Order Code RL31625
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Foreign Language and International Studies:
Federal Aid Under Title VI of
the Higher Education Act
Updated June 21, 2005
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Wayne C. Riddle
Specialist in Education Finance
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Foreign Language and International Studies:
Federal Aid Under Title VI of the Higher Education Act
Summary
Title VI of the Higher Education Act (HEA) — International Education
Programs — authorizes a variety of grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs)
and related entities to enhance instruction in foreign language and area studies
(FLAS). This is one of the oldest U.S. Department of Education (ED) programs of
support to higher education, having been initiated as Title VI of the National Defense
Education Act of 1958. This program reflects the special priority placed by the
federal government on FLAS, especially with respect to diplomacy, national security,
and trade competitiveness. Interest in HEA Title VI and other federal programs
supporting FLAS has increased recently due to concerns regarding terrorism arising
from foreign regions which are infrequently included in American postsecondary
curricula.
While HEA Title VI authorizes several distinct activities, approximately three-
fifths of the funds are used for two of these — National Resource Centers (NRCs)
and FLAS Fellowships. This pair of programs has long been the core activity
supported under Title VI, while the others are smaller-scale supplementary activities
intended to serve more specific goals (e.g., the Business and International
Educational Education Program) and/or to support the two primary programs (e.g.,
the Language Resource Center program).
There appears to be broad agreement that interaction between American society
and people and cultures from throughout the world is increasing steadily, generating
national security concerns involving nations large and small. International education
advocates argue that since it may be impossible to predict which nations will generate
such concern in the future, and substantial time is required to develop the necessary
human capital, it is important that ongoing support be provided from some source for
instruction in all of the world’s significant languages and cultures. However, it may
be questioned whether this support should be provided by the federal government,
and whether it should be focused on the nation’s colleges and universities, on
federally operated language schools, or both.
Major reauthorization issues regarding HEA Title VI include: Should the
federal government continue to support foreign language and areas studies in
American institutions of higher education through HEA Title VI? Are HEA Title VI
programs appropriately coordinated with other federal efforts to support advanced
foreign language and area studies? And, should there be increased targeting of Title
VI grants on foreign languages and world regions of “critical” interest to the federal
government?
This report will be updated periodically, in response to relevant legislative or
budgetary actions.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Authorized Activities and Their Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Program Direction Through Appropriations Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Evaluation of HEA Title VI Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Selected HEA Title VI Reauthorization Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Should the federal government continue to support foreign language
and area studies in American institutions of higher education
through HEA Title VI? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Are HEA Title VI programs appropriately coordinated with other
federal efforts to support advanced foreign language and area
studies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fulbright-Hays Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
National Security Education Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Gilman International Scholarship Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FIPSE International Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Issues Regarding Coordination or Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Should there be increased targeting of Title VI grants on foreign
languages and world regions of “critical” interest to the federal
government? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Legislative Action in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. Title VI, Higher Education Act — Programs to Support Foreign
Language and Area Studies (FLAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

---

Foreign Language and International Studies:
Federal Aid Under Title VI of the
Higher Education Act
Introduction
Title VI of the Higher Education Act (HEA, P.L. 89-329, as amended) —
International Education Programs — authorizes a variety of grants to institutions of
higher education (IHEs) and related institutions for the purpose of enhancing
instruction in foreign language and area studies (FLAS). This is one of the oldest,
continuous programs of federal support to higher education, having been initiated as
Title VI of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA, P.L. 85-864). It
played a historical role of helping to establish, along with non-governmental support
from certain foundations, multi-disciplinary “area studies” departments in many
colleges and universities, especially during the late 1950s and 1960s. Throughout its
life, the program has also supported courses and programs in less commonly taught
languages or world regions.1
The long history of this program reflects the special priority placed by the
federal government on FLAS, especially with respect to diplomacy, national security,
and trade competitiveness. Interest in HEA Title VI and other federal programs
supporting FLAS has increased recently as a result of concerns regarding terrorism
arising from foreign regions which are infrequently included in American
postsecondary curricula, and a related interest in greater expertise in those areas.
As with the rest of the HEA, Title VI is currently being considered for
reauthorization by the 109th Congress (see CRS Issue Brief IB10097, The Higher
Education Act: Reauthorization Status and Issues). This report is intended to
provide an overview of Title VI programs, and an analysis of reauthorization issues.
Authorized Activities and Their Funding
Table 1 lists each of the specific activities currently supported under Title VI,
along with the average size of individual grants (in FY2005), the FY2005
appropriation, and the FY2006 Administration budget request.
1 For additional information on the history of HEA Title VI and related programs, see CRS
Report 89-657, Foreign Language and International Education: The Federal Role, by
Wayne Clifton Riddle (archived report, available from the author, 7-7382).

---

CRS-2
The authorization and appropriations statutes for HEA Title VI provide
discretion to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in allocating funds among these
specific activities. The main constraints on this discretion include the provision of
separate authorization levels for the Parts (A, B, and C) under which the Title VI
activities are organized; most grants are made under each activity on a multi-year
basis, with implicit obligations for future years.

