U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

61–632 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–168] 

BEYOND THE DEFENSE LANGUAGE 

TRANSFORMATION ROADMAP: 

BEARING THE BURDEN FOR TODAY’S 

EDUCATIONAL SHORTCOMINGS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JUNE 29, 2010 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN KRUSE, Professional Staff Member 

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

TREY HOWARD, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, June 29, 2010, Beyond the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap: Bearing the Burden for Today’s Educational Shortcomings ................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 ........................................................................................... 21 

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2010 

BEYOND THE DEFENSE LANGUAGE TRANSFORMATION ROADMAP: 

BEARING THE BURDEN FOR TODAY’S EDUCATIONAL SHORTCOMINGS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations ......................................................................... 1 

Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ...................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Golden, Brig. Gen. Walter, USA, Director, J–1 Manpower and Personnel, 

Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff .................................................... 5 

Pickup, Sharon L., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 6 

Weaver, Nancy E., Director, Defense Language Office, Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) ............................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Pickup, Sharon L. ............................................................................................. 41 

Weaver, Nancy E. ............................................................................................. 27 

Wittman, Hon. Rob ........................................................................................... 25 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 59 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 63 

(1) 

BEYOND THE DEFENSE LANGUAGE TRANSFORMATION 

ROADMAP: BEARING THE BURDEN FOR TODAY’S EDUCATIONAL SHORTCOMINGS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC, Tuesday, June 29, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:34 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Dr. SNYDER. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations’ hearing on the Department of Defense’s [DOD] progress in transforming the United States military’s 

foreign language skills, cultural awareness, and regional expertise 

capabilities. 

In November of 2008 this subcommittee came out with this report, ‘‘Building Language Skills and Cultural Competencies in the 

Military: DOD’s Challenge in Today’s Educational Environment.’’ 

We thought it was a pretty good report, but it was not the beginning of this discussion, and it is certainly not the end; it is just an 

ongoing issue that we have in this country. 

And November 10th, 2009—the Marine Corps birthday, by the 

way—General McChrystal, in his ‘‘for whom it may concern’’ memo 

for counterinsurgency training guidance for ISAF [International Security Assistance Force], said the following: ‘‘Language Training: 

Everyone should learn basic language skills. Every deployed person 

should be able to greet locals and say ‘thank you.’ Each platoon, or 

like-sized organization, that will have regular contact with the population should have at least one leader that speaks Dari, at least 

a zero-plus level, with a goal of a level one in oral communication. 

These personnel will not replace interpreters, but will enhance the 

capabilities of the unit. This language skill is as important as your 

other basic combat skills.’’ 

A little over a year and a half ago this committee—this subcommittee—held its last hearing on language and culture. At that 

time the Department was nearing completion of the task it set out 

for itself in the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap, but 

neither having—but having neither an accurate picture of what 

language skills reside in the force nor what capabilities were required by the commanders in the field there was no true strategic 

plan to guide the services in their role as force providers. 
2 

I look forward to hearing about the progress in these areas and 

the status of the Department’s strategic plan from our witnesses 

today. And we also recognize, as it was discussed during our previous series of hearings, that this is a national problem, that once 

again the military inherits the challenges that we have in the 

country that we do not emphasize language skills enough. Many, 

many of us—far too many of us—speak only English. 

And also, at this particular time in our economic history we are 

grappling with the issue in this country right now about potential 

cutbacks in teachers. And there is anecdotal evidence that some of 

the first teachers to go when a district is looking to save money are 

arts, music, and foreign language, which doesn’t help our national 

security perspective either. 

We have witnesses today from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the Government Accountability Office 

[GAO], which has assisted the Congress with a study that reports 

on building language skills and cultural awareness in the military. 

And seated directly behind them we also have the senior language 

authorities from each of the services, whose job it is to organize, 

train, and equip this transformed force. 

Now, I will formally introduce all seven of you, but I first wanted 

to turn to Mr. Wittman for any opening comments he would like 

to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so 

much for your leadership on this. I think this is a critical issue and 

it is good that we continue to reexamine this to make sure we 

know where we are from a progress standpoint. 

Witnesses, thank you so much for taking time out to join us 

today. We are looking forward to your testimony. 

Today, as we begin to return to a topic that this subcommittee 

previously addressed, and that is building language and cultural 

competencies in our military forces, I think it is extraordinarily important that we take that time to do this reevaluation and figure 

out where we are today. 

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I do think that our persistence and 

ability to periodically review previously examined issues is one of 

the strengths of this subcommittee, and I appreciate your leadership there. You have kept us on focus there, and I think that is 

extraordinarily important. 

You know, it is rare that lasting progress will be made with a 

single report. We all know that repeated examination, however, 

does begin to bear fruit over time, and that, I believe, is the case 

here. 

The need for more language and cultural training for our general 

purpose forces has only gained importance since our November 

2008 report. Not only have these competencies now received more 

emphasis in our campaign in Afghanistan, but increasing numbers 

of combatant commanders have stressed the need for these skills 

in the areas of operation. 
3 

Indeed, the military services have all taken measures to increase 

these competencies in their forces with varying types of programs. 

As always, I am reluctant to dictate to the services how they 

should approach this training. Even so, though, since the services 

are all responding to the same combatant commander requirements 

the wide divergence of programs is still puzzling to us. 

Regardless, I am very gratified to see the serious efforts and formal programs that are underway across the board, even without 

much formal OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] guidance in 

place yet. It is apparent that you all are taking this issue very seriously and understand the need for our troops to more effectively 

interact with the local populace, and I thank you for that. 

I look forward to hearing about these ongoing programs and 

learning more about the formal OSD direction that may be forthcoming to provide an overarching framework for how we address 

this in a comprehensive format. Additionally, I am interested in 

how these programs are being received by the leadership and rank 

and file within each of the military services. Specifically, are language and cultural skills seen as career-enhancing? 

I look forward to your testimony and thank you again for your 

efforts. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 25.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Wittman, and thank you for your 

service on this topic here. 

We are joined today by three testifying witnesses: Mrs. Nancy 

Weaver, the Director of the Defense Language Office, Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Brigadier 

General Walter Golden, United States Army, Director of J–1 Manpower and Personnel, Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; 

and Ms. Sharon Pickup, Director, Office of Defense Capabilities 

and Management of the Government Accountability Office. 

Also, sitting behind you three are the senior—the service senior 

language authorities. For the Navy it is Rear Admiral Dan Holloway, Director of the Military Personnel Plans and Policy division; 

for the Army it is Brigadier General Richard Longo, Director of 

Training, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff; for the Air Force it 

is Mr. Don Get, the Senior Language Authority for the Office of the 

Deputy Chief of Staff; and for the Marine Corps, Colonel Dimitri 

Henry, incoming commanding officer to the Marine Corps Intelligence Command. 

And we actually thought about having all seven of you sitting at 

the table but figured we would all get bogged down. And so we will 

have you there available, and we will do it two ways of—we may 

call on you or folks at the table might say they want to refer to 

you. Or if you think there is just something we need to know please 

feel free to raise your hand or tap somebody in front of you on the 

shoulder and we will be glad to have you pull up to the microphone 

for folks. 

But we appreciate all of you being here today. The opening statements will be made part of the record. 

And, Mrs. Weaver, we will start with you, and then General 

Golden and Ms. Pickup. The lights will go off in 5 minutes—you 
4 

feel free to surge on through if you have got more than 5 minutes 

of material, but if you can stay approximately in that framework 

then we can get to our questions. 

Mrs. Weaver. 

Is your microphone on? You may want to pull a little bit closer 

to—— 

Ms. WEAVER. Okay. 

Dr. SNYDER. For whatever reason somebody is trained to put 

these things up in the air like swans. [Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF NANCY E. WEAVER, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PERSONNEL AND READINESS) 

Ms. WEAVER. Chairman Snyder, Ranking Member Wittman, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you today on this very important topic. The Department 

is building a force with language skills, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities needed to succeed in today’s missions. The ability 

to understand and interact successfully with local populations, allies, and partners are key enabling factors for mission success. 

The 2005 Defense Language Transformation Roadmap marked 

the Department’s initial efforts to prepare the force to meet the 

challenges of the new operational environment. Through specific 

actions we have improved oversight and management of the defense language program, adapted and created policies and programs to support the Roadmap goals, and enhanced training. 

We are now moving beyond the Roadmap by continuing to refine 

processes for generating and prioritizing language and regional requirements, providing strategic direction, and adapting existing 

programs and policies to ensure we have the right mix of language 

and regional skills. For example, the Department is in the final 

stages of completing a capabilities-based assessment which will 

provide improved processes to help determine and prioritize requirements. This pivotal effort was led by the Joint Staff, and Brigadier General Golden will provide more information in his comments. 

The Defense Language Strategy Plan is in the final stages of coordination. This plan will set the strategic direction in priorities for 

building and maintaining language skills, regional expertise, and 

cultural capabilities for the next 6 years. 

Where once the training mission of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center was mostly resident basic courses 

for the professional linguist, the request for nonresident training 

for general purpose forces has experienced tremendous growth. The 

center has responded with more than 160,000 instructional hours 

through mobile training teams, video teletraining, virtual classroom training, and language training detachments. Additionally, 

the number of language training detachments is anticipated to 

grow from 23 to over 40 in the next several years in order to provide more training opportunities for all personnel. 

