, federal funding for
foreign language instruction in civilian institutions originates in legislation. At the
present time, a number of issues in regard to foreign language capabilities appear to
be receiving congressional attention.
General Questions: How important is the inadequate number of foreign
linguists to the overall national security/counterterrorism effort? What is the relative
importance of shortages of translators vs. shortages of officials who have a speaking
knowledge of foreign languages? To what extent can the shortage of linguists be
addressed by making better use of temporary employees (or of permanent employees
with non-language related positions being temporarily assigned to language-related
functions)? To what extent can this problem be addressed with foreign language
training for newly hired and mid-career personnel? To what extent can the problem
be alleviated by greater reliance on U.S. citizens/residents who are native speakers
of the language needed? To what extent will the National Virtual Translation
Center10 address the problems? Are the steps currently being taken to obtain
personnel with knowledge of less widely spoken languages effective?
!Federal language schools — the Defense Language Institute, the
National Cryptologic School, the Foreign Service Institute. These
schools are costly to operate, and students receive full pay and
allowances while in attendance. Although credited with excellent
instruction, they do not prepare candidates with genuine fluency over
the course of instruction.
Questions: To what extent could language instruction be contracted out to non-
governmental institutions? Is there overlap among the language programs of federal
schools? Would it be possible to centralize elementary levels of study and then send
students to separate courses for training appropriate to different disciplines? Is the


9 National Security Education Program, United States Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps
Feasibility Study, report to Congress by the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps Task Force,

2003.


10 The National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC) was established by the Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY2003, “for the purpose of providing timely and accurate
translations of foreign intelligence for all elements of the Intelligence Community.”

problem of achieving higher levels of proficiency one of a need for harder work on
the part of the students, the techniques being employed by teachers, or the inherent
difficulties involved in mastering foreign languages?
!Employment of native speakers. Recruitment of native speakers to
government positions saves major costs involved in foreign language
instruction and provides personnel who have much better skills.
Also, using native speakers under temporary contract provides
qualified linguists for the periods necessary. However, background
checks necessary for security clearances are sometimes difficult to
conduct.
Questions: What have been the results of efforts to hire native speakers for
permanent positions? Have costs in undertaking background investigations been
significantly higher than for other applicants? Are their skills significantly higher
than those of non-native speakers? Are a significant number likely to pursue careers
in federal service?
!Title VI and the dominance of Romance language learning at U.S.
institutions of higher education.
Questions: Should the federal government have a role in encouraging the
academic community to undertake foreign language programs that apparently have
little interest among educators and students? If expanded funding were made
available to language programs across the board, what are the chances that graduates
would seek employment with federal agencies? How could academic institutions be
encouraged to emphasize languages and area studies likely to be of future national
security interest?
!The NSEP. Questions arise about funding mechanisms and a need
for expansion. Some in the academic community oppose links
between NSEP and the Defense Department and intelligence
agencies.
Questions: If funding for NSEP scholarships and fellowships was expanded
significantly, would it encourage greater interest in foreign languages and
government careers? Should NSEP funds be appropriated annually? Is there a need
to designate additional flagship institutions? Do the ties between NSEP and DOD
and the Intelligence Community hinder the reputation of the program within the
academic community and hinder the program’s effectiveness?
!Proficiency pay for government employees (including military
personnel) maintaining foreign language proficiency. Considered
useful, but costly in aggregate while not providing a substantial
financial inducement for many to maintain high-level foreign
language proficiency.
Questions: How many military personnel/civil servants currently receive
proficiency pay for maintaining foreign language skills? Are means of evaluating
their competencies reliable? How many individuals on these inventories have been
utilized since 9/11?



!Proposals have been made to establish a Civilian Linguist Reserve
Corps.
Questions: Would such a corps have a significant role in dealing with future
eventualities? Has the Administration a position on the need for an intelligence
reserve?