    [Senate Hearing 107-468]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-468

    CRITICAL SKILLS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL
                             WORKFORCE ACT--S. 1800
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

    INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION AND FEDERAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 12, 2002

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    79-886                             WASHINGTON : 2002
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
    CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
    DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TED STEVENS, Alaska
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri              ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
               Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
             Hannah S. Sistare, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
                         Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk

                                     ------

    INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION AND FEDERAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE

                       DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
    CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     TED STEVENS, Alaska
    MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri              PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
    MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
                    Nanci E. Langley, Deputy Staff Director
                   Mitchel B. Kugler, Minority Staff Director
                          Brian D. Rubens, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Akaka................................................     1
        Senator Thompson.............................................     3
        Senator Cochran..............................................     6
        Senator Voinovich............................................    24
    Prepared statement:
        Senator Durbin...............................................    39

                                   WITNESSES
                            Tuesday, March 12, 2002

    Donald J. Winstead, Assistant Director, Compensation
      Administration, Office of Personnel Management.................     4
    Sheri A. Farrar, Assistant Director, Administrative Services
      Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accompanied by
      Margaret R. Gulotta, Chief of the Language Services Unit, and
      Leah Meisel, Deputy Assistant Director and Personnel Office,
      Federal Bureau of Investigation................................     7
    Ruth A. Whiteside, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau
      of Human Resources, Department of State........................     8
    Ginger Groeber, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Civilian
      Personnel Policy, Department of Defense........................    10
    Harvey A. Davis, Associate Director, Human Resources Services,
      National Security Agency.......................................    11
    Hon. Lee H. Hamilton, Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center for
      International Scholars, former Member of the House of
      Reprsentatives.................................................    20
    Susan S. Westin, Managing Director for International Affairs and
      Trade Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office...................    29
    Ray T. Clifford, Ph.D., Chancellor, Defense Language Institute...    31

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Clifford, Ray T., Ph.D.:
        Testimony....................................................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    92
    Davis, Harvey A.:
        Testimony....................................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    68
    Farrar, Sheri A.:
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
    Groeber, Ginger:
        Testimony....................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
    Hamilton, Hon. Lee H.:
        Testimony....................................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    73
    Westin, Susan S.:
        Testimony....................................................    29
        Prepared statement...........................................    79
    Whiteside, Ruth A.:
        Testimony....................................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
    Winstead, Donald J.:
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    40

                                    Appendix

    Copy of S. 1800..................................................    94
    Response for the Record from Mr. Winstead to question asked at
      the hearing....................................................   124
    Response for the Record from Ms. Groeber to question asked at the
      hearing........................................................   148
    Questions and responses from:
        Mr. Winstead.................................................   129
        Ms. Farrar...................................................   131
        Ms. Whiteside................................................   133
        Ms. Groeber..................................................   142
        Mr. Davis....................................................   144
        Ms. Westin...................................................   147

    CRITICAL SKILLS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL
                             WORKFORCE ACT--S. 1800

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002

                                         U.S. Senate,
                     International Security, Proliferation,
                           and Federal Services Subcommittee,
                      of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel Akaka,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Akaka, Thompson, Cochran, and Voinovich.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA

        Senator Akaka. The Subcommittee will please come to order.
    I want to thank our witnesses for joining us this afternoon. We
    are beginning to find that many of our colleagues as well as
    others in the community are finding much interest in what we
    are going to be talking about today.
        The terrorist attacks of September 11 exposed the strengths
    and weaknesses of our great country. We saw firsthand the
    impact of critical personnel and needed skills in our national
    security agencies. These events also gave us a preview of the
    problems we will face tomorrow if these skills are not
    strengthened.
        Federal agencies did not have the critical personnel with
    the language capabilities needed to investigate the attacks.
    Some agencies, like the FBI, were forced to post urgent job
    announcements for foreign language speakers to translate and
    investigate crucial evidence. According to the President's
    Science Advisor, there is not enough scientific expertise in
    government to evaluate proposals to combat terrorism in a
    timely fashion.
        In today's Washington Post, we are reminded that agencies
    have a shortage of analysts to translate and analyze the large
    volumes of intelligence data acquired since U.S. forces entered
    Afghanistan. This has led some officials to admit that there is
    a risk that information valuable to our efforts against
    terrorism could slip through.
        The importance of national security critical skills in
    government has been recognized for some time. Congress passed a
    National Defense Education Act of 1958 in response to the
    Soviet Union's first space launch. We were determined to win
    the space race and make certain that the United States never
    came up short again in the areas of math, science, technology,
    or foreign languages.
        Members of this Subcommittee have worked on this issue more
    recently. Under the guidance of Senator Cochran, this
    Subcommittee held a hearing a year and a half ago to define
    more clearly the United States' need for foreign language
    proficiency and to examine whether appropriate resources were
    made available to strengthen these skills among Federal
    workers.
        At that time, we heard that the intelligence community
    lacked individuals with the translating skills needed to
    respond in times of crisis. Last March, Senator Voinovich held
    a hearing on the national security implications of the human
    capital crisis. Witnesses from that hearing sent a strong
    message that strengthening math, science, and foreign language
    capabilities in government is a precondition for fixing
    virtually everything else in our U.S. national security
    complex.
        Let me thank Senator Cochran and Senator Voinovich for
    their leadership in these areas. Senator Voinovich has also
    asked me to announce that he thinks this hearing is very
    important, and although he has been unavoidably delayed, he
    expects to be here later.
        I also want to thank Senator Thompson who has been one of
    the leaders on this issue, and I want to thank him for his
    leadership.
        Our math, science and foreign language capabilities in the
    Federal Government are at risk and there is no quick solution.
    It has taken years of neglect to reach this deficit in trained
    workers, and it will take sustained efforts to hire, retain,
    and retrain employees with critical skills.
        We must use every tool at our disposal to defend America
    against present and future threats. To do this, we must ensure
    that the talented people in government have the right expertise
    to meet their changing missions.
        Senators Durbin, Thompson, and I introduced S. 1800, the
    Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act, as a comprehensive,
    long-term approach to addressing these shortfalls in
    government. I am pleased that the Ranking Member of this
    Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, as well as Senators Voinovich
    and Collins, are cosponsors of S. 1800. This bipartisan
    approach takes an important step toward recruiting more people
    into government with critical national security skills.
        Complementing this legislation is S. 1799, the Homeland
    Security Education Act, which addresses shortages of those
    students pursuing degrees in math, science, and critical
    foreign languages. The Homeland Security Education Act proposes
    several measures to ensure that government preserves its
    expertise in matters of national security.
        This bill increases student loan forgiveness programs for
    those who work in positions of national security and offers
    fellowships for existing Federal employees and those who commit
    to serve in Federal national security positions.
        It offers a rotational assignment program for mid-level
    Federal employees and provides training and professional
    development opportunities. We must make certain that those
    entering Federal service have the needed skills and that our
    existing workforce has the opportunity to acquire specialized
    training. As we seek new government employees, we cannot ignore
    the people whose expertise and talents guide agencies daily in
    meeting their missions.
        With our witnesses' help, we will explore the skills that
    agencies need to accomplish their current national security
    missions and how the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act
    can help meet the challenges of strengthening these skills in
    the future.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and I
    look forward to an interesting and lively discussion. And now I
    would like to yield to my friend and colleague and one of the
    leaders in this effort, Senator Thompson.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON

        Senator Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate your holding this hearing today. It is becoming more
    and more obvious that you are dealing with a very important
    issue and one that is vital to our national security.
        I think when the Hart-Rudman report came out, for example,
    we all became even more acutely aware, and, of course, the
    events of last fall, that we cannot be where we need to be
    without the right kind of people, and we are losing too many of
    the right kind of people that we are going to need in the
    future, especially with regard to some of these particularly
    vital areas.
        That, of course, is what our bill that you referred to
    tries to do. I think some legitimate points have been made
    concerning overlap and duplication and how it all fits
    together, and those are valid points. We need to work our way
    through all that. Hopefully, this will be an opening
    opportunity, a first step, to start the discussion as to where
    we need to wind up. So I am looking forward to hearing what our
    witnesses have to say, and so with that, I will cease and
    desist and ask that my full statement be made a part of the
    record.
        Senator Akaka. Without objection, it will be included in
    the record.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Thompson follows:]
                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMPSON
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for holding this hearing,
    and for your efforts to ensure that the Committee and the Subcommittee
    both continue to focus on Federal workforce issues. I can think of few
    who deserve our consideration more right now than those are making and
    will continue to make our country safe.
        Clearly, in today's environment, national security and the battle
    against terrorism enjoy substantial attention and support. And it is
    gratifying to know that many Federal employees who have long toiled in
    relative obscurity are now getting the recognition they deserve.
        But as experts have noted and as common sense will tell you, these
    sentiments are not enough to guarantee a robust, capable national
    security workforce. Instead, it is our job to make sure that the right
    incentives, programs, and laws are in place to give this workforce the
    people it needs to get the job done. As the frightening events of last
    fall highlighted, there are critical shortages among our national
    security employees, and these will get worse--not better--with
    inaction. This is the thrust of the Homeland Security Federal Workforce
    Bill.
        We should also realize that, despite the rapt focus by all
    Americans on serious events here and overseas, any successful workforce
    strategy must address the long term. And in the long term, the Federal
    Government must worry about its ability to attract employees who can be
    romanced away by higher salaries and better opportunities for
    advancement.
        Therefore, this bill takes an important step in providing the
    incentives to make careers in national security appealing. Young people
    may be attracted to help defend the country because of patriotism, and
    I hope they are. But we realize that exactly because they are some of
    the best and brightest, they are presented with attractive and
    lucrative offers from private business, and will weigh financial
    concerns and the potential for advancement in their final decision. Our
    bill does not just look to new hires, because they constitute an
    investment in the distant future. In the near future, the national
    security workforce will depend on retaining the experienced people
    already on the job. That is why the bill establishes the National
    Security Service Corps, which will provide an exciting and
    professionally rewarding opportunity for middle managers. And finally,
    because the inability of agencies to set goals and to drive towards
    those goals is a chronic problem, the bill tells agencies to address
    their national security human capital needs in their performance and
    strategic plans. I believe that, if agencies are pushed in the planning
    direction long enough, some of them may eventually get it.
        This bill really is just the first step in a long march, because
    the Federal workforce's national security problems are truly
    disturbing. The General Accounting Office, in a report released 2
    months ago, found that ``all four of the agencies it surveyed reported
    shortages of translators and interpreters as well as shortages of
    staff, such as diplomats and intelligence specialists, with foreign
    language skills that are critical to successful job performance. Agency
    officials stated that these shortfalls have adversely affected agency
    operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence,
    counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.''
        But our problems are not confined to the area of language
    expertise. The specter of nuclear terrorism looms, but we face it with
    an Nuclear Regulatory Commission and an Energy Department with that are
    having human capital problems. Bioterrorism directed at the food chain
    would be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture, which is also in
    the midst of personnel shortfalls. For example, the GAO found that
    ``food safety, in which USDA plays a major role, continues to suffer
    from inconsistent oversight, poor coordination, and inefficient
    deployment of resources.''
        At the same time, it is important to get the answer right. Though
    the issues I've outlined are real, I'm not sure the solution is to pile
    new programs on top of existing programs if these have not been
    successful. Before we throw dollars at these workforce problems, we
    need to look at whether we should consider blending our initiatives
    with the other proposals--legislative and otherwise--that are currently
    in play.
        After all, the issue of personnel reform is not new. True, this is
    a serious problem, and we don't have the luxury of endless debate. But
    I suspect that if you could tear away some of the layers here, you
    would see an age-old discussion about how to attract the best talent to
    government.
        So today, I'm looking forward to beginning a process. We have
    representatives from some of the agencies this bill would affect, and
    I'm eager to hear from them about the health of their national security
    workforces and what it may take to fix them. We'll also hear science
    and language experts tell us, governmentwide, where the shortcomings
    are in our most important jobs. And I look forward to listening to the
    Office of Personnel Management, which will ultimately bear
    responsibility for implementing our plan.

        Senator Akaka. I would like to welcome our first panel. I
    want to thank Donald Winstead from the Office of Personnel
    Management, Sheri Farrar of the FBI, Ruth Whiteside of the
    Department of State, Ginger Groeber of the Department of
    Defense, and Harvey Davis of the National Security Agency for
    being with us this afternoon.
        Mr. Winstead, you may proceed with your statement and your
    full statements will be included in the record. Thank you.