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Title VI, Higher Education Act — Programs to Support
Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS)
FY2006
Average award
FY2005
administration
Program
Major activities
(FY2005)
appropriation
budget request
Part A — International and Foreign Language Studies
National resource centers
Support for institutional programs of advanced instruction
$239,000
$28,715,000
$29,000,000
in FLAS at IHEs (or consortia), including research,
development, summer programs, and outreach/consultative
services to other IHEs, governments, businesses, and
professional or trade associations. Centers are to maintain
linkages with overseas IHEs and other organizations, as
well as specialized library collections. Funds may be used
for faculty/staff travel costs.
Language resource centers
Aid to a limited number of national centers to establish and
$346,000
$4,850,000
$4,950,000
operate programs of instruction in less commonly taught
languages, research on foreign language instruction and
performance assessment methods, operation of intensive
summer language institutes, preparation of instructional
materials, and assessment of the Nation’s strategic needs
in this area.
Foreign language and area studies
Fellowships for graduate students of high academic
$26,000 (average
$28,204,000
$29,130,000
fellowships
potential in FLAS programs (either full year or summer).
fellowship)
Grants are made by ED to participating IHEs (including
most recipients of National Resource Center grants), which
then select fellowship recipients. The use of stipends may
include foreign travel (for students and dependents).

---

CRS-4
FY2006
Average award
FY2005
administration
Program
Major activities
(FY2005)
appropriation
budget request
Undergraduate International Studies and
Development and/or operation of expanded and/or
$73,000
$4,490,000
$4,500,000
Foreign Language Programs
innovative FLAS programs at the undergraduate level,
including use of new technologies to increase access to
such instruction, establishment of internships, development
of study abroad programs, or partnerships with K-12
schools. Priority is given to IHEs which require all
entering students to complete at least 2 years of foreign
language courses and/or require students to take 2 or more
years of such courses in order to graduate from the IHE.
Required non-federal match of 33.3% (if provided in cash
by private sector corporations or foundations) or 50% (if
provided in cash from institutional funds or in kind from
any source).
International Research and Studies
Support for research and studies of the need for foreign
$136,000
$5,893,000
$6,000,000
Projects
language instruction and for FLAS specialists, publication
of specialized instructional materials, assessment of the
effects of HEA Title VI programs (including the utilization
of program graduates), research and development on
improved methods of FLAS instruction, and evaluation of
methods to test language competency. Major recent efforts
to evaluate the effectiveness of HEA Title VI programs
(described below) have been funded under this provision.
Technological Innovation and
Support for IHEs and/or libraries (or consortia) to develop
$170,000
$1,700,000
$1,700,000
Cooperation for Foreign Information
innovative technologies to organize, preserve, and
Access
disseminate information in foreign languages or on foreign
regions. Required non-federal match of 33.3%.

---

CRS-5
FY2006
Average award
FY2005
administration
Program
Major activities
(FY2005)
appropriation
budget request
American Overseas Research Centers
Grants to consortia of American IHEs to establish and/or
$83,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
operate overseas research centers. Eligible centers must
receive at least 50% of their financial support from U.S.
sources and have a “permanent presence” in a foreign
country.
Part B — Business and International Education Programs
International Business Education
Support for IHEs or consortia to establish or operate
$357,000
$10,700,000
$10,800,000
Centers
comprehensive national centers that provide
interdisciplinary instruction and technical assistance
combining business and international studies; conduct
research on ways to strengthen international aspects of
business and professional curricula and to promote the
international competitiveness of U.S. businesses; increase
understanding of the culture of U.S. trading partners; and
serve as resources to meet the international educational
needs of businesses and other IHEs located in their region.
Funded centers must establish a broadly representative
advisory council. Required non-federal match of 10%
(first year), 30% (second year), or 50% (third and
succeeding years).
Business and International Education
Assistance to IHEs for educational programs that combine
$79,000
$4,491,000
$4,500,000
Projects
business and international studies, and promote linkages
between IHEs and business firms. Required non-federal
match of 50%.

---

CRS-6
FY2006
Average award
FY2005
administration
Program
Major activities
(FY2005)
appropriation
budget request
Part C — Institute for International Public Policy
Institute for International Public Policy
A grant to a consortium of an IHE serving substantial
$1,616,000
$1,616,000
$1,616,000
numbers of African American or other underrepresented
minority students, a Historically Black College or
University, and/or an IHE with programs for training
foreign service professionals,a to prepare African American
and other underrepresented minority students for
international and foreign service careers with the federal
government or private international organizations.
Students apply as sophomores to participate in a 5-year
sequence of sophomore and junior summer policy
institutes, junior year study abroad, intensive language
training, internships, and graduate study.b Required non-
federal match of 50%. An Interagency Committee on
Minority Careers in International Affairs is also
established under this Part.
General provisions
Evaluation and Dissemination
Evaluation, outreach, and information dissemination for all
na
$724,000
$616,000
HEA Title VI programs
Peer Review
Peer review of all award applications
na
$199,000
$270,000
Total
—
—
$92,466,000
$92,466,000
Source: U.S. Department of Education. Budget Service. Fiscal Year 2005 Justifications of Appropriations Estimates to the Congress.
Note: Some of the specific amounts for individual programs in FY2004 or 2005 may be adjusted over time.
a. The current grantee is the College Fund/UNCF (in cooperation with the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs).
b. Institutional resource development grants are also authorized, but thus far have been made only for FY1995 and FY1996.