The demand for a higher degree of language and regional expertise that requires years—not weeks—of study is on the rise. Therefore, we are continuing to invest in programs to influence future recruits and employees, starting with our own school system. 
5 

The Department of Defense Education Activity, or DODEA, provides language-learning opportunities beginning in elementary 

school through partial immersion programs in host nation classes. 

In secondary schools distance learning and classroom instruction 

help students meet the graduation requirement for at least 2 years 

of study in a single foreign language. During the past academic 

year about 70 percent of all students in grades 7 through 12 were 

enrolled in foreign language classes. 

Another initiative is the State Roadmap Project, which represents an important federal-state partnership to explore how language education issues might be addressed in the state and local 

levels. Ohio, Oregon, and Texas currently have roadmaps. We are 

now collaborating with Utah and California to begin a roadmap 

process. 

While we have made progress there is still more to do. We appreciate the recommendations provided in the subcommittee’s November 2008 report and the Government Accountability Office report 

issued in June 2009. These recommendations have been incorporated as part of our ongoing effort to develop mission-ready all 

volunteer force to meet our national security objectives. 

Thank you very much for your continued support. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weaver can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mrs. Weaver. 

General Golden. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. WALTER GOLDEN, USA, DIRECTOR, 

J–1 MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

General GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wittman, distinguished members of the committee, it is my privilege to report 

on the transformational progress the Joint Staff has made in response to both this committee’s report on building language skills 

and cultural competencies in the military, the GAO’s report on 

military training, and the need for requirements data to guide development of language skills and regional proficiency. This has 

been a complex task. 

Our challenge has been to break away from today’s paradigm, 

where coded billets drive the need for recruiting and training, to 

one in which the geographic combatant command’s capability requirements also drive force development. The Joint Staff has had 

oversight over this effort while the Army volunteered to lead the 

language assessment and the Navy volunteered to lead the regional 

expertise and culture assessment. 

Together we have, for the first time, developed a standardized, 

documented methodology for the geographic combatant commands 

to use to identify language, regional expertise, and culture capabilities requirements. This methodology will lay the foundation for the 

services to develop their sourcing solutions not only in the near 

term but also in the longer term. 

The value of the methodology is that once implemented the results will be based on sound analysis that is traceable to national 

strategy, prioritized by each geographic combatant command, integrated, validated, and adjudicated by the Joint Staff, and sent by 
6 

senior Joint Staff leadership to the services for response. It provides the services a strong foundation that will influence the hard 

decisions regarding additional training because all of the services 

operate under the constraints of limited time to train, finite dollars, 

and troop ceilings. It preserves the Title 10 responsibilities of the 

services while capitalizing on combatant commands’ knowledge of 

their area of responsibility—[microphone feedback] 

Dr. SNYDER. General, I am sorry. Supposedly we have somebody 

coming to figure out what we need to do differently. 

General GOLDEN. I will continue. [microphone feedback] 

It preserves the Title 10 responsibilities of the services—would 

you like me to continue or just wait for a second? 

It preserves the Title 10 responsibilities of the services while capitalizing on combatant commands’ knowledge of their area of responsibility and tasks to be performed. This will be an iterative, cyclical process. 

The Joint Staff anticipates implementing the methodology this 

fall with the results of the first iteration being sent to the services 

in the spring of 2011. Results will not be immediate. We anticipate 

that the results of this first iteration will assist the services as they 

determine their foreign language and regional expertise requirements, measure their capability, and determine sources solutions. 

With maturity we expect greater agility in identifying, 

prioritizing, and responding to language and regional expertise requirements. I look forward to any questions you may have concerning this transformational endeavor. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, General Golden. 

Now we are going to see how GAO handles our sound system. 

Ms. Pickup. 

STATEMENT OF SHARON L. PICKUP, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. PICKUP. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wittman, and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss GAO’s 

work on DOD’s efforts to improve language skills and regional expertise. Without question, the changing security environment and 

insights from ongoing operations have led the Department to 

proactively move to develop a workforce that is more language-capable and has a better understanding of the cultures and regions 

around the world. 

To that end, DOD has set some ambitious goals, among them to 

create what is called foundational expertise, in its general purpose 

forces and civilian ranks. This is no small undertaking. It encompasses all of DOD and requires the military services to adjust 

training as they continue to support the high pace of deployments 

and balance competing demands for resources. 

Clearly, Congress and this subcommittee in particular has kept 

the spotlight on the importance of building language and cultural 

competencies in the military. Concurrently with the work that led 

to your November 2008 report, GAO has also evaluated DOD’s efforts. 

In our most recent report of June 2009 we examined whether 

DOD had a viable strategic plan and whether it had the informa-
7 

tion it needed to assess capability gaps and related risks. Let me 

briefly touch on what we learned and recommended, and DOD’s 

progress. 

Comprehensive strategic plans that have clear goals, objectives, 

and metrics, and are linked to resources can help guide large-scale 

transformations. As you know, DOD published a Defense Language 

Transformation Roadmap in 2005 which laid out broad goals, objectives, and specific tasks, and it also set up a governance structure 

to oversee the implementation of the roadmap. As well, the services 

have developed strategies to guide their training efforts. 

While the roadmap was a positive step it had some limitations. 

Certain goals and objectives were broad and not measurable, and 

it didn’t identify priorities or resource needs. Without a robust strategic plan we concluded that DOD did not have a sound basis to 

guide and synchronize efforts, and ultimately to ensure it was investing resources in the highest priority activities, and it still needed metrics to measure progress. 

To be fair, DOD did not label the roadmap as a strategic plan 

and, at the time of our work, recognized that it needed one. We understand a draft is now being reviewed, and once approved DOD 

expects to have a follow-on implementation plan with metrics. And, 

you know, from our point of view it will be important for DOD to 

set a specific milestone to complete that action quickly so it can 

begin measuring its progress. 

Equally important is a means to assess capability gaps and related risks. As of June 2009 DOD had inventoried the language 

skills of military personnel and since then has collected similar 

data on civilians. 

For regional proficiency skills, DOD has collected data on specific 

occupations but not yet on all military members or civilians. It 

lacked a common definition of regional proficiency and a way to 

measure these skills, so we recommended that DOD develop these 

elements. DOD agreed, and earlier this month DOD told us it has 

commissioned a study and set up an internal working group to address these issues, which it expects to produce results by sometime 

later next year. 

As for requirements, as of last June DOD did not have a validated methodology for determining its needs. Different methods 

were used and estimates varied widely. 

For example, in February 2008 the U.S. Pacific Command estimated its needs to be more than all of the other combatant commands combined. And DOD agreed it needed to do more work in 

this area and now, as General Golden stated, has addressed methodology under review. 

Without valid requirements, neither DOD nor the services can be 

sure that ongoing or planned training efforts will produce the capabilities most needed for current and future missions. This concludes 

my remarks, and I will be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pickup can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you all. 

We will put ourselves on the 5-minute clock here and go back 

and forth with our questions. 
8 

I wanted to start—and this may be an unfair question, but you 

all can tell me if it is unfair—Secretary Gates, on May 24th of this 

year, put out a memorandum which he calls—the subject line, ‘‘Implementing Counterinsurgency Training Guidance to Support Execution of the President’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Strategy,’’ and the 

third page just has one sentence on it which says, ‘‘I expect all Department Components to identify opportunities to reinvest and reward critical expertise and modify training and personnel processes 

to ensure success in the region. I look forward to your full support.’’ 

And there are several references in that memorandum to language 

skills and cultural competencies. 

Mrs. Weaver, is it fair for me to ask you, how did you all respond 

to that memo from Secretary Gates? 

Ms. WEAVER. Thank you, sir. We have very excited about the 

memo from Secretary Gates, and personnel and readiness is in the 

process of building a letter—a memo—to go out to the services that 

provides a little bit more guidance on how we expect this to be implemented. 

The Army has already moved forward to develop a training program for all individuals going to Afghanistan with the training 

standard that was outlined in General McChrystal’s memo on counterinsurgency—and I would ask the Brigadier General Longo provide more details—that actually implements that—a standard that 

every troop will have language and cultural capability and that at 

least one per platoon will have a higher level of language so that 

it will aid the organization in fulfilling its mission. 

Dr. SNYDER. So General McChrystal’s memorandum came out 

several months before Secretary Gates’—Secretary Gates’ memorandum cause you all to change anything, what you had been planning to do otherwise? 

Ms. WEAVER. It expedited. 

Dr. SNYDER. Expedited? 

Ms. WEAVER. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. When you have looked at this issue of—that we are 

talking about today—and I think GAO is discussing and very capably, the ability to set up a system that will provide long-term help 

and be able to be evaluated—how have you all looked at this with 

regard to the immediacy of two wars in which we clearly need— 

every day—need an abundance of capable folks with both language 

and cultural competencies, versus the long-term needs of wanted to 

be prepared for things all around the world? How has the immediacy of these two wars going on affected what you do? 