        TESTIMONY OF DONALD J. WINSTEAD,\1\ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
      COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Winstead. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
    good afternoon. I am Don Winstead. I serve as Assistant
    Director for Compensation Administration for the Office of
    Personnel Management. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
    before you today to discuss S. 1800, the Homeland Security
    Federal Workforce Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Winstead appears in the Appendix
    on page 40.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The events of September 11 forever changed the Federal
    Government's personnel requirements. Every agency must now
    consider its work and mission in a new context, one that was
    nearly unimaginable before. The skills needed by agencies to
    fulfill their expanded homeland security missions are diverse
    and in many cases unique to the particular mission of the
    agency.
        The administration is committed to addressing the human
    capital needs of the national security agencies, working with
    this Subcommittee, and supports the concept underlying S. 1800.
        We strongly support efforts to ensure that the Federal
    workforce has the people it needs to fulfill homeland security
    missions and we stand ready to work with the sponsors of this
    legislation to achieve our mutual goals.
        S. 1800 would provide special new programs for those
    components of the Executive Branch that have traditionally been
    designated as national security agencies. For those agencies,
    it would provide an enhanced student loan repayment program, a
    fellowship program comparable to the recently implemented
    Scholarship for Service Program, and a program to encourage
    details of employees between national security agencies. These
    are all concepts worth studying further.
        We would urge consideration of these concepts within the
    context of existing programs and flexibilities. For example,
    the current program for the repayment of student loans for
    Federal employees has been operating only for a relatively
    brief period. As agencies become more familiar with the program
    and its framework, we expect to see greater and more effective
    use. We believe any consideration of enhancements to the
    program should reflect those experiences.
        The administration is concerned about the establishment of
    a separate fund for this worthy purpose. We are continuing to
    work with agencies to assist them in using their individual
    salaries and expenses funding to target the recruitment and
    retention incentives that will be most effective for their
    specific needs. We believe allowing agencies to make these
    decisions is appropriate since we are ultimately holding them
    accountable.
        Title II of S. 1800 creates a fellowship program for
    graduate students to enter Federal service in national security
    positions. While we question the necessity and effectiveness of
    creating a new board to administer the program, we support the
    concept of this title, which resembles that of the Scholarship
    for Service Program currently operating to bolster the
    government's information assurance infrastructure.
        The National Security Corps concept also parallels existing
    authorities. The option of broadening an employee's perspective
    through rotational assignments among organizations is one we
    include in many of our current programs including the highly
    regarded Presidential Management Intern Program.
        Typically, the programs that include such opportunities are
    not limited to a particular area such as national security.
    However, it is important to note in turn that the
    administration's concept of national security is a broad one.
    Every agency must be concerned with how its role and mission
    links to national security concerns. Personnel in the Centers
    for Disease Control working on bioterrorism solutions, Customs
    inspectors developing new strategies to assure the safety of
    containers imported into the United States, and Federal
    Emergency Management Agency personnel working on improving
    evacuation procedures and fire safety precautions--these are
    just a few of the Federal employees whose work involves
    national security, but who have traditionally not been thought
    of as part of the national security workforce.
        We believe S. 1800 should be considered within the context
    of other human resource management proposals such as those in
    the administration's Managerial Flexibility Act. That act
    offers a number of initiatives that would help address the
    human capital needs related to national security in the broader
    sense.
        Senators Thompson and Voinovich have introduced bills
    containing these important governmentwide proposals, which will
    benefit all Federal agencies, even those whose roles in
    national security matters have not previously been given
    recognition.
        The administration looks forward to the upcoming hearings
    to be held on the President's legislative proposal. As a
    package, these new and expanded authorities will empower
    Federal managers to make the decisions and cultivate a
    workforce that can lead to increased efficiency and
    effectiveness in Federal programs and which can respond to the
    changing dynamics of the economy and the challenges of a
    changing world, and we believe all of this can be accomplished
    without changing the veterans' preference laws that have long
    been a cornerstone of the civil service.
        This concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer
    any questions.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Winstead. Before I
    call on Ms. Farrar, I would like to yield to my friend, Senator
    Cochran.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
    especially appreciate your kind remarks during your opening
    statement. I welcome the witnesses who are testifying before
    our Subcommittee today. I think this legislation will provide
    some needed incentives to help deal with the problems we have
    in foreign language education and recruitment, training of
    people who are essential if we are to achieve success in our
    effort to provide security for our citizens.
        Following the tragic events of September 11, I think our
    earlier concerns that we had discussed in previous hearings and
    efforts to attract attention to this serious problem have been
    magnified, and the reality has set in now, and we need to get
    busy and do something. I think the time for talking about the
    problem is over. We need action and your presence here and your
    support for our efforts are deeply appreciated. Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Ms. Farrar, will you
    please give your statement.

         TESTIMONY OF SHERI A. FARRAR,\1\ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
          ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
    INVESTIGATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MARGARET R. GULOTTA, CHIEF OF THE
       LANGUAGE SERVICES UNIT, AND LEAH MEISEL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
    DIRECTOR AND PERSONNEL OFFICER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

        Ms. Farrar. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee. I, too, want to thank you for the
    opportunity to come before you today to talk about the Homeland
    Security Federal Workforce Act. My name is Sheri Farrar, and I
    am the Assistant Director of the Administrative Services
    Division of the FBI.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Farrar appears in the Appendix on
    page 46.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I am here today representing Director Mueller. I am joined
    today on my left by Margaret Gulotta, who is the Section Chief
    of our Language Services Section, and sitting directly behind
    me is Leah Meisel, who is the Deputy Assistant Director and
    Personnel Officer for the FBI.
        You have my written statement before you. Today I only want
    to take a few moments to highlight some of the points in that
    statement.
        First, there is no question that the critical skill needs
    of the FBI have changed over the last several years, and those
    critical needs have been further heightened by the events of
    September 11. The FBI faces the same challenges of all agencies
    in keeping pace with advances in technology. Our challenge is
    twofold: To support our day-to-day computer and information
    technology needs, and to advance our technical and scientific
    programs to ensure our ability to exploit the advances in
    technology that confront us in our investigative and
    intelligence collection and exploitation initiatives.
        We have always needed foreign language capabilities, but
    the languages deemed most critical have certainly changed.
    Obviously, Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages have now
    become our highest priorities. We have emphasized these skill
    needs in our recruiting strategies. For agents we have placed
    at the highest priority for both recruiting and processing
    those who have computer science and information technology
    abilities, physical and natural sciences, engineering, and
    foreign languages.
        For our support employees, we are seeking to recruit
    individuals who have the analytical capability to serve in our
    intelligence research specialist positions. Again, those with
    foreign language capabilities and with computer and information
    technology skills.
        The FBI has an aggressive hiring recruiting plan this year.
    We are seeking to bring over 900 agents and over 1,400 support
    employees on board this year. Now, as never before, our
    recruitment strategies are focused on hiring people with the
    critical skills I have mentioned.
        We are cautiously optimistic. At our recruiting results so
    far, we have received an extraordinary number of applications,
    and as we review those, we are finding highly qualified
    candidates. Of course, we still need to get them through our
    background process.
        Let me speak briefly about S. 1800. Like all agencies
    confronting today's new challenges, we welcome any program that
    enhances our competitiveness in attracting and retaining talent
    so that we do certainly support the concept of the legislation.
        In that regard, I would like to make a few observations
    concerning the student loan repayment provisions in the bill.
    As you know, the FBI is in the excepted service. Consequently,
    as drafted, we are concerned that many of our employees may not
    be eligible under the provisions of the bill.
        The FBI is fortunate to already have existing guidance
    allowing for repayment of student loans, and it is not limited
    to solely national security positions. Although we have just
    recently received this ability, therefore it has made it
    difficult for us to tell whether or not it is going to help us
    to recruit and retain individuals.
        We also remain concerned that the bill as written creates
    additional levels of bureaucracy to include the administration
    of the funding, which may have the tendency to inhibit the use
    of these flexibilities. We are grateful, however, that the
    Subcommittee is interested in supporting our national security
    mission by developing programs to enhance our ability to
    attract the skills we need to be successful. And we look
    forward to working with you as these programs are developed.
        In that regard, we strongly encourage you to also consider
    the flexibilities available under the administration's proposed
    Managerial Flexibility Act. This act as written provides
    agencies with greater ability to address today's complex
    workforce issues.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to address you. This
    concludes my formal testimony. Mrs. Meisel, Mrs. Gulotta and I
    are happy to answer your questions at the appropriate time.
    Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Farrar. Ms.
    Whiteside, please present your statement.

     TESTIMONY OF RUTH A. WHITESIDE,\1\ PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
       SECRETARY, BUREAU OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Ms. Whiteside. Thank you, sir. I welcome this opportunity
    to appear before the Subcommittee on behalf of the Department
    of State. A year or so ago I was privileged to appear before a
    similar hearing chaired by Senator Cochran on language issues
    in my former job as the Deputy Director of the Foreign Service
    Institute at the State Department, and we are keenly aware of
    the need to emphasize languages and the leadership shown well
    before September 11 and certainly the interest of the Congress
    now.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Whiteside appears in the Appendix
    on page 53.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My prepared statement, sir, is also a part of the record,
    but the most important point I would like to make today is to
    underscore our view that our diplomats and our diplomacy all
    around the world are indeed, as this legislation indicates, a
    part of the national security strategy of the United States as
    well as our foreign policy strategy.
        Secretary Powell has provided us terrific leadership on
    these issues over the last year. With his very strong support,
    the strong support of the administration, and of the Congress,
    we are in the first year of what we hope will be a 3-year
    diplomatic readiness initiative which will allow us to begin to
    fill the personnel gaps we have across the board at the State
    Department in all of our categories.
        We have a very aggressive recruiting campaign underway now,
    and we are already eagerly using the tools available to us, the
    current student loan program, and we are interested in the
    concepts that underlie this legislation and an increased use of
    those tools. For the current student loan repayment program, we
    are only now designing our program under the new legislation,
    but I think I would simply underscore the fact that agencies
    will want to have as much flexibility as we can in designing
    these programs so that we can be sure that they focus on our
    particular recruitment and retention needs.
        We would also want to be sure that the legislation allows
    us a way to include the Foreign Service in this. Currently our
    student loan program will address both Foreign Service and
    civil service requirements, and so we would hope that would be
    the case with any new legislation.
        We were also very interested in the various fellowship
    concepts that are in this legislation. We have some excellent
    experience with fellowship programs now. On the Foreign Service
    side, we have a Pickering Fellows Program which does underwrite
    undergraduate and graduate education for promising Foreign
    Service candidates. We are using the National Security
    Education Program as a recruitment pool for very talented young
    men and women who have done studies in languages or other
    national security areas. These, I think, are exactly the kinds
    of programs we need to identify the best and the brightest for
    our Nation's foreign service.
        On the student loan program, I would simply say one of the
    things that is clear to us since September 11, sir, is interest
    in public service and interest in the Foreign Service and the
    civil service at the State Department has never been higher.
        When we gave the Foreign Service written exam in September,
    13,000 people showed up on a Saturday morning to take the test,
    just a few weeks after the tragic September 11 events. That was
    the largest number of takers of the Foreign Service exam in
    recent years. We are giving that exam again in April. The
    registration closes today, and we have an even greater
    registration than we had in September. So I think the point is
    young men and women are very interested in careers in public
    service, careers in foreign affairs, or in the other agencies.
        They do arrive on our doorstep in many cases with a
    terrific education, but one that they have paid a very high
    price to get, and I think the tools that helps us offset those
    loans, the tools that help us give them some competitive
    ability for us to reach them--one of the problems with the
    National Security Education Program is these young men and
    women have an obligation to work in the Federal Government, but
    they must apply and come into the Federal Government through
    the normal application procedures, and it would be great to
    find some ways that we could reach them more quickly.
        In all of these areas, we are very eager to work with the
    Congress, to work with OPM and our other colleagues to design
    as many tools as we can to meet these critical national
    requirements. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you for your statement, Ms. Whiteside.
    Ms. Groeber, you may give your opening statement now.