---

CRS-7
HEA Title VI is currently authorized through FY2005, at the unspecific level
of “such sums as may be necessary.” The last specific authorization was for FY1999,
at $80 million for Part A, $18 million for Part B, and $10 million for Part C. The
appropriation for FY2005 is $94.8 million. The HEA also provides that no more
than 10% of Part A funds may be used for Undergraduate International Studies and
Foreign Language Programs.
As can be seen in Table 1, while HEA Title VI authorizes a relatively large
number of distinct activities, approximately three-fifths of the funds (61% in
FY2004) are used for two of these programs — National Resource Centers (NRCs)
and FLAS Fellowships. These programs are closely related, in that almost all NRC
grant recipients also receive grants to offer FLAS Fellowships to at least some of
their graduate students (a small number of IHEs which do not receive NRC grants
also receive FLAS Fellowship grants). This pair of programs has long been the core
activity supported under Title VI, while the others are smaller-scale supplementary
activities intended to serve more specific goals (e.g., the Business and International
Educational Education or Institute for International Public Policy Programs) and/or
to support the two primary programs (e.g., the Language Resource Center or
International Research and Studies programs).
In some cases, the differences between related subprograms are largely a matter
of the scale of the average institutional grant (e.g., the Business and International
Education versus the International Business Education Center programs). With
respect to recent funding trends, while appropriations for Title VI overall have
increased by 44% between FY1999 and FY2004 (with a substantial portion of that
increase occurring between the 2001 and 2002 fiscal years), the rate of increase has
varied significantly among specific programs. In percentage terms, the rate of
funding increase has been greatest for the FLAS Fellowship Programs, Language
Resource Centers, and International Research and Studies, and has been the least for
the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language, and Business and
International Education Programs.
Under each of the HEA Title VI programs, funds are allocated on a
competitive/discretionary basis, with a statutory emphasis on “excellence” in the
selection of National Resource Centers, FLAS Fellowship recipients, and Language
Resource Centers, and on “equitable distribution” of grants, “to the extent practicable
and consistent with the criterion of excellence,” under other Part A programs (see
Sections 607 and 608).
Program Direction Through Appropriations Legislation
During the years of increased funding for Title VI, the funds were accompanied
by numerous provisions in annual appropriations acts and conference reports which
specify not only the general activities for which funds are to be used but the particular
languages or world regions in which aided students are to specialize (e.g., study of
the Arabic language or Central Asian nations). The FY2002 Department of
Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-116) and accompanying conference report
(H.Rept. 107-342) included a number of earmarks of the increased funds (i.e., those
above the previous year’s appropriation).

---

CRS-8
While omitting these earmarks, the appropriations legislation for FY2004, the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) and conference report
(P.L. 108-401), retained provisions specifying the world regions and languages to
which Title VI funds should be directed. The general stated purpose of this guidance
is to “sustain the investments made last year to train experts who have foreign
language proficiency and cross-cultural skills in the targeted world areas of Central
and South Asia, the Middle East, Russia, and the Independent States of the former
Soviet Union, and provide new resources to build foreign language capacity and
international expertise in these strategic world areas important to national security
interests and other areas, including southeast Asia and Africa.”
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) and conference
report (H.Rept. 108-792) contain no constraints on the languages of emphasis or the
distribution of funds among programs. The act does earmark one percent of the total
appropriation for program evaluation, national outreach, and information
dissemination and $1,500,000 for an independent review of Title VI programs to be
conducted by the National Research Council.
Evaluation of HEA Title VI Programs
The only significant, current sources of evaluations of HEA Title VI programs
are reports and projects prepared by the non-governmental National Foreign
Language Center (NFLC) at the University of Maryland (formerly at Johns Hopkins
University).2 As noted in Table 1, funds under the International Research and
Studies program may be used, among other activities, for assessment of the effects
of HEA Title VI programs, including the utilization of program graduates. In recent
years, ED has provided funds under this program to the NFLC to develop an
“Evaluation of Exchange, Language, International and Area Studies (EELIAS)
Project,”3 as well as to prepare the report described immediately below.
The EELIAS project is intended to meet the evaluation and assessment needs
of HEA Title VI both in general and specifically with respect to the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA, P.L. 103-62). For both HEA Title VI and the
Fulbright-Hays program administered by ED (described later in this report), the
project is developing: (a) performance indicators, (b) an ongoing, Internet-based data
reporting system, and (c) an evaluation of each of the Title VI programs. The project
also is intended to develop methods for determining the level of need for advanced
foreign language and international studies, and the current capacity of IHEs to meet
those needs. The project will incorporate both internal (institutional) and external
evaluations of each program. The evaluation system will be phased in over a 5-year
period (1998-2003).
A 2000 report prepared by NFLC staff, Language and National Security in the
21st Century: The Role of Title VI/Fulbright-Hays in Supporting National Language
2 For information on a number of earlier evaluations of HEA Title VI and related programs,
see CRS Report 89-657, Foreign Language and International Education: The Federal Role,
by Wayne Clifton Riddle (archived report, available from the author, 7-7382).
3 For additional information on this project, see [http://www.nflc.org/activities/eelias.asp].

