<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:79886.wais]
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