        TESTIMONY OF GINGER GROEBER,\1\ ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT
      SECRETARY, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Ms. Groeber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to
    appear before you and the Subcommittee today to discuss your
    legislation. I have limited my remarks to 5 minutes and ask
    that my prepared testimony be included in the Subcommittee's
    record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Groeber appears in the Appendix
    on page 62.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At this pivotal time, we certainly share the Subcommittee's
    interest in ensuring that this and other Federal agencies have
    language, science, mathematics, and engineering expertise that
    is needed to support our national security.
        We appreciate the strategic approach that you and your
    cosponsors and the Subcommittee have taken on this issue. We
    also appreciate the persistent and collaborative efforts of
    Senator Voinovich and his staff in addressing human resource
    management issues.
        Mr. Chairman, your legislation is timely. As you know, the
    Department of Defense is emerging from a decade of downsizing.
    Our workforce is smaller and better educated. While the number
    of employees in science, mathematics, and engineering
    occupations has decreased since 1989, their percentage measured
    against other occupational disciplines is increasing. The
    challenge of building and maintaining a diverse language
    proficient workforce continues.
        With respect to the legislation, we support increases in
    the annual loan for the repayment amount and in the overall cap
    on repayment of student loans. We believe that proposals for
    loan payments and graduate fellowships are very useful
    incentives in recruiting and retaining a highly qualified
    workforce.
        We are concerned that a centralized program of loan
    repayment and a single authority for determining positions
    eligible for graduate fellowship would diminish the
    flexibilities we need to implement these programs.
        In addition, we want to harmonize any new programs with
    those career development activities the department now
    operates. We would also strongly urge the Subcommittee and
    indeed the Congress to provide favorable consideration to the
    expanded and streamlined improvements in the administration's
    Managerial Flexibility Act.
        While I am not an expert in science, mathematics,
    engineering, and language disciplines, I would like to respond
    in general to the questions posed by the Subcommittee.
        Expertise in science, math, and engineering skills is a
    cornerstone of our national security capabilities. These skills
    are needed to ensure the quality of the work performed in our
    laboratories as well as our interaction with the industrial
    base.
        Foreign language expertise is an essential factor in the
    national security readiness. With respect to the future, there
    will be an increasing demand in all areas of electrical
    engineering and computer science. All key service platforms,
    ships, planes, and tanks are using more complex systems. System
    engineering will be an increasingly important skill for both
    technical and non-technical positions.
        Translation and interpretation skills and knowledge are
    increasingly important combat force multipliers and mission
    enhancers.
        Financial assistance is always helpful when competing for
    the best and the brightest and in retaining them in our
    workforce. There is some question as to whether financial
    incentives can fully ensure the quality of science and
    engineering employees we seek.
        Often truly innovative scientists and engineers are driven
    by strong intellectual curiosity rather than economics. In
    addition, we have found that the flexibility in hiring these
    scientists expeditiously is equally important.
        With respect to language proficiency, we believe that a
    more coordinated approach in providing financial assistance and
    career development would be very useful.
        There have been a number of changes over the last several
    years. Prior to the year 2000, the military departments
    generated their requirements for language and skill areas based
    upon two major theater war scenarios, largely focusing on
    language and area tasks within the intelligence services.
        Requirements in special operations, foreign affairs, and
    field units will now be incorporated. The Department of
    Defense's foreign language program strategy is changing the way
    we recruit, the list of languages that we train in, and the
    language task to be performed in our management of these
    valuable assets.
        In summary, we look forward to working with the
    Subcommittee to address these critical challenges in a
    strategic, flexible, and balanced approach. Thank you again for
    the opportunity to testify. This concludes my remarks and I
    would be glad to answer any questions.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Groeber. Mr. Davis,
    you may proceed with your statement.