---

CRS-9
Capacity, evaluated the impact of the foreign language components only (i.e., not the
area studies, business-international education or other aspects) of HEA Title VI, as
well as the Fulbright-Hays program administered by ED. The authors of this report
conclude that HEA Title VI support has been of “critical” importance to maintaining
“the nation’s capacity in the less commonly taught languages ... which have had, now
have, and will have strategic importance for the United States at unpredictable
moments.” For example, the authors of this report found that IHEs receiving Title
VI NRC grants enroll 59% of all graduate students in the Less Commonly Taught
Languages, and 81% of those in the Least Commonly Taught Languages; and Title
VI grants have supported the development of over one-half of the textbooks used by
IHEs in the Less Commonly Taught Languages.
Selected HEA Title VI Reauthorization Issues
As noted earlier, the Higher Education Act is being considered for
reauthorization during the 109th Congress. The following section discusses some of
the HEA Title VI-related issues which are likely to be debated as part of that process.
Should the federal government continue to support foreign
language and area studies in American institutions of higher education
through HEA Title VI? There appears to be broad agreement that interaction
between American society and people and cultures from throughout the world is
increasing steadily, in some cases generating national security concerns involving
nations large and small. In order to respond to these developments, it is deemed
important that our nation should provide sufficient education and support to enable
a minimum number of people to acquire advanced knowledge of the language and
culture of the world’s nations and regions which are of current concern. In many
cases, foreign nations and cultures have attracted major national attention and
concern relatively recently — e.g., Afghanistan. Further, since it may be impossible
to predict which additional nations will generate such concern in the future, and
substantial time is required to develop the necessary human capital, it is important
to provide ongoing support for instruction in all of the world’s major languages and
cultures, and even many of the minor ones.
So, the question is not whether support is important for instruction in “critical”
foreign languages and cultures — typically defined as those in which there is a major
security or trade interest, and especially the subset of these which are infrequently
taught in the Nation’s colleges and universities. Rather it may be questioned whether
such support should be provided specifically by the federal government and if so,
whether it should be focused on the Nation’s colleges and universities, on federally-
operated institutions which are dedicated to providing instruction to government
employees, or both. The federal government operates two foreign language schools
to help meet the government’s direct, immediate foreign language requirements —
the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center in Monterey, California,
and the Foreign Service Institute School for Language Studies in Arlington, Virginia.
Overall, the structure of Title VI — specifically the provision of grants to IHEs
to develop and conduct educational programs in specific subject areas — departs

---

CRS-10
significantly from the general approach of the HEA. The primary strategy of the
HEA is to provide student aid, usually on the basis of financial need, and to leave the
selection of subjects to be studied to the students. Even most institutional aid, other
than Title VI, is focused on specific types of high-need institutions — such as
Historically Black Colleges and Universities — not particular subject fields. In
contrast, HEA Title VI provides a combination of institutional aid to support
instruction in a specific (although multi-faceted) field, combined with fellowships
limited to students in that field. Title VI is one of only two HEA programs focused
on specific subject areas, and is the most targeted of those, and as such requires
particular justification.4
The primary argument supporting this departure from the general HEA strategy
is that advanced study of foreign languages and regions is of special importance to
the Nation, especially (but not only) with respect to national security, defense and
economic competitiveness. Supporters of the continuation of subject area-specific
aid under Title VI would argue that maintaining research and instructional programs
in critical foreign language and area studies is not only a national priority, but should
be supported in both federally-operated institutions as well as colleges and
universities accessible to the Nation at large. The needs of federal employees are
only a subset of the range of national requirements for persons knowledgeable in
foreign languages and cultures. Such skills are needed not only for national defense
and diplomacy, but also international trade, and outreach activities to increase
understanding of foreign nations and cultures among the broader public. In addition,
the research necessary to expand understanding of foreign cultures, or to improve
methods of foreign language instruction, is much more likely to take place in IHEs
than in federal institutions narrowly dedicated to intensive language instruction.
Finally, the quality of FLAS programs depends to a significant degree on the
development of linkages between American and foreign educational institutions, and
it is easier for colleges and universities to establish such ties than federal government
institutions whose motivations may be suspected in some parts of the world.
In addition, the support for a specific subject area under HEA Title VI is not
unique when the scope is widened to include federal agencies other than ED. While
few ED programs provide postsecondary institutional and student aid limited to a
specific field, several other federal agencies provide support to IHEs which is
focused on providing instruction in specific subject areas on a much larger scale than
HEA Title VI — e.g., support for health care education and training by the National
Institutes of Health and other agencies of the Department of Health and Human
Services, support for science and mathematics education by the National Science
Foundation, etc. Each of these subject areas has been widely perceived as being of
special national interest, and therefore worthy of targeted federal support.
It might be argued that if sufficient numbers of students are interested, IHEs will
provide adequate levels of instruction and research in critical foreign languages and
4 The other subject area-specific HEA program is Title VII-A-2, Graduate Assistance in
Areas of National Need. This program, funded at $31 million for FY2003, provides
fellowships for graduate students in the areas of Biology, Chemistry, Computer and
Information Science, Engineering, Geological Science, Mathematics, and Physics.

