[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-632 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
GLENN NYE, Virginia CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
John Kruse, Professional Staff Member
Thomas Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Trey Howard, Staff Assistant
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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
information 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.
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 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, 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 I would assume that Texas, Ohio, and Oregon
will then be out-of-date, 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.
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 missions. 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.
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.
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 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 culture-specific 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1632.032
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
June 29, 2010
=======================================================================
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
=======================================================================
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?
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?
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. Rep. No. 111-491 at 259 (2010), which accompanied H.R.
5136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 Afghanistan-
Pakistan (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:
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 AFI36-2605_AFGM2,
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 AFI36-2605_AFGM2, 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?
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
curriculum 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.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