      TESTIMONY OF HARVEY A. DAVIS,\1\ ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, HUMAN
              RESOURCES SERVICES, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of
    the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. My name is Harvey Davis. I am Director of Human
    Resources at the National Security Agency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Davis appears in the Appendix on
    page 68.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The NSA is the Nation's cryptologic organization, and as
    such employs this country's premier codemakers and
    codebreakers. A high technology organization, NSA is on the
    cutting edge of information technology. Founded in 1952, NSA is
    a separately organized agency within the Department of Defense
    and supports military customers and national policymakers.
        I would like to begin my statement by addressing the
    significance of strong math, science, and foreign language
    expertise at NSA, how the events of September 11 have affected
    our need for technical and analytic skills and the skills
    required for the future.
        NSA's workforce possesses a wealth of critical skills and
    expertise and is composed of mathematicians, intelligence
    analysts, linguists, computer scientists, and engineers.
        In the spring of 1999, the Director of NSA initiated
    transformation of our workforce designed to focus our employees
    on the mission, change our ethos, and maintain staffing levels
    in critical areas. The events of September 11 reinforced our
    need to transform the agency, confirmed that we were on the
    right path, showed that we must increase the pace of that
    transformation, and ultimately underscored the value of people
    and their contribution to producing intelligence.
        If nothing else, the events of September 11 highlighted the
    fact that there is no single solution to the threats facing our
    Nation. Therefore, a balanced multidisciplinary approach is the
    only answer. Teams of individuals with varied skills working
    together employing the latest technology in a collaborative and
    creative manner are our best defense against the threats of the
    21st Century.
        To create collaborative teams, NSA relies on the unique
    combination of specialties. Analysts, engineers, physicists,
    mathematicians, linguists, and computer science are key to that
    mix. These individuals team as necessary to meet ever-changing
    requirements.
        For example, cryptanalysts use mathematics, computer
    programming, engineering, and language skills as well as new
    technologies and creativity to solve complex intelligence
    problems.
        Certainly these skills will always be critical requirements
    for the NSA. With the increased volume, velocity, and variety
    of globalized network communications, there has been a growing
    need for our technical employees to have expertise in new skill
    areas.
        Among these key areas are network security, vulnerability
    analysis, and public key infrastructure. There has been a
    similar broadening in the scope of contributions of our
    language analysts, who are now going well beyond their
    traditional applications to tackle network exploitation and
    signals intelligence development.
        The blurring of the lines between technical and analytic
    disciplines is an ongoing and inevitable outcome of the
    increasing technical nature of our work and the sophistication
    and complexity of the target. The continued need for competent
    and near-native language capability is also critical to our
    success.
        How have our skill needs changed over the last several
    years? Well, in the mid 1990's, NSA looked to technology as the
    solution for many of the complex challenges and focused its
    hiring and development initiatives on technical skills at the
    expense of language and analysts.
        However, the loss over the last several years of
    experienced linguists and analysts has created difficulties for
    the agency in the areas of target knowledge, less commonly
    taught languages and training for the next generation.
        As we strive for a better balance, we have tried to
    maintain a robust and fairly consistent mathematics hiring
    program, looked more to private industry and contracting for
    technical skills, reenergized our linguist and analyst hiring,
    and revitalized our cryptologic reserve program.
        The Department of Defense and its components develop and
    maintain strategies and programs for ensuring the recruitment
    and professional development of its employees, and NSA is
    taking full advantage of a wide variety of these programs under
    our existing authorities. NSA has hired approximately half its
    fiscal year 2002 hiring program to date, building on the
    successes of a successful last year.
        Like many other agencies, NSA has struggled in the past to
    attract top talent to the government, yet we have had success
    in attracting new recruits with the quality, complexity, depth,
    and scope of our work, our commitment to continuing education
    and development, paying of foreign language bonuses and
    incentives, targeted hiring and retention bonuses, continuing
    education opportunities and work life initiatives. All those
    benefits and programs notwithstanding, the market continues to
    be a challenge for us.
        In conclusion, our people remain the key to NSA's future.
    We are committed to recruiting, hiring, and retaining highly
    educated, technically sophisticated and readily adaptable core
    of skilled individuals required to meet the mission challenges
    posed by the new targets and technologies. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for giving us the
    opportunity to speak to you today.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I would like to thank
    all of you for your statements. I have some questions for you
    and the Subcommittee has questions. Nearly a year ago, OPM
    issued regulations for the current Student Loan Repayment
    Authority after Senators Durbin, Voinovich and I added an
    amendment to the DoD Authorization Act to ensure the program's
    implementation.
        As you know, departments now have the authority to provide
    this recruitment and retention incentive using funds from their
    existing salary and expense accounts. Mindful of agencies'
    expanded homeland security missions, our bill would establish
    funding separate from S&E accounts for student loan repayment.
        The question is how are your agencies using this new
    flexibility and would your agencies increase the use of this
    authority if there was funding apart from the S&E accounts? Mr.
    Winstead.
        Mr. Winstead. As you pointed out, the regulations on this
    new program were implemented last year, and in fact the final
    regulations were not issued until I believe August or late
    July. So there was really only a couple of months left in the
    fiscal year for agencies to put together their plans. We know
    that several agencies have, in fact, used this new authority,
    and we have information about how those agencies have used the
    authority.
        It has been used so far in only a handful of cases. We are
    confident, however, that as agencies become more familiar with
    the use of this program that their use of this flexibility will
    continue to increase.
        I would have to defer to other agencies regarding the
    question about how they would use this program if separate
    funding were available. My only observation on that point is
    that our belief is that it is important if we are going to be
    holding agencies accountable for how they are using their
    resources to make sure that they make the case for the use of
    additional funds, to build that into their own budget request,
    so that we can hold them accountable for the use of their
    salaries and expenses funding for that purpose, and that is the
    way that we would prefer to see this program operated.
        Senator Akaka. Ms. Farrar.
        Ms. Farrar. As I said, we just recently again got our
    provisions in place, so it would be very difficult for me to
    answer. I do not know yet how what we have now is going to
    assist us, whether the money came from some other place or from
    the FBI's funding. It would be difficult now to know whether or
    not the difference, being able to manage it ourselves, using
    our own money, how that would counter with using someone else's
    money, but also having to follow the guidance and regulations
    there. It is just too soon for me to know the answer.
        Senator Akaka. Ms. Whiteside.
        Ms. Whiteside. As I mentioned, sir, we are only just now
    designing our program under this. We have identified in our
    current S&E account $2 million for this fiscal year for the
    program. It is already clear to us what the demand is and the
    categories of positions we will be considering for student loan
    repayments--which are less than the maximum allowed under this
    legislation. We are also still in the very early stages of
    defining our target populations and organizing our
    implementation.
        Senator Akaka. Ms. Groeber.
        Ms. Groeber. The department issued its student loan
    repayment plan in October of last year. Both the Army and the
    Navy have published their plans and the other components are
    working on them. We particularly are interested in your plans
    on increasing those amounts because we do think that is going
    to be key for the future. So we support that initiative in the
    legislation.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Yes. We are in the early stages also of looking
    at that tool, though it can prove to be a very good tool in the
    toolbox in terms of recruitment and hiring.
        Senator Akaka. GAO will testify this afternoon that,
    ``Foreign Service officers must be placed in language
    designated positions at lower than desired levels of
    proficiency.'' S. 1800 would help break the cycle of having a
    shortfall of applicants who are fully language qualified.
        Rather than having to increase staff to train people in
    languages, our bill and its companion, S. 1799, would train and
    provide incentives for individuals to obtain the necessary
    skills before joining the State Department and not after.
        Is that the goal in the Department of State's diplomatic
    readiness initiative and, if not, shouldn't it be?
        Ms. Whiteside. I think, sir, it is a combination of goals
    of which that is certainly one. We do very much focus our
    recruiting on individuals who already have language skills. We
    do not in the Foreign Service make that a requirement for
    entry. There are a variety of reasons for that. The Foreign
    Service is a worldwide service. We expect our Foreign Service
    officers over the course of a 30-year career not just to serve
    in one country or even in one region, but to be available, as
    our foreign policy requirements are, to be available for
    worldwide service.
        So most of them over the course of a career often will
    bring one language into the Service with them, but then will
    acquire another language or perhaps two other languages in the
    course of their careers. So I think the answer is targeted
    recruiting to people with language skills is a very key
    component, and that is why a program such as the National
    Security Education Act or the kinds of fellowship programs
    envisioned here would be very helpful.
        But as our foreign policy requirements change from year to
    year, I think we also believe we need to keep this flexible
    capacity to train our people as well and to retrain them and to
    strengthen their skills. We often find people who have not
    served in a country where they have the language for some years
    will spend 3, 4, or 6 months back at the Foreign Service
    Institute getting that skill back up to the level of
    proficiency that they require.
        So we support both the goal of increasing the pool of
    talent that can bring languages into the service, but we also
    believe that we need to continue to meet our requirements by
    being able to move quickly to train people in languages as
    those needs emerge.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Winstead, S. 1800 establishes the
    National Security Service Board made up of OPM and certain
    Federal agencies. The board's function is to coordinate the
    bill's fellowship and employee rotation programs with workforce
    planning goals. By doing so, we hope to ensure that National
    Security Fellows locate meaningful and appropriate positions in
    the Federal Government.
        I understand that existing fellowship and recruitment
    programs are experiencing high attrition levels. This is
    particularly true of the President's Management Internship
    Program. Would you provide for the record what fellowship
    opportunities now exist, governmentwide, as well as those that
    target specific national security skills and include the number
    of participants in each program as well as the individual
    program recruitment retention and attrition levels?
        Mr. Winstead. We certainly can provide that information for
    the record. I did mention in my prepared testimony the
    Scholarship for Service Program that was initiated about 4
    years ago. And that is an example of the kind of fellowship
    program that I think does have the potential to be very
    successful. It was created in order to deal with information
    security issues, and it is one that is jointly operated,
    managed by the National Science Foundation and the Office of
    Personnel Management, and I think it has potential for being
    very successful in that regard, but we can provide information
    about all of the programs that are available at the present
    time for the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information referred to from Mr. Winstead appears in the
    Appendix on page 124.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Akaka. Ms. Farrar, in your testimony, you state
    that because FBI is in the excepted service, many of its
    employees would not be eligible for the loan repayment
    provisions in S. 1800. However, with the exception of the
    limitation on national security positions, S. 1800 mirrors the
    language of 5 U.S.C. Section 5379(a)(2), regarding ineligible
    employees.
        In addition, OPM has issued regulations on this provision
    which state that excepted service employees, those excepted
    from the competitive service, with the exception of Schedule C
    employees, may receive student loan repayment benefits if they
    are otherwise eligible.
        With this in mind, let me ask the following: (1) could you
    explain how S. 1800 would not be applicable to the majority of
    employees at the FBI; (2) if technical amendments are required
    to include the FBI under the provisions of this bill, do you
    have any suggested language; and (3) assuming then that you are
    included under S. 1800, how would the provisions of this bill
    assist you in recruiting and retaining highly qualified
    employees?
        Ms. Farrar. OK. It does sound--excuse me for one second--if
    the language is exactly the same as it is in the other bill,
    then it may be that the majority of our employees would be
    included as they are. Perhaps that is our misreading of the way
    that S. 1800 was written.
        If our employees were included in S. 1800, I think, as I
    said in my testimony, I believe it would expand the amount of
    money that would be available. Our question is we believe right
    now that we have been very successful in our recruiting
    campaign. That is at least our initial indications. We would
    want to save these kinds of flexibilities to recruit where we
    do find that we are having problems. Right now, because we are
    still in the early stages of our recruiting, we are not certain
    what those positions are going to be.
        They may well be in the foreign language area, but we have
    gotten so many applications, and as we are going through those,
    we are hopeful that we are going to be able to recruit the
    employees we need. I suspect S. 1800 and the other
    flexibilities that we have are going to be most useful for us
    for retention purposes than for recruiting.
        I would agree there is a big desire nowadays to join in
    public service, so I think that is helping our recruiting. As
    we move a couple of years down the road, these may be very
    helpful to us in our retention abilities.
        Senator Akaka. This is a question for FBI, Department of
    Defense, and NSA. How do your agencies identify which skills
    are needed, develop recruitment strategies, and make your
    agencies attractive to individuals with science and technology
    backgrounds? Ms. Farrar.
        Ms. Farrar. The Administrative Services Division is
    responsible for developing the FBI's hiring strategies, our
    recruiting strategies and identifying what our skill needs are,
    and we do that by working with our field managers and also
    working with the individual program managers at FBI
    Headquarters to tell us what particular skills they believe are
    needed to make their program successful.
        For instance, I would go to Mrs. Gulotta in the Language
    Services Section to find out what the demands have been. She
    would be working with the program managers to see what foreign
    languages are in most need for us to be successful in our
    investigative programs, and then we design our recruiting
    strategies around what our program managers tell us are the
    needed skills.
        Senator Akaka. Ms. Groeber.
        Ms. Groeber. We identify the skills necessary based upon
    what we have projected is going to occur in the world and
    looking at it from the mission perspective of the two theater
    war initiatives that we would be able to support.
        New things that crop up, such as September 11, add
    something to our planning scenario, and we try to overlay that
    into what skills would be necessary at that time and add that
    into the mix. We receive all of that information from the
    components, and at the Secretary's level, we assist in them
    figuring out how we can indeed provide those employees with
    those skills.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Yes. We do a skills mix analysis against our
    strategic goals and that transformation that we talked about,
    taking into account those people that are attriting and leaving
    the agency and those skills that are necessary to prosecute our
    future mission. To go after these folks we have an aggressive
    hiring campaign. We are out at over 100 schools during the
    recruiting season, and one of the things that we found that is
    really attracting people is the nature of the work itself, and
    we have taken to bringing a lot of our technical experts, our
    actual operational people, to talk to the students so they can
    understand the nature of the work that needs to be done, and
    that hooks people in.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. And I would like to
    yield to Senator Cochran for his questions.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Winstead, it
    is clear that this legislation would place some new
    requirements on the Office of Personnel Management. Do you know
    or could you advise us at this point whether you would need
    additional resources to accomplish the demands of the new
    workload?
        Mr. Winstead. Well, I think it is clear that if we were to
    be administering a fund, clearly there would have to be
    additional resources that would have to be devoted to funding
    the payments, and in addition I think there would be some
    additional administrative expenses associated with doing that.
    Exactly how much at this point I am not in a position to say.
        Senator Cochran. Ms. Farrar, the FBI was recently singled
    out in a study by the General Accounting Office entitled
    ``Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and
    Proficiency Shortfalls.'' In that reference, they talked about
    your use of the OPM workforce planning model. Could you tell us
    how you find that process helpful to you? Are you familiar with
    the workforce planning model of OPM?
        Ms. Farrar. I did not have an opportunity to read that
    report, but Mrs. Gulotta is familiar with it, and she is in
    charge of the Language Services.
        Ms. Gulotta. Actually it has been very helpful. It all
    starts with the FBI strategic plan, and we have a foreign
    language program plan that goes along with it that sets actual
    milestones and strategic objectives. We poll our field managers
    and our program managers at headquarters to find out what the
    crime or intelligence objectives are, and then we set our
    language goals and we measure them against workload
    measurements that we have.
        Every year, we set targeted hiring goals by language. And
    we do that for special agents where we actually have targeted
    languages that we are looking for for special agents, and also
    for our language specialists where we have a funded staffing
    level, and we have a specific amount of people that we can
    hire.
        Senator Cochran. I congratulate you for winning the praise
    of the GAO.
        Ms. Gulotta. Thank you very much, sir. We are very happy
    about that.
        Senator Cochran. Let me ask if you have any suggestions
    about additional measures that would be useful in improving our
    ability to recruit and retain personnel with skills that are
    critical to national security needs? You or Ms. Farrar or Mr.
    Winstead?
        Mr. Winstead. Sure. I can respond to that. We mentioned the
    President's Managerial Flexibility Act in our testimony. There
    are a number of provisions in that proposed legislation that I
    think would be helpful to national security agencies as well as
    to other Federal agencies.
        For example, we would like to build on the recruitment,
    relocation, and retention payments that are currently in law to
    make them more flexible and easier to use and also to permit
    them to be delivered in more effective ways to current
    employees and to candidates for employment.
        In addition, we have in that legislation authority to
    directly hire candidates for certain kinds of positions for
    which there is a shortage of candidates or a critical hiring
    need, and also the ability if that legislation were to be
    enacted to use alternative ranking and selection procedures
    which would also facilitate hiring not only for national
    security agencies and employees but also for other employees as
    well.
        Senator Cochran. This is the legislation the president has
    recommended?
        Mr. Winstead. Yes.
        Senator Cochran. Is it not? And that has been introduced. I
    think some witnesses have already referred to the legislation.
        Mr. Winstead. That is correct.
        Senator Akaka. I think Senator Thompson and Senator
    Voinovich have introduced that bill at the request of the
    administration, and I am sure it will be a measure that will be
    carefully considered in this Subcommittee as we move forward in
    our effort to try to do something legislatively to help improve
    the situation.
        We really do need to find ways to improve recruitment and
    retention. Ms. Whiteside, you talked about some of these
    challenges in your statement. We appreciate your being here. Do
    you have any comments now about what you think the bill itself
    would or would not do? Are we overstating it or should we
    include something that we have left out? What are your views?
        Ms. Whiteside. I think, sir, my views, to echo what my
    colleagues have said there really is a war for talent out
    there, and we know that many, many young people want to join
    and do the work we do. We need ways to shorten our own process
    for getting them in the door. We are working very hard on that
    internally. We have reduced our own Foreign Service process
    from the time someone takes the exam to entering the Foreign
    Service from 27 months to about 10 months, and we are moving
    that down even more.
        But I think tools, for example, that might give fellowship
    participants some sort of non-competitive eligibility. It takes
    us still nearly a year to bring a new Foreign Service employee
    in the door. That is partly because we, like most agencies,
    have very serious and exacting security clearance requirements
    that may not be there for other agencies, but we find that some
    of the folks who would like to join the Department are quite
    young and in many cases just out of school and not particularly
    experienced. For them, the sort of normal civil service
    competitive process becomes something that they are just not
    particularly willing to invest the time to do.
        So anything that shortens that process gives agencies more
    flexibility to reach out and find the people they need. I would
    also emphasize our concern right now probably more than
    recruitment are retention issues: For example, as people move
    through their careers into the mid-ranks, have families,
    particularly for overseas employees, where family issues and
    the inability of spouses often to work, means that many of our
    Foreign Service employees cannot really have a two-income
    family overseas that is often the norm here. Our retention
    issues really are increasingly as or more important for us than
    recruiting.
        Senator Cochran. Ms. Groeber, I was going to ask you
    particularly about the high attrition rate among Army language
    specialists, and am wondering whether or not you have an
    opinion about the issues that lead to that high attrition rate
    and whether you have thoughts about what could be done to curb
    the exodus of skilled personnel?
        Ms. Groeber. You are talking about the military specialist?
        Senator Cochran. Yes.
        Ms. Groeber. I would have to get back to you and provide
    that for the record since I am not an expert on the military
    side.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Requested information from Ms. Groeber appears in the Appendix
    on page 148.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Cochran. OK. Mr. Davis, you mentioned in your
    statement, the market--and I quote here--``The market continues
    to be a challenge for us.''
        I wonder if you have any plans or past practices in
    developmental programs with universities to improve your
    ability to recruit qualified personnel for the National
    Security Agency?
        Mr. Davis. Yes. And, sir, we use our math program as really
    an example of that, and what we found is that the sooner you
    get in contact with students, the better chance you have to
    employ them. So, in terms, for example, in our mathematics
    area, we have things called the Mathematics Education
    Partnership Program, where we have a math speakers bureau, an
    NSA partnership with schools, we have summer institutes, camps
    for teachers and students, educational partnerships and grants,
    excess equipment program, USA Math Talent Search, and we are--
    in the math community, we are locked in with key professors who
    make decisions at the universities as well as the math
    community throughout the country.
        So using that as a model and moving that to other skills,
    that would be the direction that we would be moving in.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. I want
    to thank you for your statements and your responses. All of
    that will be useful to this Subcommittee. Thank you very much.
        I am pleased to welcome the Hon. Lee H. Hamilton, Director
    of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, as our
    second panelist.
        Mr. Hamilton served for 34 years as a U.S. Congressman from
    Indiana, where he was chairman of the Committee on
    International Relations. Mr. Hamilton was also chairman of the
    Joint Economic Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence.
        In his own State of Indiana, Mr. Hamilton has worked hard
    to improve the education, job training, and infrastructure
    programs of its citizens, and is now Director of the Center on
    Congress Project at Indiana University. It is a pleasure to
    welcome a friend that I had the privilege to serve with in the
    U.S. House of Representatives. So thank you very much for being
    here today, and you may proceed with your statement.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. LEE H. HAMILTON,\1\ DIRECTOR OF THE WOODROW
    WILSON CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS, FORMER MEMBER OF THE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

        Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman and Senator Cochran, thank you
    for the opportunity. I really do commend you and your
    Subcommittee and its Members for tackling this problem of the
    human dimension to national security. I think I am here largely
    not so much because of my congressional experience but because
    I served on the U.S. Commission on National Security for the
    21st Century, and they devoted a considerable part of their
    report to the problems that you are addressing here in S. 1800
    and S. 1799.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton appears in the Appendix
    on page 73.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        You may know that two of your former colleagues headed that
    commission, Senators Rudman and Hart, and that it was initially
    established by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Cohen and I think
    the idea for the commission arose with Speaker Gingrich, and he
    served on the commission. But one of the unanimous points of
    the commission--we really had no disagreement on this at all--
    it was a principal conclusion, was that the Federal Government
    must focus more attention and resources on the human
    requirements for national security.
        There was a real sense of urgency among members of the
    commission on that. You look at so many things when you
    consider national security, and all of them are important I
    guess, but anybody who operates any kind of an organization
    will tell you that in the end, it is the people that count. Are
    they qualified, committed people? And I do not care how good
    your technology is or how good your system is, if you do not
    have good people you are not going to get good results.
        We said that the maintenance of American power in the world
    depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil and
    military at all levels. And we said that we must take immediate
    action in the personnel area to ensure that the United States
    can meet future challenges.
        We considered this business of qualified personnel to be of
    fundamental importance to the national security of the United
    States. And we felt that the need of the U.S. Government in
    both civilian and military capacities, but particularly people
    in science, math, engineering, and languages, was not being met
    by the present system and that something had to be done.
        We emphasized the importance of promoting high quality
    education in these areas, which we deemed critical to the
    national security, and we concluded that the capacity of our
    educational system to create a 21st Century workforce second to
    none in the world is a national security issue of the first
    order.
        And if we do not reverse the negative trends--the general
    teaching shortage, the downward spiral in science and math
    education and performance, we will not be able to maintain our
    position of global leadership.
        So that is the principal point. There was among all of us
    with all of our different political views and ideologies a
    unanimous, strongly felt conclusion of the urgency of this
    problem. And in today's world, we need those kind of people. We
    found that the U.S. Government has not focused sufficiently on
    the fit between the missions it has, on the one hand and the
    personnel it needs, on the other.
        Now, I do not want to in any way cast doubt upon the people
    who preceded me. They are all experts on government personnel,
    and I am not. I know they are very well intentioned, and I am
    sure they have a good many suggestions to make to Members of
    this Subcommittee, but I think what we find missing here
    something that cuts across departments and agencies and gives
    overall direction to our personnel needs now and in the future.
        The national security workforce--let me focus on that for
    just a minute--we face, as they said a moment ago, a serious
    problem in attracting and retaining talented people. I am not
    sure I heard enough of the testimony, but I got the impression
    that they are at least moderately satisfied with the way the
    present systems are working.
        We would not agree with that. We do not think that the
    present system, however described, is working satisfactorily.
    Part of the problem, of course, is that the private sector can
    attract these talented people with higher salaries.
        An additional problem, we think, is that the civil service
    today simply does not offer the kind of opportunities for
    growth and development that you get in the private sector
    today. And we supported the idea that, I think, is incorporated
    in S. 1800 of a National Security Service Corps. We recommended
    the establishment of that corps to broaden the experience base
    of departmental managers and to develop leaders who are skilled
    at producing integrated solutions to the national security
    problems.
        So I strongly support S. 1800 for the establishment of that
    National Security Service Corps. I think that it correctly
    points out that it would help to invigorate the national
    security community.
        One of the things we said in our report, and I am
    paraphrasing now, is that there is no place in the U.S.
    Government where science and technology personnel assets, as a
    whole, are assessed against the changing needs. We have had a
    lot of studies made of this in the government. The General
    Accounting Office has looked at it. The Congressional Research
    Service has looked at it. The now defunct Office of Technology
    Assessment has explored the issue.
        They look at individual departments and individual
    agencies, and indeed it is interesting that the people
    preceding me were, I think, from five or six different agencies
    or departments all looking at the problem as they should from
    their particular perspective, the FBI's perspective, the Office
    of Personnel Management perspective, and so forth.
        But we felt that no one above the departmental level
    examines the appropriateness of this fit between missions and
    personnel in the area as a whole. I cannot speak for all of the
    commissioners obviously, but your proposals with regard to
    student loan payment and fellowships, I think are on the mark.
        We made very similar recommendations in the National
    Security Commission Report. We recommended the deferral of
    student loan repayments for individuals who serve in government
    for a period of time. And we proposed the Congress expand the
    National Security Education Act to include broad support for
    social sciences, humanities and foreign languages.
        Now I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether you are also
    interested in my comments on S. 1799 as well, or do you just
    want me to confine my remarks to S. 1800?
        Senator Akaka. Why do you not proceed with that?
        Mr. Hamilton. OK. I will try to be quick with regard to S.
    1799. We concluded here that the need for trained people in
    science and math, computer sciences, and engineering is simply
    not being met, and we found, for example, that more than
    240,000 new and qualified science and math teachers are needed
    in our K through 12 classrooms over the next decade. That is
    out of a total of 2.2 million new teachers.
        We found that some 34 percent of public school mathematics
    teachers and nearly 40 percent of science teachers lack even an
    academic minor in their primary teaching fields. We found that
    in 1997, Asia alone accounted for more than 43 percent of all
    science and engineering degrees granted worldwide; Europe, 34
    percent; and North America, 23 percent.
        In that same year, China produced 148,000 engineers. We
    produced 63,000 engineers. So something has to be done to
    accelerate the development of more qualified people in these
    areas. We all understand why students do not go into science
    and math--they are hard subjects, and you have to work hard in
    college to tackle those subjects, and I think you have admired,
    as I have admired, people that do that, and you have also, each
    of you, I am sure, sat on university platforms and watched
    students receiving engineering, mathematics, computer science
    degrees, and said to yourself a large proportion of those folks
    are non-American.
        Senator Akaka. Absolutely.
        Mr. Hamilton. Are foreigners. And they are the ones that
    are getting the degrees, the advanced degrees in these
    difficult subjects. That is to their credit and not to our
    credit that it is happening.
        So, we need to produce significantly more scientists and
    engineers to meet our anticipated demand, not just for the
    economy but also for the national defense of the country, and
    they have to be produced, I think, fairly quickly.
        I might note when I talked about the private sector a
    moment ago that the average salary of an entering science and
    math professional in the private sector today is $50,000. That
    compares with $25,000 for the average starting teacher, and
    keep in mind, as you very well know, that almost all these
    students today that are graduating from college do so with
    considerable bills to pay, loans to be repaid. So the salary
    level makes a bigger difference than you might initially think
    when you look at it.
        S. 1799, you forgive the interest payments on student loans
    for undergraduates that are pursuing these degrees. The only
    criticism I would make of that is that I do not think you go
    far enough. Just forgiving the interest payments, I do not
    think is going to help that much. I am for it, but I think you
    ought to consider forgiving some of the principle as well.
        I know that costs more money and you have to wrestle with
    the priority question, but I think this is an urgent matter.
    And I would like to see the student loan repayments extended to
    the graduate as well as the undergraduate students, and I think
    your bill just extends them to the undergraduates. But I
    support S. 1799 because I think it is aimed at this exceedingly
    difficult problem that we confront.
        Now, let me just comment, if I may, on the testimony here.
    They took the view that there are numerous programs in place
    that promote the goals of this legislation. They say that there
    are rotations within the Federal agencies, and that they have
    student loan repayments and fellowships to encourage people to
    go into the government service.
        They also argue that the legislation that is pending before
    this Subcommittee creates a centralized program that would
    increase the bureaucracy and reduce the flexibility of
    individual agencies. There is something to that, but I think I
    take the opposite view, and that is given the urgency that
    exists in the country, we need someone in this government at a
    pretty high level asking the question what are the needs in
    terms of national security personnel and how do we get the
    personnel to meet those needs, rather than to look at it on an
    individual agency or department level.
        That is important, but you need more central direction. Now
    they make the point that you have to have some flexibility, and
    I think we would all agree with that. So you have got to strike
    the right balance here in your legislation. Overall, I think,
    as I read the testimony that was presented to you a moment ago,
    what comes through to me is a lack of urgency, and I think what
    the commission members felt, look, you can talk all you want
    about missiles and armaments and new weapon systems and
    everything else, but we had better begin to focus in this
    country on getting qualified people forward in these tough
    disciplines, including, may I say, the foreign languages where
    we are woefully deficient.
        So I think more money is needed. Now they claim that they
    have incentive programs, and they do in these departments and
    agencies, but the incentives have to be drawn, as I understand
    it, from the pool of money that is there for salaries and so
    the administrator has to make tradeoffs, incentives for
    salaries, and I think you need additional resources so you do
    not put the administrator in that kind of a box.
        In other words, you need to give him money to provide
    additional incentives, and that money must not come out of the
    pool for salaries. We have got a wave of Federal Government
    retirements coming up. We have this tremendous need for people
    with these skills, and so I think, to conclude, it is a matter
    of the highest importance to the national security of the
    United States, nothing is any of higher importance than to
    resolve this shortage of qualified people in the technical
    skills without which your national security apparatus cannot
    function well. Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. You and I
    have known one another for awhile, and my only question for you
    is that having listened to or read the testimony of our first
    panel, how would you answer those who fault S. 1800 and S. 1799
    for making math, science, and engineering a priority?
        Mr. Hamilton. Well, I just think that is where we are short
    of talent and not just mildly short. We are desperately short
    of talent. One of the witnesses a moment ago used a phrase I
    thought was pretty good. We have got ``a war for talent'' going
    on out there, and believe you me, the private sector needs
    these people. You all know how diligently top math and science
    engineering, computer science people are recruited by the
    private sector.
        They have got this problem figured out. They know they have
    got to have a steady stream of talented people coming into
    their organization or they are not going to be able to perform,
    and we are not either.
        Now, I was not a math or a science or an engineering
    student for abundant reasons, but I know that is the talent
    that makes our technology go, and I know that technology is
    needed for our national security.
        Senator Akaka. I thank you for your----
        Mr. Hamilton. We have to give favor. We have to provide an
    additional incentive to those people.
        Senator Akaka. I thank you for pointing out what was
    missing. I take this is coming from all of your experiences in
    important positions for government, and thank you for pointing
    out that we need something that can cut across all agencies. I
    appreciate your support for setting up a national security
    service corps. All these things/ideas will be useful to this
    Subcommittee.
        And as I said, I had only one question to ask you so I am
    going to yield to my colleagues.
        Senator Cochran. Do you want to recognize George before you
    recognize me?
        Senator Akaka. Yes. May I recognize----
        Senator Voinovich. I just came in. Let Thad ask a question.
        Senator Cochran. I think you ought to.
        Senator Akaka [continuing]. Senator Voinovich for any
    statement he wishes to make.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH

        Senator Voinovich. I am going to ask that my statement be
    put in the record.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to commend you for
    holding this hearing on ``Critical Skills for National Security and the
    Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act.'' I would also like to welcome
    our witnesses and thank them for being here today.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, reforming the Federal Government's human
    capital management has been one of my highest priorities as a Member of
    this Committee, and I know that you share my concern with the human
    capital crisis. You have also been an important leader on this issue,
    and I want to thank you personally for attending all of the hearings I
    held on human capital during the time I chaired the Oversight of
    Government Management Subcommittee.
        In addition to today's hearing on S. 1800, you have scheduled two
    days of hearings next week on my legislation, S. 1603, The Federal
    Human Capital Act of 2001, and the proposal I introduced on behalf of
    the Bush Administration with Senator Thompson, S. 1639, the Federal
    Employee Management Reform Act of 2001, and I would like to further
    thank you for agreeing to hold these hearings.
        In addition to the Committee's activities, other government offices
    and agencies are addressing the human capital crisis. Indeed, David
    Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, designated strategic
    human capital management as a governmentwide high-risk area in January
    2001, and has also made elevating the profile of and developing
    solutions to this problem a top priority. In August of last year, the
    Bush Administration designated strategic management of human capital as
    its number one governmentwide management initiative.
        In short, a great deal of action has been taken to address this
    issue over the last several years, and we are daily building momentum
    for the passage of reform legislation in Congress.
        It is my sincere hope that we can advance legislation through the
    Governmental Affairs Committee this spring that will incorporate the
    best elements of the various legislative proposals that are before us.
    I am extremely optimistic that we can enact legislation this year that
    will really make a difference to the Federal workforce.
        However, we do so knowing that this is but a down payment on
    reform, and that a comprehensive examination of issues such as pay,
    health care benefits, outsourcing (which, as you know, the Committee
    examined this issue last week), and the operations of Federal agencies
    is an urgently needed next step.
        Mr. Chairman, last March, the Subcommittee on Oversight of
    Government Management held a similar hearing on the national security
    implications of the human capital crisis. As the former Chairman of
    that Subcommittee, I had hoped to hold more hearings on the issue, but
    I am pleased you have called this hearing to carry-on this important
    discussion.
        At the hearing last March, witnesses from the Hart-Rudman
    Commission, the Department of Defense and the General Accounting Office
    testified about how the Federal Government's human capital challenges
    were endangering America's national security establishment and the
    ability of the government to defend our Nation and its interests around
    the world.
        Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, in discussing the
    conclusions of the Hart-Rudman Commission, made the following
    insightful observation:

              ``As it enters the 21st Century, the United States finds
            itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in
            government. The maintenance of American power in the world
            depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil and
            military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in the
            personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet future
            challenges.''