---

CRS-11
area studies without targeted federal subsidies under HEA Title VI or other programs.
Further, if aid such as that provided under Title VI is deemed necessary to some
degree, it might be limited to paying the start-up costs of initiating instruction and/or
research in selected foreign language and area studies, not (as is currently the case)
paying a share of ongoing costs of maintaining programs. In addition, more
systematic efforts might be made to identify and utilize the language skills of recent
immigrants to the United States from all parts of the world.
Certainly colleges and universities are interested in offering a very wide range
of courses and programs, and private foundations have occasionally provided
significant levels of support for FLAS. IHEs, foundations, and corporations
frequently provide funds or in-kind support (such as foregone tuition) to match grants
under several HEA Title VI programs currently. However, it is difficult for
individual IHEs to offer instruction in relatively rare, but currently critical, languages
such as Pashto or Farsi. Proponents of Title VI have argued that because individual
institutions, foundations, or states would have insufficient incentive to provide
funding for such studies, they should be supported by the Nation as a whole for
reasons of economies of scale. Without targeted federal aid under a program such
as Title VI, it is possible that ongoing support for such languages and world regions
would be insufficient to meet national needs. Even with Title VI funding, it is
possible that the level of support is inadequate, or at least inadequately focused on
current needs (see below).
Are HEA Title VI programs appropriately coordinated with other
federal efforts to support advanced foreign language and area studies?
This report focuses specifically on Title VI of the HEA because this legislation is
being considered for reauthorization by the 109th Congress, and because it is the
largest source of federal support for FLAS in U.S. colleges and universities and their
students. However, it is not the only source of such support, and it may be
questioned whether Title VI is appropriately coordinated with other related programs,
or whether some of these programs should be consolidated with Title VI to improve
coordination and efficiency. In fact, one of the stated purposes of Title VI is “to
coordinate the programs of the Federal Government in the areas of foreign language,
area studies, and other international studies” (HEA Section 601(b)(3)).
The primary federal programs with purposes related to those of HEA Title VI
— beyond the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center and the Foreign
Service Institute School for Language Studies, which provide instruction to current
federal employees — are those authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act, particularly the subset
of these which are administered by ED; the National Security Education Program
(NSEP); the Gilman International Scholarship Program; and international activities
conducted under ED’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
(FIPSE).
Fulbright-Hays Act. The Fulbright-Hays Act authorizes a number of
activities, primarily a variety of international exchange activities administered by the
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State. These are
exchanges of graduate students and scholars in a variety of fields (i.e., they are not
limited to foreign language and area studies), as well as persons in a wide variety of

---

CRS-12
professions. While these are two-way exchange activities, the majority of
participants are citizens of nations other than the United States.
In contrast, the Fulbright-Hays programs most relevant to HEA Title VI are
those administered by ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education, which support a
variety of foreign travel-related activities by American graduate students and
professors. These include faculty research abroad, travel abroad by doctoral students
conducting dissertation research, and group seminars abroad. All of these activities
are available to U.S. citizens (or nationals) only, and are to be focused on improving
FLAS instruction in American colleges and universities. ED’s Fulbright-Hays
programs are much smaller in scale than HEA Title VI — their total appropriation
level was $12.9 million for FY2003.
National Security Education Program. The NSEP, under the David L.
Boren National Security Education Act (NSEA),5 authorizes a program of aid for
international education and foreign language studies by American undergraduate and
graduate students.6 Three types of assistance are authorized by the NSEA: (a)
scholarships for undergraduate students to study in a “critical” foreign country; (b)
grants to institutions of higher education to establish or operate programs in “critical”
foreign language and area studies areas; and (c) fellowships to graduate students for
education abroad or in the U.S. in “critical” foreign language, disciplines, and area
studies. The NSEA posits a goal of devoting one-third of annual grant funding to
each of these three activities. A trust fund of $150 million was initially provided in
FY1992 from which amounts were to be withdrawn in future years as provided in
annual appropriations legislation.
Individuals who receive NSEP fellowships and scholarships are obligated for
a limited period of time to seek employment in a national security position,7 or if,
after a “good faith” effort, they are unsuccessful in obtaining such positions, they can
fulfill the requirement through work in the field of higher education in an area of
study for which the scholarship was awarded.
From the beginning of this program through 2002, institutional grants have been
focused on supporting the establishment of instructional and exchange programs
involving less commonly taught languages and nations/regions at a wide variety of
U.S. IHEs; increasing the number of disadvantaged/minority students participating
in international education/exchange programs; and integrating foreign language and
international studies with professional education in a variety of fields. These
activities have often been similar to those supported under HEA Title VI. A revised
strategy has been announced for institutional grants beginning in 2003. This new
5 Title VIII of P.L. 102-183, the Intelligence Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1992, as
amended.
6 For more information on the National Security Education Program, see CRS Report
RL31643, National Security Education Program: Background and Issues, by Jeff Kuenzi
and Wayne Riddle.
7 In practice, this requirement has been interpreted relatively broadly to include a wide
variety of federal agencies and positions. See [http://www.iie.org/template.cfm?&
template=/programs/nsep/agencies.htm].