Ms. WEAVER. Of course implementing the President’s strategy in 

Afghanistan is our highest priority. We have increased the number 

and level of training opportunities for deploying troops in specific 

languages of the region, and we have also put resources to ensure 

that individuals have the level of training and training materials 

that they need both prior to deployment and during deployment. 

Preparing for future, we have got the strategic language list that 

identifies languages that would be of strategic importance, and we 

have implemented systems in the training pipeline that would 

allow us to surge quickly if we needed those languages. 

Dr. SNYDER. You have enabled me to segue to my next question 

when you used the word ‘‘surge.’’ Describe for me what occurred 
9 

and how—what kind of a grade you all would give yourselves after 

the Haiti earthquake. 

Ms. WEAVER. Well, as far as language, sir, we used the language 

readiness index—or tool—to identify the languages that we had, 

and we could drill down to tell where—by name—where the individual was, what language they had, where they were located, and 

if they were available. The services used this in order to ensure 

that we had language-speakers during the first and second waves 

to respond to Haiti. Knowing that we had French Creole-speakers 

helped immeasurably communicate what we were trying to do in 

the local area. 

Dr. SNYDER. Was that a tool that you didn’t have until relatively 

recently? 

Ms. WEAVER. We have had it for about 2 years, sir. It became 

totally populated with our capability last year. It has got active 

duty, Guard, Reserve, civilian, and we are in the process of ensuring that we can load our contractors so that we will have a full 

spectrum of capability at our fingertips. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Pickup, in your testimony you talked about there being the 

formation of a working group to try to determine where requirements need to go or where the development of requirements need 

to go and that there is a need to do more. Can you give us a little 

more about where the Department is in the process of developing 

a consistent methodology and for aggregating those requirements? 

You know, I know that there is inconsistency across the board 

about what the needs are, how do you develop a methodology to 

number one, assess the needs, how do you develop a methodology 

to make sure the need is being met, all those different elements of 

taking it essentially from start to finish about developing that capability across all of our service branches. 

Can you maybe elaborate a little bit more about that? I was interested in your comment about how you see there still being a continuing need to really create, I think, more depth to that effort? 

Ms. PICKUP. When we first looked at where DOD stood in terms 

of requirements methodology it was clear to us that they had laid 

out a process, and it produces results back in the 2006 to 2008 

timeframe. But I think there was a lot of discretion given to the 

combatant commands, for example, in terms of how they came up 

with requirements. 

So what the outcome was that everybody looked at it a little differently, which is why you had such a wide variance in the estimates and you had, for example, the Pacific Command given its 

really detailed analysis of their detailed operational plans, considering both general purpose and professional linguists, levels of proficiency, those kinds of things, whereas the other combatant commands might have taken an approach. 

So while there was a process, what we thought was lacking was 

kind of a validated standard methodology that everyone could use. 

Now, having said that, this is no easy task, and as I understand 

from the information that we have gotten since then that the Joint 

Staff and OSD have worked to try to come up with such a methodology. We haven’t had a chance to review it, and I think, you know, 
10 

one of the positive features we have heard is that rather than trying to get into the individual specifics of numbers of units and individuals, it is probably going to play to the combatant command’s 

strength, which is to identify broader capabilities. 

The challenge will be to translate those capabilities into specific 

requirements. And the only other thing that I would say is given 

the high op tempo [operational tempo] and also the manner in 

which we are deploying folks and the resource environment we 

find, I think it is going to be a challenge for the Department to 

kind of look at this, either in phases or potentially incrementally, 

within the force because I don’t think that they are either going to 

be able to afford or sustain language proficiency in every single 

general purpose force. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, let me take it back down a level, too. You 

spoke about the combatant commands and what they assess as 

their needs. Have they gotten to the point where they have really 

been able to have some consistency in how they assess their needs? 

Do they have consistent methodology in how they do that and the 

information that they provide to you so that you can consolidate 

that effort and try to come up with, as you said, a workable, reasonable scenario to make sure that they meet their language and 

cultural requirement needs? 

Ms. PICKUP. Well, from GAO’s perspective, we evaluated that initial process. When the methodology comes out from the Joint Staff, 

hopefully here in the next month or so, we will take a look at that 

to see what kind of elements it contains. And as we, you know, continue our effort to evaluate the language, you know, training 

progress, we will also probably be visiting the combatant commands and definitely the ground forces to see how they came up 

with those requirements and how the services intend to translate 

them. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. That was one of my concerns is making 

sure that from top to bottom we were looking at the methodologies, 

making sure the combatant commands had full scope of what their 

needs were and making sure that they are doing things in a consistent manner. So it is good to hear that you will be doing that. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. If we are going to have a second 

round of questions I will go ahead and pick up then. 

Dr. SNYDER. I could just stay here all day long just going back 

and forth, so—— 

I wanted to ask, Mrs. Weaver, in your—both your written and 

oral statement you made mention of the state roadmaps, was it 

Texas, Ohio, and Oregon—and then Utah and California on the 

way. The first time that I think we as a committee heard about 

the—what sounds like good success in Ohio, Oregon, and Texas 

was a couple of years ago when we were gathering information for 

our report, and I understood that California and Utah were underway. 

And everyone seems to think that these are good things to help 

states come up with what they need in their state but then we all 

benefit as a country as they move these things forward. However, 

you know, two states partly underway every 2 years—at best that 

means in 23.5 years we will have finally gotten to all 50 states, and 
11 

I would assume that Texas, Ohio, and Oregon will then be out-ofdate, and so we can start again 24 years from now. 

If this is such a good idea why is it taking so damn long to get 

these things started? They are not huge expenses. Where is the priority on this if they are—they are important enough for you to put 

in your written statement, why aren’t they important enough to get 

underway 10, 15 states a year or something? 

Ms. WEAVER. We have considered them very important, but since 

it is a partnership we have to have the state’s concurrence to move 

forward. Right now many of the states are a little hesitant to do 

that. 

We are continuing to broach other states to build partnerships, 

and Utah and California we are moving out, but we definitely have 

other states that we are working through flagship programs to see 

if they will partner with us and move forward in a roadmap. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the obstacle? 

Ms. WEAVER. Funding. 

Dr. SNYDER. Did you all make a request to the budget process 

for additional funding for this program, or what is the status of 

that? 

Ms. WEAVER. Sir, the funding problem is not necessarily with the 

Department of Defense. We are committed to this program. The 

challenge is to get the states to commit resources to move forward 

with more aggressive language programs within their school districts. 

Dr. SNYDER. But I thought the idea of this was that there was 

seed money available to help them with their plan and that there 

was going to be federal funding available. I thought that was the 

program, that you all have some support through staffing and personnel to help them get this thing together—— 

Ms. WEAVER. We do have funding to help with the roadmap, personnel to help them and interact, but it is actually putting objectives down in the roadmap that the state will move forward with. 

Dr. SNYDER. How much federal dollars are going into programs 

at the elementary and junior high school level? 

Ms. WEAVER. I don’t have the specific dollar amount, sir, but I 

can get that for you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 59.] 

Dr. SNYDER. But that is an ongoing DOD program? 

Ms. WEAVER. It is. We have three model programs, K–12, that 

works with our flagship programs to energize language in the 

school system. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Pickup, do you all have any comments on that 

program? 

Ms. PICKUP. No. We have pretty much focused on kind of more 

the operational needs than the educational system. 

Dr. SNYDER. I mean, I don’t fault what you are doing. It just 

seems like something that you shouldn’t all be doing or shouldn’t 

have to be doing. And when you talk about measuring results I am 

not sure how we measure our best bang for DOD buck when we 

are going to have to look 20 and—I don’t know, 15, 20, 25 years 

from now to see if a 4-year-old kindergarten student, how his Dari 

or Urdu is doing. 
12 

Mrs. Weaver, what role does the National Language Service 

Corps play in what you all are doing? 

Ms. WEAVER. The National Language Service Corps is part of our 

surge operation. It is—consists of about 1,000 civilians who volunteer to be called in a national emergency and they speak the higher 

level proficiency in a number of languages. These individuals have 

actually been deployed with the oil spill in the Gulf Coast and we 

have had test programs with the CDC and with PACOM. 

Dr. SNYDER. My time is about up. 

General Golden, is there anything you want to comment on that 

we have—I have asked about so far, or Mr. Wittman has asked 

about? 

General GOLDEN. Sir, I would just like to expand for a minute 

on a couple of the questions, first in terms of kind of the short- and 

long-term approach and response to Secretary Gates’ memorandum, and second about the capabilities-based assessment. 

First, in terms of a short-term approach I would like to point out 

the initiative that was really originated by General McChrystal’s 

request, the AfPak Hands program, that I think provides, certainly 

in the short term, a solution to provide folks that are—have a fairly 

good understanding of both the language and the culture for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then a methodology that allows them 

to receive a continuum of training over a period of four or five 

years with repeated tours in theater to kind of gain some of the capabilities that we are seeking. 

And then also in terms of that, DLI—General Longo can address 

in greater detail, but the Defense Language Institute and the 

Army’s efforts to really expand their capacity beyond the brick and 

mortar of the school by providing mobile training detachments as 

well as an online capability and automated tools I think has allowed us to reach a much greater audience, at least for some of the 

fundamental aspects of language. 

