Requirements for Linguists in Government Agencies

Requirements for Linguists in Government Agencies

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
N e e d s , 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , a v a i l a b l e a t [ h t t p : / / w w w . n d u . e d u / n s e p /
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?