---

CRS-13
strategy includes accelerated pursuit of a Flagship Language Initiative — grants
focused on supporting advanced study of the most critical foreign languages —
initiated in 2002 and explicitly authorized by P.L. 107-306, the Intelligence
Authorization Act for FY2003.
The National Security Education Program (NSEP) is intended to complement,
and not duplicate, the foreign language and area studies programs authorized under
HEA Title VI and other legislation. Unique elements of the NSEP, compared to
other federal programs of aid to international education or exchange, include its
service requirement and (with the exception of the Gilman International Scholarship
Program described below) its support of travel grants to undergraduate students.
However, there may be greater potential for overlap between the NSEP institutional
grants and HEA Title VI National and Language Resource Center grants.
The NSEP is administered by the Department of Defense’s National Defense
University, under the guidance of a National Security Education Board (NSEB). The
nations, disciplines, and subject areas that are “critical” to national security are to be
determined by the Board, taking into account federal government needs as well as the
supply of individuals knowledgeable in those areas. As with many of the federal
government’s programs supporting international education and exchange, the NSEP
is largely administered through non-governmental organizations that process
applications and oversee the award competition. The Institute of International
Education (IIE) performs this role with respect to undergraduate students, while the
Academy for Educational Development (AED) does so for the graduate fellowship
competition.
The NSEP began making grants in academic year 1994-1995. Early in the 104th
Congress, FY1995 rescissions legislation was passed by the House of
Representatives that would have eliminated the program and returned all of its $150
million trust fund to the Treasury. Under the final compromise with the Senate, the
trust fund was cut in half, to $75 million (P.L. 104-6). The Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-248) set the annual funding level
for the NSEP at $8 million, although additional appropriations have been authorized
by P.L. 107-306.
The largest differences between the NSEP and HEA Title VI are that only the
former has a service requirement, is focused primarily on helping to meet the national
security-related FLAS skill needs of the federal government, is financed via a trust
fund, and supports international travel by undergraduate students. In addition, the
NSEP is administered by DOD, not ED, and is much smaller in scale than Title VI.
Gilman International Scholarship Program . This relatively small, new
program is authorized by the International Academic Opportunity Act of 2000 (Title
III of P.L. 106-309), which authorizes the appropriation of $1.5 million per year for
scholarships of up to $5,000 for U.S. citizen undergraduate (including community
college) students. The scholarships may be used to pay the costs of travel plus tuition
and related study abroad expenses. In order to be eligible students must be recipients

---

CRS-14
of financial assistance under ED’s Pell Grant program — i.e., undergraduate students
from relatively low-income families.8
In the selection of grant recipients, preference is given to those who have not
previously studied abroad. Students may study any subject, and travel to any region
of the world (except Cuba or a country identified in a “travel warning” issued by the
Department of State) — i.e., there is no specific focus on foreign language or
international studies, nor on languages or regions deemed “critical” to national
security or other interests. A primary purpose of the Gilman program is to provide
study abroad opportunities to students who might otherwise be unable to participate
in such programs. For the 2002-2003 academic year, 179 students have received
Gilman Scholarships. The Gilman program is administered by the Department of
State, via the non-governmental Institute of International Education.
FIPSE International Programs. The Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), in ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education,
administers a number of relatively small programs intended to foster innovative
approaches to U.S. postsecondary education. FIPSE is authorized by Title VII, Part
B of the HEA. While some grants under FIPSE’s general “comprehensive” program
have supported international education programs,9 the primary targeted support for
activities related to those under HEA Title VI is provided under three specific
programs:
! the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education,
! the U.S.-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program, and
! the European Community-United States of America Cooperation
Program in Higher Education and Vocational Education and
Training.
Each of these programs provides multi-year grants made through competition
to U.S. IHEs to form consortia with foreign institutions to support activities such as
cooperation and exchange of students and staff, plus development of curricula.
These programs are also relatively small; the FY2002 funding levels are $2,043,000
for the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education, $1,495,000 for
the U.S.-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program, and $2,254,000 for the
European Community-United States of America Cooperation Program in Higher
Education and Vocational Education and Training.
Issues Regarding Coordination or Consolidation . It may be questioned
whether these related programs should be consolidated, or at least explicitly placed
under the “umbrella” of a coordinated, coherent national strategy. It is often assumed
that efficiency is enhanced when separate federal programs serving similar purposes
8 For a discussion of the Pell Grant program, see CRS Issue Brief IB10097, The Higher
Education Act: Reauthorization Status and Issues, by Adam Stoll.
9 For example, such a FIPSE grant, along with funding from a number of other federal
programs and agencies, has been made to the National Foreign Language Center to support
the development of LangNet, an online source for dissemination of language teaching
resources (see [http://www.langnet.org]).