And then second, in terms of the capabilities-based assessments, 

some of the questions asked of GAO by Ranking Member Wittman, 

I think if we had the opportunity to explain to you in detail our 

approach to the capabilities-based assessment I believe it addresses 

each of the key areas that you spoke about, because what we have 

advocated is a requirements-based process for each COCOM [Combatant Command] that is standardized, and we actually send a 

team out to the COCOM and ensure that the process is followed 

for each of the COCOMs. 

The proof of principle that we executed for this program was 

done at PACOM [United States Pacific Command], which has been 

mentioned several times in terms of their analysis, as well as 

SOCOM [United States Special Operations Command], so two different COCOMs that we evaluated this model against. Kind of the 

foundation for this assessment is based on their steady state security posture, some of the numbered plans and other areas they 

have, and that is what we are addressing in this first year, fiscal 

year 2010, for each of the COCOMs. I received a correction— 

SOUTHCOM [United States Southern Command], not SOCOM. I 

meant SOUTHCOM. 

And then the second piece of that is that during the second year 

we will go at some of the conventional and irregular warfare mis-
13 

sions. So the initial 2 years we think we will build a very good 

foundation using those commonalities between COCOMs and then 

in the follow-on years be able just to adjust off of that as national 

security strategy—their steady state security posture changes as 

well as the evolution of some of their plans for irregular and conventional warfare. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, General. You are lucky, General; nobody 

ever gives me a note correcting me until after it comes out in the 

press. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For Mrs. Weaver and General Golden, I wanted to ask, is the Defense Language Office effectively providing strategic direction and 

programmatic oversight to the services on their future needs and 

requirements in the areas of language skills, cultural awareness, 

and even regional expertise? How is that coming about? I just 

wanted to get your perspective on that. 

General GOLDEN. I will take the first stab. I think that the oversight being provided right now is adequate but certainly not optimum. 

I would say that it is adequate because there is a—the oversight 

is really provided by a council that includes representatives from 

all the services, the Joint Staff, and OSD. So I think that that is 

an effective venue to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard and 

that all bring an equal voice to the table. 

In terms of the way ahead, the future part, I think it will be even 

more effective as we mature this capabilities-based oversight because now—the intent there is once we receive the input from the 

COCOMs and they prioritize their language and regional expertise 

requirements then the Joint Staff will validate those and then pass 

those to the services so that they can do their own gap analysis and 

try to identify and match up resources against the capabilities that 

are required. 

So I think it is adequate now—certainly not ideal. But I believe 

that we have a plan, given the direction that we are going with 

first the DOD roadmap, the strategy that will be published, and 

our own capabilities-based assessment to make it a much better organization for providing that oversight and direction in the future. 

Ms. WEAVER. I believe the Defense Language Office provides a 

center that ensures total collaboration so that we can view the Department as a whole and gather those initiatives that are likely to 

get us where we are going. I agree with General Golden: Until we 

fix the requirements process and we can apply it against the capability then training and where our gaps are is right now just a 

guess. 

We do have a system to try to look out and see what we need 

in the future, working with the policy people, and that is through 

capability-based reviews that we conduct every other year, and that 

gives us more of a strategic perspective. We do work through the 

council. We do think it is a collaborative process because there is 

many pieces to where the Department needs to go as well as the 

individual missions of the services. 
14 

Mr. WITTMAN. Let me kind of get a little more general in scope 

now. I realize we are in a realm of resource limitations, but in looking at what you are being asked to do as far as cultural awareness—and obviously there are directed efforts in making sure you 

have that cultural awareness, as you say, strategically placed—but 

there is also a need, I think, out there that you have acknowledged 

that is in a more—in a larger sense among the general forces. 

Can both you and General Golden give us an idea about where 

you are going as far as cultural awareness-building within the entire force structure, how you are pursuing that, where you believe 

that effort is, the criticality of the effort as opposed to where you 

are right now in providing cultural awareness in those very strategic elements of the force structure? 

Ms. WEAVER. We believe cross-cultural communication or the 

ability for an individual to have a understanding of multiple cultures is a competency that we need—or capability that we need— 

throughout the force, and we intend to move forward to ensure that 

individuals have that cultural competency. Cultural-specific, which 

is individual training prior to going to where they are going to be 

deployed, is part of pre-deployment training. 

We have just identified the various definitions and we are working with the services to see what programs are already in place 

and how these programs and best practices can be implemented 

across the Department. 

General GOLDEN. Sir, I would like to ask General Longo. I think 

the Army has a pretty good roadmap. I would like to ask General 

Longo to respond to that question. 

General LONGO. Glad to do so, not sure how to work the microphone. 

Dr. SNYDER. Pick one up, or pull your chair up there beside him, 

or whatever you want to do. 

General LONGO. With regards to cultural training, the Army has 

done a tremendous amount of work to get it embedded in all levels 

of our education system. From the time a soldier enters basic combat training till the time an officer graduates from the Army War 

College there is cultural training that is appropriate to their rank 

and authority embedded throughout. 

And then within our collective training scenarios, either at home 

stations or at our combat training centers, we also have a very deployment-specific focus on cultural training. So we are both planting the seed corn in our educational institutions and then harvesting it as we get closer and closer to a deployment. We recognize 

the importance of cultural training. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, if I could 

ask the Navy and Marine Corps representatives maybe to comment 

on that, too, on your efforts there with that general cultural awareness for the force—and the Air Force, too. I want to make sure we 

get all the service branches there. I don’t want to leave anybody 

out. 

Admiral HOLLOWAY. I think one of the examples I would like to 

give that our parallel system to the Army would be, following up 

on Mr. Chairman’s point about the Haiti surge—I think it lends a 

good story. 
15 

Admiral John Harvey, a Fleet Forces commander, would say that 

upon news of that disaster in Haiti his commanders were told to 

move out, make the suffering and the people the center of gravity, 

and flow to the region. Sitting behind me today is Mr. Lee Johnson, 

who runs the program for us, and within 6 hours Lee had the list 

of the Creole speakers in the United States Navy. In 2.5 days from 

a cold start our hospital ship was underway from Baltimore fully 

staffed. 

The head of the Chaplain Corps moved out, and he took the surgical ward from Bethesda chaplains, that deal with the wounded 

warriors—took a few of those chaplains, put them on the hospital 

ship. They also had language skills, got underway with a bunch of 

stuffed animals, and as they greeted children and family members 

that were buried for days and hadn’t seen anyone, they were greeted with Creole language-speakers, a stuffed animal, and given 

medical care. 

Just speaking to the chaplain yesterday—happen to be over at 

Bethesda—he tells the story how the calming effect of hearing a 

language, seeing someone hand them a stuffed animal, and having 

the comforts of a hospital ship off the coast, how successful that 

was putting that center of gravity of the people at rest. 

We moved a carrier in place and had language-speakers on our 

helicopter squadrons to ensure that as they flew both water and 

the injured back, after dropping off water, there was someone—at 

least one—that could communicate in that language as a calming 

effect, as well. The culture—big C, little L for language—is the 

Navy’s approach. It is across the continuum of education, and I 

think the Haiti response and the surge with both the carrier, the 

helicopters, our forces, our medical, our chaplains tells a good story 

as how they did impact that surge. Thank you. 

Colonel HENRY. Gentlemen, good afternoon. As the Army stated 

earlier, the Marine Corps has taken the same similar approach. 

From boot camp all the way through deployment the Marine Corps 

has recognized the need for cultural and language training. In boot 

camp we do a cultural 101 level, where we just speak of culture in 

general so the recruits and future Marines get an understanding 

of how important it is, and as we progress through the ranks, like 

the Army the Marine Corps has recognized the need to have the 

seed corn out and to harvest it as we get ready to go to deployment. 

One of the final evolutions before Marines head out to deployment is at Twentynine Palms, where we do Mojave Viper or enhanced Mojave Viper, and there the Marines get to utilize those 

cultural and language skills that they have used—or learned—over 

the course of their career up to that deployment and actually use 

it in mock villages where we have specifically, for whatever region 

they are going into—of course now it is Afghanistan, and Pashtun 

and Dari; before it was the Iraqi dialect and that part of the world. 

So, like the Army, we recognize that and have implemented that 

and it has become part of the curriculum across the disciplines as 

we move forward. Thank you. 

Mr. GET. Chairman Snyder, Mr. Wittman, the Air Force follows 

a similar approach, and one of the advantages of the Defense Language Steering group is that we share these best practices. So, like 

the Army and the Marine Corps, we have looked at culture in our 
16 

professional military education as a foundation for culture general, 

and that goes all the way from junior ROTC [Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps] to the senior service college. In fact, the Air Force 

ROTC Command has just published a new textbook that cultural 

competencies and cultural awareness is engrained throughout the 

textbook. 

We use a building block approach, as I mentioned. So at basic 

training, as the Marines do, they get an introduction to culture for 

a couple of hours. It progresses through in their professional military development. 

A good example would be, by the time that they get to the Air 

Command and Staff College, as a senior captain or a major, in addition to more cultural awareness training there is language training added—30 hours of language awareness, language development, that is provided by professional language instruction from 

the Defense Language Institute. Again, this is one of the ideas that 

came out of our collective steering group. It has been very effective, 

and it is mandatory at Air Command and Staff. 