        Secretary Schlesinger added further:

              ``. . . it is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel
            problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else
            that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national
            security policy.''

        Who would dispute Dr. Schlesinger's assertion?
        We know all too well that there are nations and organizations
    around the world that have evil intentions against the United States.
        The best way for the United States to address our national security
    is to first and foremost confront our personnel deficit in the Armed
    Forces, the intelligence community, Federal law enforcement and our
    ``front line'' of defense--our state and local police, fire and
    emergency services.
        Other committees are looking at why our intelligence establishment
    failed to predict or prevent the attacks of September 11, but I fully
    believe that when you peel away the layers, it will come down to the
    fact that we had people with inadequate skills minding the store.
        We need to work overtime, Mr. Chairman, to bring the right mix of
    people into the Federal Government if we are to confront and defeat
    terrorism. Our nation's security literally hangs in the balance.
        Mr. Chairman, you and I have joined Senators Durbin, Thompson and
    other Members of this Committee in introducing S. 1799 and S. 1800,
    bills which are based, in part, on the recommendations of the Hart-
    Rudman panel.
        These bills include important flexibilities and innovative programs
    designed to make the Federal Government a more attractive employer for
    applicants with academic and professional background in areas critical
    to national security.
        For example, CIA Director Tenet recently noted that, within 3
    years, between 30 and 40 percent of his workforce will have been there
    for 5 years or less. He proposed overhauling the compensation system to
    help keep the ``best and brightest,'' and those with more experience at
    the Agency.
        Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Director Tenet's statement is
    that the CIA already has many more personnel flexibilities than most
    other Federal agencies in the national security community. One can only
    imagine how much worse the condition of the workforce is at such
    agencies.
        In recent months, we have received ample evidence of one such
    deficiency (which has been examined previously by Senator Cochran).
    Federal agencies--from the State Department to the FBI--have a severe
    shortage of employees who are proficient in foreign languages that are
    critical to U.S. national security.
        A recent article in Government Executive stated that, because of
    problems with its personnel databases, the State Department did not
    even know how many Foreign Service Officers lack the language skills
    that their positions required. However, their estimates ranged from 16
    to 50 percent!
        Mr. Chairman, I still think it's incredible that in the aftermath
    of September 11, we had to advertise for people who speak Arabic and
    Farsi.
        Ambassador Whiteside, given your background as the former director
    of the Foreign Service Institute where FSOs receive language training,
    I will be interested in learning what the State Department is doing to
    address this problem.
        Congress has taken some action to alleviate the skills imbalances
    in the civilian workforce at the Department of Defense. Over the last 2
    years, I have successfully amended the Department of Defense
    authorization act to provide the Department with separation incentives
    and early retirement authority to reshape its civilian workforce to
    meet future challenges.
        I am particularly eager to hear from Ms. Groeber on how the Defense
    Department is managing this program, and I would like to compliment her
    office on its recent release of the implementation guidelines which
    provide the military departments and base leaders significant
    flexibility in the use of these authorities. The Defense Department's
    use of this authority may well become an example for the entire
    government.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would note that over a decade has
    passed since the first Volcker Commission met and declared that the
    Federal Government has a ``quiet crisis'' in the area of human capital.
    Still, little has been done to address this problem.
        The events of September 11 demonstrate that the United States
    doesn't have the luxury of another decade before our government moves
    to comprehensively address the human capital crisis--particularly in
    our security agencies.
        It is encouraging that Mr. Volcker is convening a second commission
    to further examine this problem, and I look forward to that panel's
    analysis.
        However, that is not a reason to wait. We must act.
        The swift passage of human capital legislation, building on the
    base of such bills as S. 1800 and S. 1603, is needed this year, and I
    look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, in order to make it
    happen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today's discussion.

        Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka knows and so does Senator
    Cochran, I have been working on this human capital crisis now
    for 3 years since I came to the Senate and we have
    comprehensive legislation that we introduced along with the
    administration's, and I am so pleased that Senator Akaka has
    put together this special piece of legislation that deals with
    our national security agencies.
        Congressman Hamilton, you have been around here a long
    time, and I am sorry I am late for this hearing, but I was in
    another hearing with Senator Jeffords. We had Joe Allbaugh in
    there, and he is going to have this new first responder
    initiative in FEMA. So everybody is talking about what he
    should do, and I asked him, Joe, where are you in terms of your
    personnel? He said I am in awful shape. I do not have enough
    people. And he said many people are coming to me and they are
    retiring early. He said that, after September 11, they decided
    they wanted to spend more time with their wives and their
    families. And now that they have a chance, they are going to
    retire, and they are leaving.
        And we have ourselves a really difficult situation. And it
    is not only in national security, but it is right across the
    board. The question is how do we light a fire under this issue
    and underscore the urgency of our vulnerability right now? I
    have read the Hart-Rudman Commission's report. Senator Cochran,
    you have been around here for many years. How do we get our
    colleagues to understand how urgent this is?
        I mean we are talking about, for example, spending billions
    of dollars on a National Missile Defense System. It seems to me
    that the No. 1 thing that we should be concentrating our
    attention on is how do we keep ``the best and the brightest,''
    and how do we attract ``the best and the brightest'' to the
    Federal Government in terms of say, intelligence agents and
    diplomats and a lot of other positions?
        So the question is: How in the world do we get this
    government to understand how important it is that we do
    something about it?
        Mr. Hamilton. Well, I believe you have to pay more for
    people, and I am all for the other incentives.
        Senator Voinovich. Let me just say this. We have had a
    comparability study around here, and we have not done anything
    with it because it costs money.
        Mr. Hamilton. That is correct.
        Senator Voinovich. And so you are saying we ought to look
    at that?
        Mr. Hamilton. Absolutely. And I think, look, we all know
    the civil service is rigid, and it discourages talent, and so
    one of the members of our commission was Norman Augustine, who
    headed Lockheed, and he said, look, we are spending a lot of
    time talking about terrorism, and we are talking about missile
    defense, and we are talking about all these fancy things, and
    difficult solutions. He said you have got to consider the civil
    service reform as a fundamental part of national security.
    Managers cannot manage today. They cannot hire. They cannot
    fire.
        And you have great rigidity in the system. I think Mr.
    Augustine was exactly right in it. Now, you have got to have
    other incentives, but these people that excel in the sciences,
    we know them to be very bright people. They are going to
    succeed no matter what happens. They are going to find a way to
    succeed.
        Senator Voinovich. Congressman Hamilton, the issue is how
    do we communicate to the members of Appropriations committees,
    to the Armed Services Committee, and to some of these other
    committees around here that we have this very terrible problem
    in terms of people?
        Mr. Hamilton. Well, you persuade your colleagues by
    conversation.
        Senator Voinovich. I am just saying you can answer better
    than I can.
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes. You persuade your colleagues by
    conversation. You do not persuade them by speeches. And it just
    takes persistence again and again and again. You have got a
    good case to make, and I think you can make it with your
    colleagues.
        That is the best I can say. You have just got to talk to
    them one on one. But, look, the National Security Commission is
    not by itself with these recommendations. You have had a half a
    dozen other commissions all make the same recommendations. You
    have had all of these experts about government who are
    preaching a common theme here, and maybe eventually that will
    get through to your colleagues. I think it will.
        It takes time to move this government, but it moves over
    time. I think that puts the burden on you, Senator, and your
    two colleagues here, but it can be done.
        Senator Akaka. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I think
    you make an excellent point, Congressman Hamilton, when you say
    that we need somebody to take the broad overview of the
    situation, somebody to look at the broad needs of the
    government for personnel that can help protect our security. I
    think that is what the President has stepped forward and
    recommended.
        As a matter of fact, he has brought into the government
    someone who has just that role, the Advisor to the President
    for Homeland Security, and that is one of the missions, as I
    understand it. So I think that we are seeing a very important
    step in that direction being made by President Bush.
        But we do need, I think, the underpinning of new
    authorities for Federal departments to use incentives to go
    after people who they want and need and they have to compete
    for, and with the incentives of forgiveness of student loans,
    scholarship programs designed to bring the graduates as they
    come out of college into the National Security Agency or
    whatever agency it is. We do that in the military, as a matter
    of fact.
        We have scholarship programs for ROTC students trying to
    recruit talented young men and women who will commit to service
    in the military after they graduate from college, and these
    were programs that were begun back when you and I were in--
    well, you were maybe a year older or two. I remember you were a
    basketball star. You had a good excuse for not going to
    engineering lab when you were in college. [Laughter.]
        You had other responsibilities and talents.
        Mr. Hamilton. I was not smart enough to get into
    engineering. That is the fact of the matter.
        Senator Cochran. I think we do need to marshal our
    resources and to have someone at the highest level of our
    government to help ensure that is done. That is an excellent
    point.
        And your other observations are very helpful to the
    Subcommittee. I know you are in demand, and you have a lot of
    places you could be, but we appreciate very much your taking
    time to come testify before our Subcommittee today.
        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Senator Cochran. It is more than
    just financial incentives. I mean scientists need collegiality.
    They need to be able to talk with one another. That is the way
    the world of science moves forward, and so you have to create
    an environment for them in which they can consult not only with
    their colleagues in their particular area, but to consult with
    similar scientists all over the world.
        These scientific meetings are enormously important, because
    we do not have a monopoly on science in this country. That is
    part of it to create that collegiality, and I think that one of
    the good things that may have come out of September 11 is the
    sense of mission, and I think the people that preceded us here
    talked about that, that they now find much more interest in
    serving the national security of the United States, and that is
    an important factor. We want to take advantage of that.
        I very much hope that Governor Ridge, whom I consider as
    you do to be an excellent choice, will make this among his
    priorities. Homeland defense needs these kinds of people very
    much, and I think he will. I am pleased to hear that.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. Well, if there are no further questions for
    Mr. Hamilton, I want to say thank you so much for being here,
    Congressman Hamilton.
        Mr. Hamilton. My pleasure. Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. And we thank you for your statements.
        I would like to welcome our third panel, and ask you to
    take your places. I want to thank Dr. Susan Westin, Managing
    Director for International Affairs and Trade Issues at the
    General Accounting Office, and Dr. Ray Clifford, Chancellor of
    the Defense Language Institute, for being with us today.
        I would like to thank GAO for their report on foreign
    language proficiencies in the Federal Government. So Dr.
    Westin, will you please proceed with your statement? Your full
    statements will be made a part of the record.