---

CRS-15
are consolidated, especially if the programs involve potentially duplicative grant
competitions. On the other hand, the importance of coordination among, or possible
consolidation of, these programs may be diminished somewhat by the fact that the
other programs discussed immediately above are much smaller in scale than Title VI.
The Fulbright-Hays, FIPSE, and (at least in the past) NSEP institutional grant
programs described above are most similar to the activities funded by HEA Title VI.
They are already potentially coordinated in the sense that all three programs are
administered by ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education Programs. Nevertheless,
coordination and efficiency might be further enhanced if these programs were fully
consolidated or placed under a single coordinating or advisory board.
While the NSEP has several similar purposes, its role of emphasizing national
security needs, and its service requirement for aid recipients, distinguish it from the
other programs discussed above. As long as the NSEP maintains these
characteristics, coordination might be more consistent with its purposes than
consolidation with Title VI and related programs, at least with respect to the
scholarship and fellowship programs. Currently, such coordination occurs through
representation on the National Security Education Board of a designee of the
Secretary of Education. Nevertheless, the efficiency of operating a separate program
with purposes similar to those of Title VI may be questioned, especially when the
NSEP has experienced a substantial reduction in its trust fund, which may call into
question its long-term viability under its current funding structure, since annual
appropriations substantially exceed the fund’s earnings.
The Gilman International Scholarship Program also provides funding for
undergraduate students to travel abroad, but lacks the national security-related focus
and service requirements of the NSEP. Particularly given its linkage to ED’s Pell
Grant program, the possibility of transferring the Gilman program from the
Department of State to ED and incorporating it under the Undergraduate International
Studies and Foreign Language Programs of HEA Title VI might be considered.
Proposals might also be considered to establish a multi-agency board,
endowment, foundation, or other independent federal entity to coordinate and/or
administer all federal programs dealing with foreign language and international
studies, including the more extensive Fulbright-Hays activities administered by the
Department of State, and possibly even the relatively small K-12 Foreign Language
Assistance Program authorized by Title V-D-9 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA).10 One function for such a board or agency might be
relatively long-range planning to attempt to meet both the federal government’s and
the Nation’s needs for FLAS specialists in a coordinated manner.
10 As noted earlier, S. 1799 (107th Congress) proposes that the National Research Council
study the feasibility of establishing a National Language Foundation. See also Richard D.
Brecht, “Language, National Security, and the Academic Sector: Recommendations for
Federal Action,” NFLC Policy Issues, Nov. 2000; and American Council on Education,
Beyond September 11: A Comprehensive National Policy on International Education,
2002.

---

CRS-16
Finally, it might be questioned whether there should be increased coordination
between IHEs funded by HEA Title VI and the federal agencies which offer language
instruction. For example, should there be some degree of explicit coordination
between the targeting of HEA Title VI fellowships and institutional grants with the
foreign language needs of federal government agencies, or should there be more
sharing of resources and coordination of instructional programs between federal
language training institutions and IHEs supported by Title VI?
Should there be increased targeting of Title VI grants on foreign
languages and world regions of “critical” interest to the federal
government? Currently, HEA Title VI grants are widely dispersed across virtually
all of the world’s significant languages and regions. A listing of the NRC and FLAS
Fellowship grant recipients for the FY2000-2002 cycle reflects a balance among all
of the world’s regions, including several grants for study of such critical areas —
defined as those in which there is a substantial national security, trade or diplomatic
interest, and which are infrequently studied in U.S. IHEs — as the Middle East and
South Asia, but also numerous grants for study of areas such as Western Europe
which are frequently included in IHE curricula without targeted federal assistance.
While the languages or world regions considered to be “critical” in terms of
their national security or trade significance may vary over time, and it would
probably be disruptive and unproductive to substantially shift Title VI funding
whenever a newly critical language or region is identified, it should be possible to
identify a relatively stable group of languages or regions which are infrequently
taught in American IHEs, on which Title VI grants could be targeted to a greater
degree. This raises the question of who should make decisions regarding targeting
of funds on different activities, languages or regions — ED alone, ED through an
interagency advisory body (such as the one which provides guidance on NSEP
grants), a new entity responsible for all federal FLAS programs and activities (as
discussed above), or Congress through authorizing or appropriations legislation?
As noted in Table 1, several of the HEA Title VI programs require that federal
funds be matched with non-federal resources. For this and other reasons, it is
frequently argued that the scale of federal support for FLAS studies under this
program extends substantially beyond the level of direct funding — i.e., that the Title
VI grants serve as a magnet for additional funds from a variety of institutional,
foundation, corporate, and other private sector sources, through matching and
possibly also “quality signaling” effects.11 Nevertheless, it may be questioned
whether the scale of the HEA Title VI program, however well targeted, is adequate
to meet national needs.
In contrast, opponents of increased targeting of HEA Title VI grants on
languages and regions deemed to be critical currently might argue that it is
impossible to adequately predict what those languages and regions will be several
11 It is sometimes argued that the receipt of grants under a competitive program such as HEA
Title VI is perceived as a “signal of quality” which may serve as a magnet for additional
grants from foundations or other private sector funding sources, beyond specific matching
requirements.