It is voluntary at the Air War College. However, the participation 

is well over 50 percent. It is one of the most popular elective 

courses at the lieutenant colonel level. 

For culture-specific, very similar to what the Marines and the 

Army are doing, we have an Air Advisor Academy that focuses on 

the specific deployment area. So if we have partnership teams 

going to Iraq to help train the Iraqi air force they receive culturespecific training for that environment; if they are going to Afghanistan to partner with ISAF in training Afghanis, that is the focus 

of their training. 

So all the programs are very, very similar, and again, we are 

sharing our best practices. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

General Golden, in your statement, which I have here somewhere, you make the comment toward the end of it, ‘‘With maturity 

we expect greater agility in identifying, prioritizing, and responding to language and regional expertise requirements.’’ I mean, it is 

the easy question to ask, I guess, is, you know, with maturity—we 

went into Afghanistan in October 2001 when, you know, there were 

a bunch of 18-year-olds were 10 years old, and yet we are still 

grappling in a very major way with these language issues. 

So I am not sure what propels us—I am not blaming you; it is 

all of us—what propels us, as a nation, to maturity. I mean, do you 

have any comments about that? I mean, it must be very frustrating 

for our folks who are doing multiple tours in Afghanistan still having to grapple with the fact that they are struggling to get people 

with language skills and we have been there for eight and a half, 

going on nine years. 

General GOLDEN. Sir, I think that is a very fair question, and I 

would offer two points to kind of offer both my personal and professional perspective. The first point that I would bring is, again, 

going back to this capabilities-based assessment, that the maturity 

that I refer to for the capabilities-based assessment is building this 

foundation for kind of what is on the shelf, and the steady state 

security posture looks out in the future for 10 years. 
17 

Now, obviously I am sure you and many folks in this room probably don’t have a great degree of confidence in our nation or military’s capability to predict with absolute certainty where our next 

conflict is going to be, but as you have said, we certainly know 

where we have been in conflict the last nine years, and so that 

should be a guiding point that I think will be captured by the capabilities-based assessment and expand upon efforts like the AfPak 

Hands program that will allow us the proficiency that we are looking for. 

I think the second challenge that we have is just in terms of the 

difficulty of some of the languages and cultures that we are trying 

to learn. Dari and Pashtun, for example, are both Category 4 languages for which there isn’t a lot of resources available, at least in 

terms of the written word, so we have kind of had to build this 

train as we rode it. 

But without attributing, you know, too much fault to my choice 

of words for maturing, I would just like to go back to the point that 

really my allusion and my decision to use the word ‘‘maturing’’ was 

to build beyond the two COCOMS, PACOM and SOUTHCOM, that 

we have already kind of surveyed and linked to their steady state 

security posture, expanding that to all of the geographic commands, being able to apply those lessons to the intelligence community, for example, and Special Operations, to get a much more holistic view than perhaps the narrower focus that we have looked at 

our language and cultural expertise issues for the last nine years. 

Dr. SNYDER. In General McChrystal’s memorandum he talks 

about having one person per platoon that has, you know, reasonably good oral language skills compared to, you know, I guess the 

general forces. Do you the three of you—is that a reasonable standard to aim for, do we think, as a force? 

General Longo. 

General LONGO. In November General McChrystal came out with 

that codified requirement. In December the office of the secretary 

of defense provided the services resources to get after that. By February we had four language training detachments set up at the 

four posts in the Army first, and next year it will be at other services, that had the next deploying brigades. In each of those posts 

the commanders committed to participating in a training regiment 

for that one soldier per platoon. 

So Fort Campbell was the first place we went to. We had 75 soldiers show up, and in a 16-week period, which just concluded in 

the beginning of June, 98 percent of the soldiers met General 

McChrystal’s established standard of zero-plus or better. 

And then he also asked that every soldier that goes has some rudimentary greeting capability, which we thought was very important also. What we did with that was the Defense Language Institute put out a 6-hour program—you can access it online and if you 

don’t have access to the Internet they will send a CD—which gives 

a broad overview of cultural awareness. It also gives them common 

greetings that they say into the computer and get feedback back. 

So through those two programs we are very quickly able to meet 

General McChrystal’s standard, and we think it is having an impact already as those soldiers deploy. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 
18 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. General Longo and the Colonel from the Marine 

Corps, I will direct these questions to you, if I might. I have 

brought up before, through the years—and the Marine Corps 

makes it today—what role boot camp might play in this, given the 

full agenda. And I was talking with an enlisted Marine not long 

ago who thought that the idea of having some kind of early language skill training—language, not just cultural awareness but 

language training in boot camp—could be helpful both to the soldier or Marine, but then also ultimately helpful to the military— 

at least help you find some people that have both interest and 

might meet that basic requirement. Have you all considered or 

thought about actually having some kind of language skill at the 

boot camp level? 

General LONGO. Sir, in the Army we have not added that, but 

I would like to tell you something we are doing with our officer 

corps, which is the incentivizing the taking of language courses 

while they are still in college. We reward them by pay; we give 

scholarships to people who major in foreign languages in our ROTC 

institutions, and at our Military Academy we have a requirement 

for two or four semesters of a foreign language. But as far as for 

the enlisted soldier in basic combat training, we have not implemented that. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is that true for the Marine Corps also, Colonel? 

Colonel HENRY. Sir, for the Marine Corps, on the officer side we 

have partnered with Harvard, George Washington, Tufts, and a 

couple other universities—San Diego State—to implement something similar. Although we do not offer money to the officers to get 

those skills we have worked with those universities to develop 

something specifically to help us in that regard. 

As far as boot camp, we have not looked at the language implementation, other than to ensure that we screen those Marines who 

may have a foreign language in their background so that we can 

capture that and record it so that we have it in a database. 

And we also offer, as we go through the training, and we offer 

them money so they can test—if they test and get a one-one we will 

start paying them. So we try to inculcate them early on that language is important and something that the force needs, and that 

if they can develop that skill they can get the extra money to do 

so. 

Dr. SNYDER. General McChrystal’s memo refers—I think he uses 

the phrase ‘‘strategic corporal.’’ I still think there can be benefit 

from additional language skills at the enlisted level, but—I mean, 

you depend on your officer corps for a lot of things, but at some 

point I think there could be value in having some rudimentary language skills early on in an enlisted career. 

Mrs. Weaver, you—I am going to take you up on your offer to 

get us the information about how much money is going into the 

kindergarten through grade 12 language stuff, and maybe as a 

committee Mr. Wittman or I might address a letter to Secretary of 

Education Duncan about if he is aware of that and what he thinks 

about DOD dollars having to go to try to beef up foreign language 

training in our schools. 
19 

The last question I wanted to ask to you all, and to each of the 

three of you, is, I think when you were last here—you were here 

about a year-and-a-half ago, Mrs. Weaver, I think—and when we 

asked you what you thought would happen when we came back 

and revisited this topic in a year or so, and you thought there 

would be dramatic improvements. Would you say—to the three of 

you—that there has been dramatic change and improvement since 

last we spoke? 

Ms. WEAVER. I think we have moved a lot farther than even we 

anticipated. Our language and culture program has permeated the 

general purpose forces. We have got institutionalized programs 

that will ensure that we are building capability and looking out in 

the future. And we have got the support of senior leadership now, 

as we did from the very beginning, who know the value of language 

and culture and are supporting our efforts. 

Right now, mandatory pre-deployment training for all troops who 

deploy and when they return they have follow-on training. We are 

improving the level of training, the amount of training materials 

that are available, and we are taking training to the individual in 

mobile training teams and language training detachments. 

So right now we think that we have the capability to move forward and provide the training at least to the general purpose 

forces and special forces that we need. We have also got continued 

support for the professional linguist at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Golden. 

General GOLDEN. Sir, obviously I am one of the few that wasn’t 

here during your last hearing, so I guess you could question my assessment, but I also believe that there has been dramatic progress. 

And what I would offer is, as I chose the words for my opening 

statement you may remember that a word I used was to report on 

the transformational progress the Joint Staff has made. And so, 

you know, as I looked at the word ‘‘transformational’’—I actually 

thought I might be called to task on that word, so I went and made 

sure that I understood the definition of transformational. So I 

looked it up and it defined it as an ‘‘orients an organization in a 

new direction and takes it to an entirely new level of effectiveness.’’ 

And so what I would offer to you is at least from the Joint Staff 

perspective I really do believe this capabilities-based assessment 

that is standardized among the COCOMs, is oriented on their 

steady state security posture, forces them to identify and prioritize 

their language requirements, have that validated by the Joint 

Staff, and then passed to the services in terms of requirements that 

they can match against resources, I believe meets that definition 

of a new direction and eventually take it to an entirely new level 

of effectiveness. And I think if you take that in context with the 

AfPak Hands program for Afghanistan specifically, then I believe 

we have made dramatic progress since the last hearing. 

Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Pickup. 

Ms. PICKUP. Well, I would echo that I think the Department has 

made progress, and clearly I think that the command emphasis is 

critical to this. I think the Department and the services are energized behind this. 
20 

And the roadmap, as I said, was a good start; they have a ways 

to go on requirements. And as we have heard today, there is an 

array of programs and activities, particularly in the last several 

months, in response to the operational commanders’ emphasis and 

needs. 