        TESTIMONY OF SUSAN S. WESTIN,\1\ MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR
    INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING
                                 OFFICE

        Ms. Westin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss our
    recently completed report on foreign language proficiency and
    personnel shortfalls at four Federal agencies: The U.S. Army,
    the Department of State, the Foreign Commercial Service, and
    the FBI.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Westin appears in the Appendix on
    page 79.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal agencies' foreign language needs have grown
    significantly over the past decade with increasing
    globalization and a changing security environment in light of
    such events as the breakup of the Soviet Union and the
    terrorist attacks of September 11. Foreign language skills are
    increasingly needed to support traditional diplomatic efforts
    and public diplomacy programs, military and peacekeeping
    missions, intelligence collection, counterterrorism efforts,
    and international trade.
        At the same time that Federal agencies find their needs for
    staff with foreign language skills increasing, these agencies
    have experienced significant reductions in force and no growth
    or limited growth environments during the last decade.
        As a result, some agencies must now contend with an aging
    core of language capable staff while recruiting and retaining
    qualified new staff in an increasingly competitive job market.
        Today, I will discuss three topics: (1) the nature and
    impact of foreign language proficiency and personnel shortages
    in these four Federal agencies; (2) the strategies that are
    being used to address these shortages; and (3) the efforts that
    have been made to address current and projected foreign
    language shortages.
        Let me address each of these in turn. First, all four
    Federal agencies covered in our review reported shortages of
    staff with foreign language skills that are critical to
    successful job performance. These staff include diplomats and
    intelligence specialists as well as translators and
    interpreters.
        The shortfalls varied significantly depending on the
    agency, job position, language, and skill level. To give just
    one example, the Army had a shortfall of 146 translators/
    interpreters in the critical languages of Arabic, Korean,
    Mandarin Chinese, Persian-Farsi, and Russian.
        These shortfalls can have a significant impact on agency
    operations. For example, the FBI has thousands of hours of
    audio tapes and pages of written material that have not been
    reviewed or translated due to the lack of qualified
    translators.
        In addition, the State Department has long suffered from a
    language proficiency shortfall whereby Foreign Service officers
    must be placed in language designated positions at lower than
    desired levels of proficiency. According to officials from all
    four agencies, these types of shortfalls have hindered the
    prosecution of criminal cases, limited the ability to identify,
    arrest and convict violent gang members, weaken the fight
    against international terrorism and drug trafficking and
    resulted in less effective representation of U.S. interests
    overseas.
        Second, the agencies we reviewed reported using a range of
    workforce strategies to fill their specific foreign language
    needs. These strategies included providing staff with language
    training and pay incentives, recruiting employees with foreign
    language skills or hiring contractors, or taking advantage of
    information technology.
        This technology includes using network computers and
    contractor databases to optimize existing foreign language
    resources. While these assortive efforts have had some success,
    current agency strategies have not fully met the need for some
    foreign language skills.
        Third, to help fill existing skill shortages, some agencies
    have begun to adopt a strategic approach to human capital
    management and workforce planning. OPM has issued a workforce
    planning model that illustrates the basic tenets of strategic
    workforce planning.
        We used this model to assess the relative maturity of
    workforce planning at the four agencies we reviewed. As shown
    in Figure 2 of my written statement \1\ and as reproduced here
    for you to see, this model suggests that agencies follow a 5-
    step process that includes setting a strategic direction,
    documenting the size and nature of skills gaps, developing an
    action plan to address these shortages, implementing the plan,
    and evaluating implementation progress on an ongoing basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Figure 2 appears in the Appendix on page 89.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is a model that could be used to guide workforce
    planning efforts as they relate to other skills needed in the
    Federal Government such as math, science, and information
    technology.
        We found that the FBI had made an effort to address each of
    the five steps in OPM's model. For example, the FBI has
    instituted an action plan that links its foreign language
    program to the Bureau's strategic objectives and program goals.
    This action plan defines strategies, performance measures,
    responsible parties, and resources needed to address current
    and projected language shortages.
        In contrast, the other three agencies have yet to pursue
    this type of comprehensive strategic planning, and have only
    completed some of the steps outlined in OPM's planning model.
        In closing, I would like to note that foreign language
    shortages have developed over a number of years. It will take
    time, perhaps years, to overcome this problem. Effective human
    capital management and workforce planning, however, offer a
    reasonable approach to resolving such long-standing problems.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
    concludes my prepared statement. I will, of course, be happy to
    answer any questions you have.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Dr. Clifford, please
    give your statement now.

       TESTIMONY OF DR. RAY T. CLIFFORD,\1\ CHANCELLOR, DEFENSE
                           LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

