For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32557 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Order Code RL32557 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web 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 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 staff were employed in positions that require some foreign language proficiency.1 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. CRS-2 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. CRS-3 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. CRS-4 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 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1993 1993-94 1993-95 1993-96 1993-97 1993-98 1993-99 1993-2000 1993-2001 1993-2002 For. Lang., general & Linguistics East and Southeast Asian East European Germanic South Asian Romance Middle Eastern Classical and Ancient Near East Foreign 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 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Foreign Lang. & Linguistics East and Southeast Asian East European Germanic South Asian Middle Eastern Classical and Ancient Near East Foreign 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. CRS-7 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 Average 2002 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 1970 All fields 1,030,459 1,291,900 1,237,875 1,160,134 1,051,344 979,477 929,417 922,933 792,316 Foreign languages and literatures, total 14,311 15,318 14,968 13,775 12,386 10,827 12,089 18,521 21,109 -- Foreign languages and literatures, general 1,324 1,888 1,760 1,504 1,299 1,150 1,241 1,339 450 - Foreign languages and literatures, general 792 1,041 1,044 940 785 660 689 905 236 - Linguistics 532 847 716 564 514 490 552 434 214 -- East and Southeast Asian lang. and lit., total 365 677 588 536 402 263 187 258 151 - Chinese 123 189 183 107 144 97 79 141 81 - Japanese 194 390 321 314 193 116 108 117 70 - East and Southeast Asian languages, other 48 98 84 115 65 50 0 0 0 -- East European languages and literatures, total 559 307 371 629 615 500 455 666 852 - Russian languages 496 277 340 572 549 432 402 598 768 - Slavic languages (other than Russian) 60 25 27 55 66 59 53 68 84 - East European languages, other 3 5 4 2 0 9 0 0 0 -- Germanic languages and literatures, total 1,652 1,128 1,165 1,395 1,482 1,465 1,506 2,323 2,748 - German 1,607 1,092 1,125 1,352 1,437 1,411 1,466 2,289 2,652 - Scandinavian languages 30 25 27 27 33 29 40 34 0 - Germanic languages, other 15 11 13 16 12 25 0 0 96 -- South Asian languages and literatures 4 8 8 3 2 0 0 7 0 -- Romance languages and literatures, total 9,411 10,034 9,941 8,718 7,746 6,705 7,888 12,793 15,212 - French 3,760 2,396 2,514 2,764 3,259 2,991 3,285 5,745 7,624 - Italian 255 263 237 271 247 190 272 329 242 - Portuguese 20 31 33 25 30 29 0 0 35 - Spanish 5,328 7,243 7,031 5,602 4,176 3,415 4,331 6,719 7,226 - Romance languages, other 48 101 126 56 34 80 0 0 85 -- Middle Eastern languages and literatures, total 95 47 55 88 60 82 91 163 258 - Arabic 9 13 6 10 4 8 13 13 0 - Hebrew 76 17 21 57 44 71 78 150 258 - Middle East languages, other 10 17 28 21 12 3 0 0 0 -- Classical and ancient Near East lang. and lit., total 712 999 843 722 585 509 576 802 1,004 - Classics 492 855 738 595 457 383 404 481 0 - Greek (ancient and medieval) 92 33 26 35 38 50 77 113 1,004 - Latin (ancient and medieval) 129 111 79 92 90 76 95 208 0 -- Foreign languages, other 189 230 237 180 195 153 145 170 434 Source: 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 language Average 1993-2002 2002 2000 1995 1993 All fields 1,669,295 16,692,949 1,818,178 1,739,739 1,602,209 1,576,895 Foreign languages and literatures, total 18,399 183,990 19,022 18,663 17,816 18,415 -- Foreign languages and literatures, general 14.73% 2,710 27,099 2,782 2,770 2,690 2,642 - Foreign languages and literatures, general 6.91% 1,271 12,711 1,263 1,300 1,330 1,299 - Linguistics 7.82% 1,439 14,388 1,519 1,470 1,360 1,343 -- East and Southeast Asian lang. and lit., total 3.99% 735 7,346 805 726 679 747 - Chinese 1.08% 199 1,993 217 216 186 191 - Japanese 2.10% 387 3,865 431 364 348 386 - East and Southeast Asian languages, other 0.81% 149 1,488 157 146 145 170 -- East European languages and literatures, total 3.58% 660 6,595 439 494 