And I think as the Department and Joint Staff goes forward it 

is going to be very important for them to develop metrics to assess 

the impact of some of these programs and activities, particularly 

the more recent ones, to capitalize on the momentum and the command emphasis and to make any adjustments as they see fit while 

they wait for the more formal requirements to define the implementation process, and so that they can be prudent in their investment, both in the near term and in the long term, and the number 

and the nature of the programs they undertake. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman, anything further? 

We appreciate you all for being here, both the three in the forward seats and the row behind you. Thank you for your service. I 

think this topic is very important, and I won’t be here for the next 

time the committee does this, but I think this is a topic that is very 

important I am sure to the committee and to Chairman Skelton, 

and to both parties on the committee, and I anticipate it is an issue 

we will follow for a long, long time. 

Thank you all. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

JUNE 29, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 29, 2010 

(25) 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JUNE 29, 2010 

(59) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Ms. WEAVER. In FY 2010, Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) offered four programs that educate students in a foreign language. The programs are 

Foreign Language in the Elementary School (FLES), Partial Immersion, Host Nation, and Middle and High School Foreign Language programs. The estimated cost 

for these DoDEA programs in FY 2010 is $79 million. 

• Elementary School Programs include FLES Spanish: Taught in 63 DoDEA elementary schools in grades K–3 with 12,000 students and approximately 102 

teachers. Students receive up to 90 minutes of Spanish each week by a certified 

Spanish teacher. 

• Partial Immersion Programs are located in Pacific and Europe schools. There 

are 40 classrooms in 14 elementary schools with an estimated 800 students and 

approximately 40 teachers. Programs are taught in the languages of German, 

Italian, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish. Students are in a typical elementary 

classroom learning core subjects for half the day in the immersion language. 

• Host Nation programs are located in Pacific and Europe schools and taught to 

all students in the elementary schools to 10,000 students. There are 76 Host 

Nation (HN) cultural enrichment programs in 11 countries: Bahrain, Belgium, 

England, Guam, Korea, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Okinawa, Spain, and Turkey. Languages are Arabic, Chamorro, Dutch, British English, French, Italian, 

German, Japanese, Korean, Italian, Spanish, and Turkish. Students are in a 

Host Nation classroom for at least 45 minutes of instruction each week. 

• Middle and high school Foreign Language (FL) courses are also offered in all 

DoDEA middle and high schools through face-to-face and virtual classes taught 

by 486 teachers. Each year, approximately 16,000 students take a FL course for 

credit including students taking classes taken through the Virtual High School. 

Classes are offered from Level I through Levels V/VI & AP/IB in Arabic, Chinese, French, Italian, Korean, German, Japanese, Spanish, and Turkish. 

In addition, the Department of Defense provides approximately $750,000 a year, 

through the National Security Education Program’s (NSEP) Language Flagship effort, to support K–12 language programs and is funded through Fiscal Year 2015. 

As an integral part of the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI), the Department of Defense agreed to fund 3 pilot models of articulated K–12 language instruction. These programs are funded through NSEP Flagship programs at the University of Oregon, Ohio State University, and Michigan State University. 

In partnership with the Department of Defense in the NSLI initiative, the Office 

of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of State also 

provide support to the K–12 programs. ODNI commits, annually, more than $10 

Million to the STARTALK program which is designed to train K–12 language teachers and offer summer immersion opportunities for high school students. 

STARTALK’s purpose is to increase the number of Americans learning, speaking, 

and teaching strategically important foreign languages to the Nation. The Department of State also commits significant funds to middle school and high school students studying overseas for summers, semesters, and full academic years. [See page 

11.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JUNE 29, 2010 

(63) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. In your oral testimony you stated that the Department is in the final 

stages of coordination of the plan that will provide strategic direction for language 

learning and cultural awareness for the next six years? When do you anticipate this 

coordination being complete? 

Ms. WEAVER. The Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities has been coordinated at the component 

senior leadership level. We are currently adjudicating all inputs received. The final 

version of the plan will be forwarded through the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)) to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for approval before the end of 2010. 

Dr. SNYDER. While this strategic plan has been in the drafting and coordination 

phases, two of services have issued, and one is close to issuing, their strategic visions for foreign language and cultural awareness training absent current written 

guidance from the Department. What factors have contributed to what appears to 

have been a delay? 

Ms. WEAVER. The factors that contributed to the current timeline are the following: 

a) The Services current strategic plans were written with input from the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap (DLTR) and emerging Service 

needs. 

b) The Department began development of a strategic plan that would continue 

transformation of language and culture, building on the achievements of the 

DLTR. 

c) A Department-wide working group, consisting of representatives from the 

Services, Defense Agencies, Joint Staff, and Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD), developed this plan, with periodic review and guidance from the Defense Language Steering Committee. 

This plan has been developed along a timeline to ensure it conformed to key strategic planning documents, to include the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 

and the 2010 Defense Planning and Programming Guidance. The Services that have 

not yet issued a strategic plan will use this plan as well as other strategic documents to update their specific vision for language and regional awareness goals and 

objectives. 

Dr. SNYDER. What challenges does the Department face in developing the same 

framework for determining requirements and assessing current capabilities for cultural awareness and regional expertise that it has presently have for language 

skills? 

Ms. WEAVER. The primary challenge the Department faces is that the assessment 

tools used to determine an individual’s regional expertise and culture proficiency are 

not as mature. In order to address this challenge, the Department has recently developed a conceptual framework and methodology for determining the regional expertise and cultural capability requirements. We will test the framework and methodology through a Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA). The CBA will evaluate the 

Joint Mission Essential Task List relevant to each COCOM mission, determine the 

requirements, and express the demand in terms of the degree of capability required 

to accomplish the task. These demands will then be prioritized and sent to the force 

providers (in most cases the Military Services), who will then recruit, train, and 

educate personnel in order to meet those demands. This will be the first time the 

Department has conducted a requirements generation and reporting process for regional and cultural skills. 

In order to identify existing capability within the Department, we are continuing 

to develop procedures for assessing an individual’s regional (and associated cultural) 

proficiency. The assessments will include education and discipline of study, frequency and duration of assignments in the region, jobs performed while in the region, as well as personal travel, family background history, etc. 

Dr. SNYDER. In your written testimony you stated that the initial state roadmap 

projects include three states: Ohio, Oregon, and Texas. How much funding has the 

Department provided for the development of state roadmaps? 
64 

Ms. WEAVER. In FY 2008, Congress appropriated $1M to the Department of Defense to support federal language coordination. DoD reached an agreement with 

Congress that the Department, through the National Security Education Program 

(NSEP), would apply these funds to an effort that would launch three pilot state 

roadmaps for language education. These roadmap efforts were launched in Ohio, Oregon, and Texas with the one-time $1M appropriations. Since FY08, NSEP has continued to coordinate and support implementation of key recommendations of the 

three roadmaps with no additional congressional support. In FY 2009 NSEP allocated $223,000 and in FY 2010 $100,000, chiefly out of NSEP’s Flagship budget for 

the development of these state roadmap projects. 

Dr. SNYDER. In your written testimony you stated that the Department has implemented a two-year professional development pilot program for National Security 

Education Program (NSEP) fellows to assist fellows in competing for positions in the 

government related to their language skills and regional expertise. How many 

NSEP fellows have taken advantage of the pilot? 

Ms. WEAVER. Currently, six NSEP interns are participating in this pilot Professional Development Program (PDP): four Foreign Affairs Specialists (Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Virginia) and two Foreign Language Instructors (United 

States Air Force Academy, Colorado). 

Dr. SNYDER. In your written testimony you stated that the validated methodologies will be based on the combatant commander ‘‘steady state postures.’’ The current 

framework was not responsive to the needs of the International Security Assistance 

Force in Afghanistan. It appears that neither U.S. Central Command nor the Joint 

Staff anticipated the foreign language training directed by General McChrystal’s 

November 10, 2009 memorandum, which came eight years into the war. How will 

the Joint Staff incorporate agility into this peacetime process? 

General GOLDEN. We initiated the capability based assessments because we 

lacked a standardized framework to determine requirements. The methodology that 

we developed will build an unprecedented global baseline of requirements for language, regional expertise and culture. Requirements drive training, education, recruitment and retention. Until requirements are documented, the only drivers for 

education and training are those tied primarily to intelligence or foreign area officer 

billets and those determined by individual commanders. Agility will be enabled by 

identifying requirements in advance. 

Dr. SNYDER. In your oral testimony you stated that the Joint Staff has oversight 

of two capabilities-based assessments, one by the Army for foreign language and one 

by the Navy for culture, to develop standardized methodologies for the combatant 

commands to establish requirements. What is the status of these two efforts? When 

will they be completed? What factors have contributed to what appears to have been 

a prolonged process? Given Secretary Gate’s May 24, 2010 memorandum on endorsing General McChrystal’s counterinsurgency training guidance, has the Joint Staff 

considered advancing the timeline and expediting the current schedule? 

General GOLDEN. A single methodology to determine language, regional expertise 

and culture has been developed and fully coordinated with the Services and Combatant Commands. Coordination at all levels has been crucial. This effort is unprecedented. It has been a complex undertaking, because it is critical that it address 

global requirements, apple to each geographic combatant command and provide a 

refined and targeted signal to the Services for force development. 