---

CRS-17
years in the future (the lead time between submitting applications and fully
implementing new programs), or the extent to which grants should be focused on any
of them. Given this uncertainty, it might be best, they argue, to rely largely on the
initiative of IHEs to develop and submit proposals for new Title VI grants, and to
make grants to support study of a comprehensive range of languages and regions, as
has generally occurred in the past, rather than attempting to direct grants through a
central coordinating body.
It is difficult to quantify the level of such national needs in a precise or
systematic manner. One regular effort to do this is an annual survey and analysis of
Federal Language Needs, conducted as part of the NSEP,12 which is linked to the
award of scholarships, fellowships, and institutional grants under that program.
While this annual series of reports does not attempt to quantify the level of need for
individuals with specific language or other skills, it does identify a large number of
foreign languages, world regions, and disciplines in which there is a major national
security interest and which are infrequently taught in the Nation’s colleges and
universities.
Another study of such language needs has recently been conducted by the
General Accounting Office. The GAO report, which focused on 4 federal
departments or agencies (the Army, the State Department, the Department of
Commerce’s Foreign Commercial Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation),
concluded that “[T]he changing security environment and the increasing
globalization of the U.S. economy have significantly increased the need for federal
employees with foreign language skills. These four agencies reported shortages of
translators and interpreters as well as diplomats and intelligence specialists with
critical foreign language skills. Agency officials said that these shortfalls have
harmed agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence,
counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.”13
Legislative Action in the 109th Congress
On June 16, 2005, H.R. 509 was ordered reported by the Subcommittee on
Select Education to the full Committee on Education and the Workforce. H.R. 509,
the International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2005, would reauthorize HEA
Title VI through FY2011. The changes that are proposed in this legislation are
summarized below.
The purposes of these programs emphasize the need for greater understanding
of the world’s languages and cultures; however, references to the “post-Cold War”
diplomatic context would be replaced by security concerns raised in the “aftermath
of September 11, 2001.”
12 See [http://www.ndu.edu/nsep/Federal_Language_Needs_2001.htm].
13 General Accounting Office, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to
Correct Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375, Jan. 2002.

---

CRS-18
National Resource Centers would be given slightly expanded allowable
activities to include supporting instructors in less commonly taught languages and
disseminating materials to local educational agencies, private and public elementary
and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education. The purposes of
Outreach Grants under this program would be modified to include “partnerships” in
addition to “programs of linkage” with two- and four-year colleges and universities,
federal and state departments or agencies, and local educational agencies.
Added to the list of allowable activities for Language Resource Centers are
projects that foster students’ understanding of science and technology in
coordination with foreign language proficiency.
The Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program
activities would be expanded to include grants to undergraduate students for
educational programs abroad. Not more than 10% of a grant recipient’s funds could
be used for this purpose. The bill also includes a new requirement that recipients
seeking a waiver or reduction of the 50% non-federal matching funds provision must
demonstrate a need for a waiver or reduction.
The Minority Foreign Service Professional Development Program within the
Institute for International Public Policy (IIPP) would be changed to the Program for
Foreign Service Professionals. This reflects additional amendments to the language
which replace references to “African Americans” with “underrepresented
populations” and modify the list of eligible institutions to include Indian Tribal
Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions,
and Hispanic-serving institutions — in addition to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. Students receiving internships through the IIPP would be named
“Ralph J. Bunche Fellows.” The bill would add a provision that would allow grant
recipients under this program to apply for a waiver or reduction of the 50% non-
federal matching requirement. The bill would eliminate a provision that established
the Interagency Committee on Minority Careers in International Affairs.
H.R. 509 would establish a International Higher Education Advisory Board to
provide advice and recommendations to the Congress and to the Secretary on
international education issues. Among the list of its stated purposes, the Board
would “encourage diverse perspectives and reflect the full range of views on world
regions, foreign languages, and international affairs.” The Board would maintain
independence from the Department of Education and would have three of its seven
members appointed by the Secretary with the remaining four appointed by the
majority and minority leaders of each chamber of Congress.
Finally, H.R. 509 would set aside no more than 1% of appropriated funds for
evaluation of Title VI programs and would direct the Secretary of Education to
conduct a study to identify “foreign language heritage communities” in the United
States.

---