PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Select Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 24, 2002
Amends the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 to extend through FY 2007 the authorization of appropriations to carry out the national security education program (NSEP).Establishes a National Flagship Language Initiative (NFLI) as part of NSEP. Provides that funds under current NSEP grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs) may also be used for grants for NFLI programs in which IHEs train students in a range of disciplines with advanced levels of proficiency in those foreign languages that the Secretary of Defense identifies as being the most critical to U.S. national security interests. Requires IHEs receiving a grant for NFLI to give special consideration to applicants who are Federal employees.Allows NSEP scholarship and fellowship recipients to fulfill their service requirements in any Federal agency or department.
People & committees
Rep. Roemer, Tim [D-IN-3] · D–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Select Education.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1366-1367)
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5209 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5209 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5209 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5209 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.