825 887 - Russian languages 2.72% 501 5,012 316 383 641 684 - Slavic languages (other than Russian) 0.78% 143 1,429 109 98 169 194 - East European languages, other 0.08% 15 154 14 13 15 9 -- Germanic languages and literatures, total 9.13% 1,681 16,806 1,418 1,453 1,792 2,054 - German 8.76% 1,612 16,124 1,364 1,385 1,713 1,975 - Scandinavian languages 0.17% 31 312 35 32 38 29 - Germanic languages, other 0.20% 37 370 19 36 41 50 -- South Asian languages and literatures 0.08% 15 153 17 15 10 10 -- Romance languages and literatures, total 60.07% 11,052 110,518 11,730 11,550 10,449 10,557 - French 17.32% 3,188 31,875 2,841 2,986 3,352 3,891 - Italian 1.77% 325 3,253 324 298 371 337 - Portuguese 0.23% 42 417 43 43 36 51 - Spanish 39.33% 7,236 72,364 8,228 7,924 6,472 6,045 - Romance languages, other 1.42% 261 2,609 294 299 218 233 -- Middle Eastern languages and literatures, total 0.76% 140 1,401 111 148 156 153 - Arabic 0.08% 14 140 17 15 12 13 - Hebrew 0.37% 68 683 34 65 94 94 - Middle East languages, other 0.31% 58 578 60 68 50 46 -- Classical and ancient Near East lang. and lit., total 5.61% 1,031 10,313 1,237 1,058 945 945 - Classics 4.81% 886 8,858 1,076 934 796 784 - Greek (ancient and medieval) 0.22% 41 406 42 34 43 39 - Latin (ancient and medieval) 0.57% 105 1,049 119 90 106 122 -- Foreign languages, other 2.04% 376 3,759 483 449 270 420 Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Integrated Survey and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. CRS-10 Table 3. Bachelor's, Master'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 All Fields 1,669,295 16,692,949 1,818,178 1,739,739 1,602,209 1,576,895 -- Area studies, general 5,050 50,495 4,921 4,974 5,138 5,296 -- African studies 1.01% 1,876 511 53 69 60 59 -- American studies/civilization 37.15% 666 18,757 1,934 1,813 1,911 1,896 -- Latin American studies 13.18% 259 6,656 607 694 643 616 -- Middle Eastern studies 3.89% 1,125 1,963 176 221 199 202 -- Russian and Slavic studies 5.14% 270 2,594 169 172 332 420 -- Asian studies 22.27% 88 11,245 994 1,144 1,130 1,269 -- European studies 5.35% 164 2,700 266 205 312 318 -- Area studies, other 12.02% 826 6,069 722 656 551 516 Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Integrated Survey and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. CRS-11 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 English 215,423,557 Spanish or Spanish Creole 28,101,052 French (including Patois, Cajun) 1,643,838 French Creole 453,368 Italian 1,008,370 Portuguese or Portuguese Creole 564,630 German 1,383,442 Yiddish 178,945 Other West Germanic languages 251,135 Scandinavian languages 162,252 Greek 365,436 Russian 706,242 Polish 667,414 Serbo-Croatian 233,865 Other Slavic languages 301,079 Armenian 202,708 Persian 312,085 Gujarati 235,988 Hindi 317,057 Urdu 262,900 Other Indic languages 439,289 Other Indo-European languages 327,946 Chinese 2,022,143 Japanese 477,997 Korean 894,063 Mon-Khmer, Cambodian 181,889 Miao, Hmong 168,063 Thai 120,464 Laotian 149,303 Vietnamese 1,009,627 Other Asian languages 398,434 Tagalog 1,224,241 Other Pacific Island languages 313,841 Navajo 178,014 Other Native North American languages 203,466 Hungarian 117,973 Arabic 614,582 Hebrew 195,374 African languages 418,505 Other and unspecified languages 144,575 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. CRS-12 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 Arabic Kazakh Sinhala Armenian Khmer Swahili Azeri Korean Tagalog Belarusian Kurdish Tajik Burmese Lingala Tamil Cantonese Madedonian Thai Czech Malay Turkmen Farsi Mandarin Turkish Georgian Mongolian Uighur Hebrew Polish Ukrainian Hindi Portuguese Urdu Hungarian Romanian Uzbek Indonesian Russian Vietnamese 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 with national security responsibilities."6 Some in the academic community, however, are highly critical of this linkage and have urged that government support of foreign language training be limited to Title VI programs.7 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. CRS-13 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. CRS-14 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." CRS-15 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? CRS-16 ! 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL32557