We will accelerate the timeline where possible. The first step is identifying requirements for Steady State Security Postures (SSSPs). This will be arduous and 

cannot be accelerated. However due to the criticality of this effort, we have eliminated about six months from the original implementation plan by beginning the 

identification of surge requirements immediately after collecting the SSSP requirements. Thereafter, this will be an iterative process where we will continue to refine 

requirements and respond to changing priorities. 

Dr. SNYDER. When will the combatant commanders start using the validated 

methodologies? 

General GOLDEN. Between October and December 2010, a Joint Staff facilitation 

team will visit each geographic combatant command to train participants in the 

methodology and facilitate the identification of requirements for the initial Steady 

State Security Postures. Then each combatant command will complete the identification of requirements for their remaining SSSPs. This work should be completed 

by Sprint 2011. 

Dr. SNYDER. The House version of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act 

directed the Government Accountability Office to review the services’ language, cultural awareness, and regional expertise training. What is the status of this review? 

What preliminary issues and questions will you be looking at? 
65 

1 H.R. Rep. No. 111–491 at 259 (2010), which accompanied H.R. 5136. 

Ms. PICKUP. The committee report accompanying the proposed Fiscal Year 2011 

National Defense Authorization Act 1 directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the services’ language, regional expertise, and cultural awareness 

training plans for general purpose forces. Specifically, because of the continued presence of the Army and Marine Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan, where missions typically require close contact with foreign populations, the mandate directs GAO to 

focus on DOD’s ground forces. 

We began our work with DOD in response to the mandate on July 1, 2010. To 

date, we have conducted meetings with the Office of the Secretary of Defense; Headquarters, Department of the Army; and Headquarters, United States Marine Corps. 

We plan to conduct additional meetings with these offices and we expect to visit the 

services’ force providers, training commands, and lessons learned centers, as well 

as U.S. Central Command and U.S. Joint Forces Command. We also plan to visit 

selected units that are training for, or which have recently returned from, missions 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

In general, we will be reviewing the progress of the two services in implementing 

training programs in support of their goal to develop forces that are more language 

capable and have a better understanding of the cultures and regions around the 

world. Our specific preliminary objectives in conducting this review are to determine 

(1) how the Army and Marine Corps define training requirements for language proficiency, regional expertise, and cultural awareness; (2) the extent to which training 

requirements in these areas have been integrated into predeployment training and 

other joint exercises, and the metrics, if any, that have been developed to evaluate 

the impact of this training; (3) the challenges, if any, that the services face in implementing training requirements for language proficiency, regional expertise, and cultural awareness; and (4) the extent to which the services have incorporated lessons 

learned from ongoing operations regarding language proficiency, regional expertise, 

and cultural awareness into training programs. 

Dr. SNYDER. Service academy majors in fields related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) typically take fewer foreign language courses 

than their humanities and social science counterparts. The Naval Academy, unlike 

the Military Academy and Air Force Academy, does not require STEM majors to 

take any foreign language. This seems incongruous with the growing importance of 

language skills in maritime operations. Given the Academy’s goal of graduating 65% 

STEM majors, what is the Navy’s rationale for the majority of its Academy graduates entering the service with no foreign language proficiency? 

Admiral HOLLOWAY. Navy has taken a hard and critical look at the courses required of Midshipmen, and has determined that U. S. Naval Academy’s academic 

program best serves the skills needed by officers to support the nation’s maritime 

missions. The current academic balance is supported completely by Navy’s Foreign 

Language Office. It is correct that the Academy’s goal is to graduate 65% STEM 

(Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) majors, and those majors have no language requirement. However, the Academy does have vigorous and relevant language and regional studies programs. The language studies department provides not 

only foreign language training, but a foreign language education by offering language major and minor programs in Arabic and Mandarin Chinese, and language 

minors in Russian, Japanese, French, German, and Spanish. 

Enrollments in languages and cultures at the Naval Academy have increased. For 

the current Fall Semester, 1,552 midshipmen, one third of the Brigade, are enrolled 

in language courses in the Department of Languages and Cultures. The department 

was renamed to reflect more accurately its double emphasis: enhanced language capabilities and intercultural competence/cross-cultural dynamism. The Class of 2010 

produced 155 minors (seven were dual minors), four Chinese majors, and nine Arabic majors. A major requires 14 3-credit hour courses, ten of which have to be 

taught in the target language, e.g., Arabic or Chinese. 

Foreign Language education focuses simultaneously on increased language capabilities and cultural competencies through the study of courses such as Window on 

Arabic Culture, Arabic Discourse in Modern Society, Modern Arabic Literature, Chinese Culture through Films, Twentieth-Century Chinese Literature, and Intercultural Communication. The Academy’s Political Science Department has expanded its 

academic offerings to include courses such as Middle East International Politics, 

Asia International Politics, Islam and Politics in Southeast Asia, and National Security Policy of Japan. 

Navy has implemented language study in other commissioning programs. To encourage critical foreign language and regional studies, Navy established the Language, Regional Expertise, and Culture (LREC) Academic Major program for the 
66 

Senior Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps. Its purpose is to encourage select 

NROTC Midshipmen to pursue language and regional studies majors. The set goal 

for the program is to produce 20–30 Midshipmen graduates annually. Those selected 

to participate will major and minor in LREC course disciplines deemed critical by 

the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. In its first year of implementation, 18 

NROTC Midshipmen were enrolled. Areas on which students may focus include Arabic, Chinese, French, Hausa, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish as well 

as related regional studies, political science, and international relations. 

While Navy does not direct that its STEM majors participate in foreign language 

courses, given the rigor of those curricula, we remain confident our commissioning 

accession requirements, both via the Naval Academy and NROTC, are appropriately 

prioritized to provide the right balance of skills needed in its officer corps to successfully perform the nation’s maritime missions. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is your service paying foreign language proficiency pay to personnel 

outside the military linguist or foreign area officer career paths? If so, to whom and 

at what levels? What is your service’s policy for paying its special operations forces? 

Admiral HOLLOWAY. Navy pays the Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus (FLPB) 

to a substantial number of personnel beyond career linguist categories. Full FLPB 

is paid to all members who test at the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) L2/ 

R2 proficiency levels or higher for all languages on the Department of Defense Strategic Language List (SLL), except those that have been declared Dominant in the 

Force (DIF), e. g., Spanish, French. Eligible members receive FLPB regardless of 

designator, rating, or billet assignment. 

Navy pays what it terms ‘‘Expeditionary FLPB’’ to Sailors assigned to Navy special operations and expeditionary forces at the L1/R1 proficiency levels. Those forces 

include all designators and ratings assigned to the Naval Special Warfare Command 

(NSWC), Naval Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), Fleet Marine Force 

(FMF), the Health Services Augmentation Program (HASP), and to the AfghanistanPakistan (AFPAK) Hands program. 

Navy also pays FLPB at the L1/R1 levels for contingency situations including 

emergent, unplanned, or ad hoc operations for which an individual’s foreign language skills are required to facilitate or enable the command’s mission. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is foreign language proficiency a consideration for promotion for officers outside of the linguist or foreign area officer career paths? Does your service 

have any flag officer positions, apart for those normally filled by foreign area officers, for which language proficiency is a consideration for selection and assignment? 

Admiral HOLLOWAY. Foreign language proficiency has been called out in the precepts for all officer promotion boards and enlisted advancement selection boards to 

ensure these highly sought after skills receive appropriate recognition. Navy currently does not have any Unrestricted Line Flag Officer positions requiring language 

proficiencies, however, we recently initiated a program that offers language training 

and culture information products to all Flag Officers enroute overseas assignments. 

Opportunities under this program include the offer of tutors, language learning software, and language survival kits. The program has been endorsed at the highest 

levels of Navy leadership and to date has been received with overwhelming and 

positive response. Navy also recently designated its first Foreign Area Officer (FAO) 

Flag Officer—skilled in Russian at ILR levels L1+/R2. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is your service paying foreign language proficiency pay to personnel 

outside the military linguist or foreign area officer career paths? If so, to whom and 

at what levels? What is your service’s policy for paying its special operations forces? 

General LONGO. Yes, the Army pays a foreign language proficiency bonus (FLPB) 

to Soldiers outside the Linguist or Foreign Area Officer (FAO) career paths. Governed by Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.03, the DoD Financial 

Management Regulation 7000.14–R, Volume 7A, Chapter 19, and Army Regulation 

11–6 (Army Foreign Language Program) any Soldier, regardless of military occupational specialty (MOS), assignment, or rank can be certified to receive FLPB by 

achieving a score of 2 or higher in reading and a 2 or higher in writing on the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT). Soldiers may receive entitlements for proficiency in multiple languages; however the annual FLPB entitlement may not exceed $12,000 or $1,000 monthly. Each Soldier must test annually in each language 

for which they are receiving FLPB to continue receiving payment. 