        Dr. Clifford. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I
    would like to provide a historical context for Dr. Westin's
    report. The first question faced by the founders of this
    Nation, I think, was what is important for the Nation to
    provide? Should, for instance, the teaching and learning of
    foreign languages be of national concern?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Clifford appears in the Appendix
    on page 92.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yes. Even the preamble to the Constitution of the United
    States specifically says that the Union was formed to insure
    domestic tranquility and to provide for the common defense.
        Many people in the world today speak English, but it is a
    reality that our enemies do not speak English when they are
    talking to each other about us. In today's world, national
    defense requires capability in foreign languages.
        Now, the shortage of citizens with foreign language skills
    in the United States is not a new phenomenon. The problem has
    been identified many times in the past, but interest has waned
    before systemic improvements have been implemented.
        Very few people know that in 1923, because of the distrust
    that had been created by World War I, that it was necessary for
    the Supreme Court to overturn laws in 22 states that restricted
    foreign language instruction.
        In 1940, the National Report, ``What the High Schools Ought
    to Teach,'' found that high schools' ``overly academic''
    curriculum was causing too many student failures. Foreign
    language instruction was among the subjects recommended for
    elimination. Foreign language instruction was not only
    difficult, it took so much time that new courses could not be
    added.
        1954. The publication ``The National Interest in Foreign
    Languages'' reported that only 14.2 percent of high school
    students were enrolled in foreign languages and most United
    States public high schools offered no foreign language
    instruction at all.
        1958. In response to Sputnik, the National Defense
    Education Act was passed to prepare more and better foreign
    language teachers. Immediate improvement was evident. Then
    funding waned and progress ceased.
        1975. The International Association for the Evaluation of
    Educational Achievement published the results of a research
    study titled ``The Teaching of French as a Foreign Language in
    Eight Countries.'' In the United States, the researchers could
    not find enough 12th grade students with 4 years of language
    study to complete the study as they had originally designed it.
        Still, the study found that the primary factor in the
    attainment of proficiency in any foreign language is the amount
    of instructional time provided.
        1979. The President's Commission on Foreign Language and
    International Studies reported Americans' incompetence in
    foreign languages is nothing short of scandalous, and it is
    becoming worse.
        1983. The Commission on Excellence in Education heard
    testimony that in the United States foreign language
    instruction had yet to attain mediocrity.
        1999 and forward, we have heard repeatedly from government
    agencies, including from the panel today, that these national
    needs are still with us. I am personally pleased to see that
    the bills S. 1800 and S. 1799 include several initiatives
    designed to improve U.S. readiness in foreign language skills.
        While the demand for competency in foreign language shifts
    occasionally in terms of the specific languages required, two
    trends have remained constant over time. First, the total
    number of linguist requirements has grown.
        Second, the levels of proficiency required of those
    linguists has increased. Therefore, the central challenges
    facing all segments of our society, including the government
    today, are recruiting more employees with language skills and
    then building on those language skills.
        In most other developed nations, the educational system
    provides the foundation language courses, and the government
    language school or schools builds on those skills.
        Whereas, currently more than 90 percent of the enrollments
    at the Defense Language Institute, for instance, are in
    beginning language courses, Germany's counterpart to the
    Defense Language Institute, the Bundessprachenamt, has nearly
    100 percent of its students enrolled in advanced language
    courses.
        The provisions of the Homeland Security Federal Workforce
    Act and the Homeland Security Education Act will help correct
    our national shortage I feel in qualified linguists by:
    Encouraging language majors to accept Federal employment;
    recognizing that second language skills are as necessary to our
    national defense as our skills in math and science; and
    producing graduates with advanced levels of language
    proficiency.
        I would suggest that the programs described in the Homeland
    Security Federal Workforce Act include all Federal employees,
    because most of the linguist assignments are in the excepted
    service or are exempt from the requirements of the competitive
    service.
        I believe I understand where the confusion is on this point
    because page 9, line 20, appears to have exclusionary language
    that if eliminated would then clarify this point.
        In closing, all of the Nation's problems preparing,
    recruiting, and retaining scientific personnel apply to the
    problems with language skills in the United States. The major
    difference is that the situation in languages is even worse.
    Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Dr. Clifford. I have
    some questions for both of you. Dr. Westin, your testimony
    forecasts substantial Federal retirements of those with key
    math and science backgrounds within 5 years.
        Why do you believe there are not more individuals entering
    government with math and science backgrounds?
        Ms. Westin. Mr. Chairman, we did not take that up
    specifically in the report. The report you are referring to
    talked about the retirement across the Federal Government in
    general, and we cited some statistics from that, but I believe
    the first panel spoke to that very well, and also Mr. Hamilton.
    It is a very competitive market. It is particularly competitive
    for staff personnel who have these skills, have majored in
    math, have degrees in math or science, or in engineering, and I
    think that one of the issues is people coming out with student
    loans, and many students do graduate today with student loans,
    and need to consider what their compensation is going to be
    when they take those first jobs.
        And I think right now we have seen that the Federal
    Government is not competitive in areas where many companies are
    competing to get these students.
        Senator Akaka. Your testimony emphasizes how Federal
    agencies can use workforce strategies to address shortfalls in
    foreign language capabilities. Has GAO looked at how workforce
    strategies can be used to ease shortages in math, science, and
    engineering within the Federal Government?
        Ms. Westin. We checked on prior GAO work, and we do not
    believe that there was anything in the very near past that
    addressed this, but I would like to point out that the reason
    that we brought the OPM workforce planning model, and think it
    is important to put up as a special board, is that this is a
    workforce planning model that is not designed just to address
    foreign language shortfalls.
        I think that it really starts with any agency setting a
    strategic direction, and then very importantly looking to see
    what skills you have on hand, how long people are going to be
    there, and identifying your gaps and then coming up with an
    action plan for filling the gaps. I can speak, if I can, to
    what GAO has done in this area.
        As you know, we have put together a strategic plan. We have
    conducted an inventory of staff knowledge and skills which is
    available to managers. We do pay attention to what percentage
    of our workforce is likely to retire and in what areas. We are
    instituting the student loan program. That is under development
    in our agency right now, and we expect to offer that to some
    staff this fiscal year.
        With regard to the student loan program, we have analyzed
    carefully where it should be targeted, not just areas where we
    have had trouble recruiting, but we are looking at one overall
    workforce, do we have more trouble recruiting or do we have
    more trouble retaining? So we have been looking at our past
    experience and seeing where we are most likely to lose staff
    and hope to target our program to help retain staff in those
    areas.
        Senator Akaka. Dr. Clifford.
        Dr. Clifford. Yes, sir.
        Senator Akaka. What is the best way to ensure that someone
    has a foreign language and technical background capable of
    analyzing highly technical intelligence? Is it better to start
    with someone with a science background and teach them a foreign
    language, and does the Defense Language Institute have programs
    for this?
        Dr. Clifford. Actually, experience would indicate that if
    you have a scientist who needs to learn a foreign language and
    you have someone who speaks a foreign language who needs to
    learn about its science, it is easier to take the person with
    the language skills and teach them science skills.
        Now, we have at our institute language programs that are
    quite specialized. We have courses for scientists. I remember
    looking at one curriculum where there were topics such as
    learning about the tensile strength of turbine blades in that
    foreign language. We can get quite technical.
        Underneath that technical language, there is a requirement
    for accurate communication skills in language in general. If
    one focuses without those foundation skills on the technical
    language, we find that we produce individuals who are able to
    miscommunicate about very technical things.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you. I yield to Senator Voinovich.
        Senator Voinovich. Dr. Westin, you said that the FBI in
    your opinion has done the best job of developing a workforce
    planning model. One of the provisions contained in my
    legislation would require Federal agencies to develop
    succession planning models so that they have an adequate
    understanding of what human capital needs they have--both
    currently in the future.
        Do you think it would be a good idea if this Subcommittee
    in putting together this legislation and the legislation I am
    working on would suggest that they follow this model so that we
    indeed end up with some document that clearly states what the
    needs are, and then put a dollar figure on what it would cost
    in order to get something like this done?
        Ms. Westin. We have found this model useful, not only for
    GAO itself, but also in looking as we did at these four
    agencies and where they are with respect to the model. Senator,
    I would say that in their response to our draft report, two of
    the agencies that we sent the draft report to for their
    comments thought that the original way we had stated our
    recommendation was too rigid, and so we revised that to say
    that we were not telling them exactly how to do it, but
    suggesting that the principles that are illustrated in such a
    model would be very helpful.
        So I would just say when you might use the word
    ``suggest,'' that might be more helpful to agencies than to use
    the word ``require.''
        Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka, it seems to me--and I was
    talking to Representative Hamilton about the issue of urgency--
    that perhaps the only way that we are going to be able to deal
    with this in some of these agencies that deal with national
    security is to require them to develop these plans, so that we
    really have a handle on what is going on.
        For example, I asked Administrator Allbaugh today to come
    back with his evaluation of FEMA's human capital problems, and
    I am going to suggest that we submit your recommendation to him
    to have him go about doing his study that way. Maybe if we have
    that information, we might be able to start to underscore what
    an urgent need there is for all kinds of people in various
    agencies.
        I have another question for you, Dr. Westin. Your testimony
    highlights a critical deficiency plaguing the government--
    language. However, the problem is deeper than the shortfalls of
    the Federal Government. Only a fraction of American college
    students even study a foreign language. I went to college at
    Ohio University in the 1950's, and you could not get out of
    there without having 2 years of a foreign language. And I will
    never forget. I tried to get out of Russian after the first
    year, and the dean, who I thought was my buddy, said stay in
    there, and so I took it for 3 years.
        But what is your observation across the country in terms of
    whether or not liberal arts institutions require foreign
    language as part of their programs, and how much of a
    requirement is there?
        Ms. Westin. We did not address that in this study. I could
    only speak to what I have read. I know my experience going
    through college and graduate school in terms of foreign
    language requirements seems to be different than it is today. I
    know that it was important for us to make sure that our
    daughters had foreign language in high school, but we have not
    undertaken a study to look at this comprehensively across the
    United States.
        Senator Voinovich. Dr. Clifford, do you have some
    information for us on that?
        Dr. Clifford. Yes, not specific statistics, but it is
    clear, and that I work with many of the universities
    nationally, the trend is to eliminate or at least reduce
    foreign language requirements across the board.
        There are a few countercurrents that I believe would be
    worthy of support, programs where there is, for instance, a
    specific emphasis on creating dual majors, scientists with a
    major perhaps in chemistry and a major in a foreign language.
    Those programs exist, and they exist at those institutes that
    would probably be the primary candidates for recognition under
    S. 1799 with the flagship programs.
        Senator Voinovich. There is a National Security Education
    Program. Are you familiar with NSEP?
        Dr. Clifford. Yes, I am.
        Senator Voinovich. OK. And it has been effective in
    offering language emersion opportunities in foreign countries
    to students in return for some Federal Service. I guess you
    want to study a language. We will send you overseas. You can
    really get into it, and come back, but in consideration for
    that, you are going to have to give us some time.
        Do you think that the expansion of such a program or the
    institution of a fellowship program, as proposed in S. 1800,
    might be a good way to attract additional linguists to the
    Federal service?
        Dr. Clifford. Absolutely. We have also found--I will just
    add to that general perception--that the way to learn a foreign
    language is to go overseas. The research shows that the way to
    learn a foreign language is to learn a foundation capability in
    the language in a classroom first, and then once overseas you
    have all the skills to take advantage of the experience and not
    just observe it.
        So that combination, though, of preparation and then
    overseas experience, followed by a commitment, an obligation,
    is a great combination to focus our limited resources and see a
    return.
        Senator Voinovich. In other words, make sure that the
    foundation is in place so that they are not just going over and
    having a little joy ride.
        Dr. Clifford. My statement might be interpreted that way,
    yes.
        Senator Voinovich. OK.
        Dr. Clifford. And I would agree.
        Senator Voinovich. OK. The other thing that we all know--
    and I would be interested in your comments on this--is that the
    earlier one learns a language, the better off they are. I mean
    it is not going to deal with our immediate shortage of
    linguists, but do you think in the long term that some
    consideration to that should be given to early language
    training for children? Either one of you?
        Ms. Westin. Well, again, I am not speaking to work the GAO
    has done on this, but it does seem to me that one of the things
    that we could take more advantage of is the children of
    immigrants and to make sure that they keep that ability in
    their first language as they are learning English and learning
    to function in this country, which is equally important, but I
    think that it is too bad if those other language skills are
    lost along the way.
        Senator Voinovich. OK. That is interesting. What you are
    basically saying is we do have a lot of immigrants that come
    here and then they raise their families, but a lot of times,
    the children of those immigrants do not learn the native
    language?
        Ms. Westin. Well, that is my understanding that they may
    speak it at home. From some experience, I know as they grow
    older, they want to communicate in English with their friends,
    and I think also that we might not have made the efforts to
    make sure they are instructed in that language as well as just
    maintaining conversational level skills.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, it is interesting, Mr. Chairman,
    that we do not really encourage that. We talk about just
    learning English. My mother spoke fluent Slovenia and my father
    spoke fluent Serbian, but the only time they ever spoke in the
    native tongues was at home. They were both first generation
    college graduates and they knew their languages, but they only
    used them when they did not want us to know what they were
    saying. I can tell you all the swear words. [Laughter.]
        But again there is a kind of perception in the country that
    this is not a good thing to do. We should maybe try to change
    that attitude towards that issue.
        Dr. Clifford. I would add to the comments made that indeed
    this is a national resource. With proper attention paid to the
    language skills of these families, we would have more
    individuals prepared when it came to hiring. Now, there are a
    few programs that Members of the Subcommittee might be
    interested in looking into. They are generally referred to as
    two-way immersion programs, which provide an opportunity for
    the English speaking students to spend half of their day in the
    language of what we call the heritage speakers, and the
    heritage speakers to spend half of their day in English.
        They seem to have found that to be a very useful and
    beneficial combination.
        The other point to be made, I believe, is that one thing we
    can say for sure about early learning of foreign languages is
    that if you start learning early, there is an opportunity for
    an extended sequence of language instruction.
        In some assignments, I spent some time working with NATO
    and Partnership for Peace Nations, and it is rather amazing
    that, for instance, I was--let me tell an anecdote. I was asked
    to provide some advice for the service academy for the Finnish
    armed forces. I was in Helsinki, visited their site, and as I
    learned further, their major problem was that their junior
    officers' capability in their fourth language was not as good
    as in the other three. [Laughter.]
        And the reason was that they did not start learning that
    fourth language until junior high.
        Senator Voinovich. Is that not something?
        Dr. Clifford. That is the rest of the world. If we want a
    world-class educational system, we might consider doing what
    the rest of the world does.
        Senator Voinovich. I may be wrong on this, but maybe one of
    the reasons why Americans do not have great facility in foreign
    languages is that people keep saying that English has become
    the universal language, and you do not need to learn other
    languages. I go to NATO and OSCE meetings, and I meet people
    from all over. They all can speak English. Rarely does anyone--
    Jim Oberstar--you remember Jim--speaks fluent French, and he
    will sometimes speak in that language. But there are very few
    of us that can speak another language. I tried to bumble along
    when I was in St. Petersburg a couple of years ago, but there
    is a feeling that we do not need to learn another language
    because, around the world, the universal language is English.
        Do you think that is one of the things discouraging people
    or not providing them the incentive they need to study another
    language?
        Ms. Westin. I think that might be the case. I would like to
    point out, though, that I head the International Affairs and
    Trade team at GAO, and we have been doing a fair amount of
    recruiting, and I have been very impressed with the number of
    applicants that we get who want to work in my team who have
    real proficiency in a second language and sometimes a third.
        I often ask them how did you get so good, and it seems that
    there are two things. One is somehow they got excited about it
    studying, whether they started in grade school or whether they
    started in junior high or high school, and then they took
    advantage of a foreign exchange program, and spent some time
    overseas, and that is where they felt they really learned the
    language, and we have found these skills are very important to
    us in our oversight function.
        For example, as you know, we have been looking at the
    reconstruction projects from Hurricane Mitch hitting Central
    America. On almost every one of those monthly trips, we have
    been able to send a fluent Spanish speaker and it has made a
    difference when looking at these projects that somebody can
    understand the idiomatic Spanish and communicate with the
    people where the money is going.
        Senator Voinovich. Well, it would be interesting to go back
    and check on some of those incentives, how they got involved,
    and see if we could not start to encourage that to happen.
    Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Voinovich, one of the leaders in this effort, and thank you for
    making a stimulating discussion. I want to thank our witnesses
    for their testimony this afternoon. They have told us in many
    different ways that individuals with strong backgrounds in
    science, math, and foreign languages are vital if the Federal
    Government is going to meet our national security needs.
        In addition to having jurisdiction over the civil service,
    this Subcommittee also has oversight over international
    security and proliferation. Over the past year, we have held
    hearings on a number of different international security and
    proliferation issues. Whether the topic was monitoring
    multilateral treaties, assistance to Russia to prevent the
    loss, theft, or diversion of weapons of mass destruction, or
    responding to acts of bioterrorism on our own soil, one thing
    was clear: Our success in any of these areas will depend upon
    having the right people in the right place.
        The Hart-Rudman Commission's final report states the
    excellence of American public servants is the foundation upon
    which an effective national security strategy must rest. The
    report notes that future successes will require the mastery of
    advanced technology from the economy to combat, as well as
    leading edge concepts of governance.
        The workforce concerns facing the Federal Government did
    not come about overnight, as we all know. They are the result
    of years of neglect and focusing on short-term needs rather
    than long-term strategies. It will take sustained effort and
    support to hire and retain, and retrain employees with the
    critical skills needed to ensure homeland and national
    security.
        The legislation that I and my colleagues have introduced is
    an effort to ensure that we have those public servants. We are
    in a sense in a state of national emergency. We have no further
    questions for this panel at this time. However, Members of this
    Subcommittee may submit questions in writing for any of the
    witnesses, and we would appreciate a timely response to any
    questions.
        Do you have any further comments to make?
        Senator Voinovich. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Akaka. Well, if not, I would like to again express
    my appreciation once again for your time. This Subcommittee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                      PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
        Last January, members of the Hart-Rudman Commission on National
    Security for the 21st Century testified before our Governmental Affairs
    Subcommittee outlining their recommendations for ensuring the security
    of our nation. As we will hear from Congressman Hamilton, a Hart-Rudman
    Commissioner and one of our witnesses today, the Commission's
    recommendations centered around the most highly skilled Federal
    workforce possible, and reforming the nation's education system to
    ensure that every young person has the tools needed to succeed in the
    21st Century.
        Senators Akaka, Thompson and I have retold the tale of 1957 many
    times. In that year, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik into orbit. We
    were caught off guard as a nation. The start of the space race revealed
    to us that major changes had to be made to preserve our national
    security and to pull ahead in scientific and technological innovation.
        It took Congress just 1 year to pass landmark legislation--the
    National Defense Education Act. The stated purpose of the act was to
    ``strengthen the national defense and to encourage and assist in the
    expansion and improvement of educational programs to meet critical
    national needs'' This legislation established a coordinated national
    effort in education, training, and the fortification of our Federal
    workforce, and it helped our Nation meet its goals.
        Within 10 years of the passage of the National Defense Education
    Act, American astronauts landed on the moon--years ahead of schedule.
    The United States was the most technologically advanced nation in the
    world. A new generation of highly skilled mathematicians, scientists,
    and technology experts staffed our laboratories, universities, and
    Federal agencies. Our colleges and universities had the resources they
    needed to support the most advanced levels of foreign language,
    international studies, science, math, and engineering.
        Yesterday marked the 6-month anniversary of the attacks on the
    World Trade Center and the Pentagon. While the outpouring of
    volunteerism and goodwill that followed is a testament to the strength
    of the American people in the wake of devastating circumstances, I fear
    that this wave of interest in public service may already be on the
    wane.
        If last September taught us anything, it is that we can't afford to
    let this period of heightened awareness of our national security needs
    pass without reform.
        Today we are here to discuss the Homeland Security Federal
    Workforce Act. This legislation will establish a collaborative and
    strategic approach to our Federal workforce--especially that part of
    the workforce charged with our nation's security.
        This legislation builds on the existing Federal student loan
    forgiveness program. Every Senator who is a cosponsor of the Homeland
    Security Federal Workforce Act also worked long and hard to ensure that
    all Federal agencies have the authority to create a loan repayment
    program for their employees. With this legislation, we will give
    specific funds to key Federal agencies engaged in national security to
    permit enhanced loan forgiveness to employees in critical national
    security positions.
        The National Security Fellowship Program in the bill will pay for
    graduate study in math, science, engineering, or foreign languages for
    students who agree to serve in a position of national security upon the
    completion of their degree. This fellowship program will also be open
    to current Federal employees, encouraging the enhancement and
    development of the skills of our current workforce.
        The legislation also creates a National Security Service Corps to
    give Federal employees more flexibility and experience within the
    national security community.
        Our Nation has spent billions dealing with the aftermath of
    September 11. The human cost of the tragedies was absolutely
    unbearable.
        This legislation, along with a companion bill we introduced--the
    Homeland Security Education Act, which has been referred to the HELP
    Committee--will help our nation's Federal workforce and education
    system rise to a level that will go a long way to ensure that such
    tragedies will never happen again.
        We owe it to the American people to ensure that our Federal
    workforce is the best-educated, best-prepared, and best-qualified in
    the world. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce is an essential part
    of this ongoing goal.

    [GRAPHICS] [TIFF OMITTED] 79886.001