The FLPB is also paid to Soldiers who demonstrate a Level 2 or higher proficiency 

of two of the three modalities (reading, listening and speaking) in a dominant language (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Russian, German, and Italian) or maintain 

that proficiency level in any of the languages on the Department of Defense Strategic Language list, which is annually updated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In order to receive a FLPB in these two categories, the following criteria must 

be met: 
67 

a. Soldier must possess a ‘‘language dependent MOS and one of these languages 

must be their Control Language’’, or 

b. Soldier must be attending military education as a student and the course is 

taught ‘‘exclusively’’ in this language or Soldier is an Instructor teaching this 

language ‘‘exclusively,’’ or 

c. Soldier must be assigned to a position on the unit military table of equipment 

or TDA that the billet is ‘‘specifically’’ coded for this language. 

Army Special Forces (SF) receive foreign language training as part of the SF curriculum. In addition to basic language training, Soldiers in the SF community are 

each assigned a control language for which they receive FLPB. Some SF Soldiers 

are also in ‘‘language coded billets’’ for which they are paid FLPB. The same FLPB 

regulations and FLPB payment requirements apply to these Soldiers as it does for 

the rest of the general purpose force. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is foreign language proficiency a consideration for promotion for officers outside of the linguist or foreign area officer career paths? Does your service 

have any flag officer positions, apart for those normally filled by foreign area officers, for which language proficiency is a consideration for selection and assignment? 

General LONGO. Foreign language proficiency is not a consideration for promotion 

for officers (01–06) outside of the linguist or foreign area officer career paths. Additionally, there are no general officer billets that have a language requirement. 

Dr. SNYDER. You stated that the Air Force looks at culture in our professional 

military education as a foundation for culture general, and that it goes all the way 

from junior ROTC to the Senior Service College. Can you describe the general culture material in the junior ROTC curricula? How does it compare to what recruits 

receive in basic training? 

Mr. GET. The Holm Center at Maxwell AFB provides a text and a curriculum to 

Junior ROTC programs that emphasizes regional detail/regional studies. The 

JROTC program is designed to stimulate junior cadet awareness of (and interest in) 

the broader world, and that later instruction (say in AFROTC or the Academy) will 

build on that interest by providing generalizable understandings and skills to deal 

with the world as a whole (in other words, a culture-general approach). 

This is different from the approach taken in basic training (BMTS). Currently, the 

BMTS curriculum includes four hours of Human Relations training, of which approximately an hour and a half is devoted to culture-general content. This is supplemented by a number of practical exercises in the Basic Expeditionary Airman Skills 

Training (BEAST) capstone experience, which include opportunities to apply culture 

learning. The Air Force Culture and Language Center (AFCLC) staff communicates 

regularly with the BMTS staff to identify other places to weave in culture-general 

content. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is your service paying foreign language proficiency pay to personnel 

outside the military linguist or foreign area officer career paths? If so, to whom and 

at what levels? What is your service’s policy for paying its special operations forces? 

Mr. GET. The Air Force pays Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus (FLPB) outside 

the military linguist or foreign area officer (or Air Force Regional Affairs Strategist) 

career paths IAW AFI36–2605lAFGM2, dated 4 May 2010. With the following exceptions, all personnel maintaining a 2/2 Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) 

score are paid FLPB: 

For dominant in the force languages, required proficiency levels are noted below. 

Spanish—4/4 and Tagalog—3/3 

German, Italian, French, Russian and Portuguese—3/3 

IAW AFI36–2605lAFGM2, dated 4 May 2010, Airmen serving in language-coded 

billets while assigned to a US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) or Air 

Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) organization will receive FLPB if they 

maintain a current proficiency level of at least a 1/1 in any two modalities. FLPB 

will apply to the language coded against the billet. Sub 2/2 FLPB will be paid for 

a maximum of 2 years for Category I–III languages and for a maximum of 3 years 

for Category IV languages as identified on the DoD Language Category List. Airmen 

must demonstrate improvement in any modality annually in order to continue to receive Sub 2/2 FLPB. Any Career Field Authority, in coordination with the Air Force 

Senior Language Authority (SLA), may identify other language-coded billets eligible 

for FLPB at the 1/1 level or higher. The Air Force has also extended the special 

operations exception described above to AFPAKHANDS personnel. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is foreign language proficiency a consideration for promotion for officers outside of the linguist or foreign area officer career paths? Does your service 

have any flag officer positions, apart for those normally filled by foreign area officers, for which language proficiency is a consideration for selection and assignment? 
68 

Mr. GET. For the first question, not at this time. This is something that needs 

to be researched, which we are doing. We are still working out the details on how 

the Language Enabled Airman Program (LEAP) participants will be annotated to 

demonstrate what they have accomplished. Currently, we are in the paper work 

process to track LEAP within a Language Enabled Airmen Developmental Resource 

(LEADR) database, in addition to using the SEI to annotate them in the system. 

For the second question, yes, two positions: 

1. A position in DIA requiring Chinese Mandarin for Intelligence Collection 

2. A position in EUCOM requiring Turkish for Foreign Military Sales & Security 

Assistance Program Management 

Dr. SNYDER. Is your service paying foreign language proficiency pay to personnel 

outside the military linguist or foreign area officer career paths? If so, to whom and 

at what levels? What is your service’s policy for paying its special operations forces? 

Colonel HENRY. Since 2006, the Marine Corps has paid all Marines, regardless of 

occupational field, Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP). Although 2/2 is normally the minimum level of proficiency to earn FLPP, the Marine Corps also pays 

a Marine $100 per month in FLPP at the 1/1 level for certain GWOT or ‘‘Long War’’ 

languages that enhance our mission effectiveness. 

For most other languages except those designated as ‘‘dominant in the force,’’ we 

are able to pay FLPP to all Marines at the 2/2 level. FLPP for these ‘‘dominant in 

the force’’ languages is restricted to personnel in specific billets and specialties 

(FAOs, Marine Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC), and Intelligence). 

Since 2006, Spanish is the only language for which the restrictions apply to Marines. 

Annually, the Marine Corps publishes Marine Administrative Messages 

(MARADMINs) which outline the USMC strategic language list (categories for FLPP 

payment) and additional exemptions to the FLPP policy. 

MARADMINs 042/10 & 044/10 (full MARADMINs are below) allow for payment 

of Marines assigned to MARSOC down to the ILR 1/1 level for languages that are 

critical for mission success. All language lists are determined and approved through 

a joint effort between Intelligence Dept, Plans, Policy & Operations, Manpower & 

Reserve Affairs, and the Marine Forces Components. (e.g., MARSOC, MARFORPAC 

and MARFORCOM). 

Dr. SNYDER. Does your service have any flag officer positions, apart for those normally filled by foreign area officers, for which language proficiency is a consideration 

for selection and assignment? 

Colonel HENRY. The Marine Corps does not have general officer positions for 

which language proficiency is required; however, there are certain billets that Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) will consider language proficiency for selection 

and assignment. A specific example is the Chief of Staff for SOUTHCOM. M&RA 

strives to assign a BGen with a Spanish capability to this billet. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the status of the implementation of the Marine Corps’ regional skills program for career officers and enlisted personnel? When will the first 

cohort for each have their promotion to major and gunnery sergeant respectively dependent on mastery of the requisite language proficiency and regional expertise? 

Colonel HENRY. The Marine Corps’ Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization (RCLF) Program represents the Corps’ enduring, career long training and education effort to institutionalize language and culture capabilities in the General Purpose Force in the out years (ie: post-OEF) and the implementation is ongoing. The 

RCLF Program Concept Plan is in the staffing process and has received Marine 

Corps-wide O6 and O7 level reviews. Once the Commandant signs the USMC Language, Regional, and Culture Strategy, the RCLF Program Concept Plan will be released for 3–Star review. 

Officers assigned to The Basic School are receiving regional assignments with associated culture classes, and have recently been provided access to the Officer Block 

II curriculum resident on MarineNet, the Marine Corps’ primary distance learning 

mechanism. Enlisted Marines are receiving Block I training at the recruit depots 

and coordination with Enlisted Professional Military Education continues to further 

development of the remaining enlisted blocks. The Marine Corps is expected to have 

its initial operating capability across all the respective officer and enlisted blocks 

by the end of FY11. Implementation of Officer blocks I and II are complete. In Block 

I, officers receive their regional assignment while at The Basic School and it is formally entered and tracked via the Marine Corps Total Force System. For Block II, 

those Second and First Lieutenants who have been assigned a region will complete 

a 13 module curriculum (1 module focused on operational culture/culture general 

and 12 modules associated with their specific region) reside on MarineNet. This cur-
69 

riculum has been available since 18 August 2010, and more than 140 enrollments 

have occurred to date. 

The intent is to ensure that there is a focused effort across the training and education continuum to actively develop, enhance, and sustain these skill sets throughout the force, from accession to retirement. Given the current status of the RCLF 

Program’s development and implementation, it may be 8–10 years before those Second and First Lieutenants who have regional assignments progress through the program and come into zone for Major. The same is true for the enlisted ranks. The 

officer promotion process, in particular, must adhere to certain statutory requirements, so the Service does not have complete authority in dictating what is, or is 

not, a mandatory requirement for promotion. However, there is some latitude in outlining what comprises a ‘‘best and fully qualified’’ officer/enlisted for promotion, and 

the Marine Corps is exploring the feasibility of including successful progress in the 

RCLF Program as one of those components. 

Æ