System Design Document - U.S. Government Printing Office: Fill & Download for Free

Historically the Spanish American War in 1898 set the foundation for the US Navy to replace the Royal Navy as a worldwide naval force.Spanish-American WarCONTENTSRemember the Maine!War Is DeclaredSpanish-American War BeginsTreaty of ParisThe Spanish-American War was an 1898 conflict between the United States and Spain that ended Spanish colonial rule in the Americas and resulted in U.S. acquisition of territories in the western Pacific and Latin America.Remember the Maine!The war originated in the Cuban struggle for independence from Spain, which began in February 1895.Spain’s brutally repressive measures to halt the rebellion were graphically portrayed for the U.S. public by several sensational newspapers, and American sympathy for the Cuban rebels rose.The growing popular demand for U.S. intervention became an insistent chorus after the still-unexplained sinking in Havana harbor of the American battleship USS Maine, which had been sent to protect U.S. citizens and property after anti-Spanish rioting in Havana.War Is DeclaredSpain announced an armistice on April 9 and speeded up its new program to grant Cuba limited powers of self-government.But the U.S. Congress soon afterward issued resolutions that declared Cuba’s right to independence, demanded the withdrawal of Spain’s armed forces from the island, and authorized the use of force by President William McKinley to secure that withdrawal while renouncing any U.S. design for annexing Cuba.Spain declared war on the United States on April 24, followed by a U.S. declaration of war on the 25th, which was made retroactive to April 21.Spanish-American War BeginsThe ensuing war was pathetically one-sided, since Spain had readied neither its army nor its navy for a distant war with the formidable power of the United States.Commo. George Dewey led a U.S. naval squadron into Manila Bay in the Philippines on May 1, 1898, and destroyed the anchored Spanish fleet in a leisurely morning engagement that cost only seven American seamen wounded. Manila itself was occupied by U.S. troops by August.The elusive Spanish Caribbean fleet under Adm. Pascual Cervera was located in Santiago harbour in Cuba by U.S. reconnaissance. An army of regular troops and volunteers under Gen. William Shafter (including Theodore Roosevelt and his 1st Volunteer Cavalry, the “Rough Riders”) landed on the coast east of Santiago and slowly advanced on the city in an effort to force Cervera’s fleet out of the harbour.Cervera led his squadron out of Santiago on July 3 and tried to escape westward along the coast. In the ensuing battle all of his ships came under heavy fire from U.S. guns and were beached in a burning or sinking condition.Santiago surrendered to Shafter on July 17, thus effectively ending the brief but momentous war.Treaty of ParisBy the Treaty of Paris (signed Dec. 10, 1898), Spain renounced all claim to Cuba, ceded Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States, and transferred sovereignty over the Philippines to the United States for $20 million.The Spanish-American War was an important turning point in the history of both antagonists. Spain’s defeat decisively turned the nation’s attention away from its overseas colonial adventures and inward upon its domestic needs, a process that led to both a cultural and a literary renaissance and two decades of much-needed economic development in Spain.Documenting United States Naval Activities During the Spanish-American WarSpring 1998, Vol. 30, No. 1By Richard W. PeuserFor many people, the conflict known as the Spanish-American War is a little understood episode in U.S. history. It evokes gripping images such as the explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898, or Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders charging up San Juan Hill on July 1, 1898. But few scholars examined the subject at the fiftieth anniversary in 1948, and as the centennial anniversary of the war approaches, there is still a relatively short bibliography. This is unfortunate, since the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) holds hundreds of thousands of pages of records covering U.S. military activities during this period, many untapped by the research community. It is impossible to cite every series in all navy-related record groups relating to the Spanish-American War, but this article will mention the obvious and some not-so-obvious holdings that document United States naval activities during this period.The United States emerged from the Spanish-American War with a global empire, having acquired the possessions of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. It was a popular war with both the public and the press. The victories were glorified by newspapers, popular magazines, and veterans' own accounts published after the war. Songs, poems, and dirges written by the general public romanticized the exploits of ships, soldiers, and sailors. The following poem written by J. L. Miller of Denver, Idaho, entitled Our War Cry Is "The Maine" was sent to the secretary of the navy with the request that it be used as an "official" poem for "Sampson's Fleet":Our War Cry Is "The Maine"Air: "Rally Round the Flag, Boys"Our Court has found that Spain,By her treachery has slainOur brave and noble sailors,By blowing up the Maine.And now our Uncle Sam is plainIn dealing with the same.He calls us "come on, boysWe'll soundly whip old Spain!"[chorus]Old Glory forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah,Down with the Spanish; and up with the stars!While we rally round old glory, boys,Rally once again,Shouting the battle cry: "The Maine, boys."1Despite tensions with Spain dating back to 1895, the McKinley administration only reluctantly went to war. The explosion that destroyed the USS Maine did not convince the cautious McKinley to take immediate aggressive action. Instead he studied all available options short of declaring war. But the public clamor for war was very strong, and newspapers such as the New York World and the New York Journal exerted incredible pressure on both Congress and the White House. Eventually, both bowed to this pressure, and McKinley asked Congress for a declaration of war, which was granted on April 25, 1898. Recent scholarship portrays McKinley as a fully competent commander in chief who grasped the strategic objectives and coordinated policy through both the Navy and War Departments.2Administration of the Navy Department in 1898In order to understand the types of documentation relating to U.S. naval operations, it is important to understand the organization of the naval establishment in 1898. The Department of the Navy was headed by a presidentially appointed civilian secretary. Under him was an assistant secretary and the department's "legal adviser," the Judge Advocate General. In addition, the U.S. Marine Corps fell under naval jurisdiction. The basic organization of the department was the bureau system, which had been implemented in 1842. The bureaus were Construction and Repair, Equipment, Medicine and Surgery, Navigation, Ordinance, Steam Engineering, Supplies and Accounts, and Yards and Docks. Each bureau was further divided into offices. For example, the Naval Academy and the Office of Naval Intelligence were placed in the Bureau of Navigation. The Naval Observatory was administered by the Bureau of Equipment. The navy also created and appointed temporary and permanent boards. Examples of "temporary" boards were the board of inquiry concerning the destruction of the Maine and the Naval War Board, the latter organized by Secretary of the Navy John Long as an informal policy and strategy group accountable directly to him for the duration of the war.3 Examples of "permanent" boards were the Judge Advocate General's promotion and retirement boards which were set up to measure the "fitness" (both mental and physical) of officers serving in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.Like the War Department during this period, the navy had organizational flaws. Two major obstacles were lack of coordination among the bureaus and of a centralized policy or planning apparatus to prepare the department for future wars. The latter problem was partially addressed by the creation of the General Board in 1900.4 Despite its organizational flaws and shortcomings, the navy performed capably in the war with Spain. The vision of men such as Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, Rear Adm. Stephen B. Luce, and Secretary of the Navy Benjamin F. Tracy, as well as technological innovations developed after the Civil War, made a strong enough foundation for the navy's preparedness and successful conduct of war. The outcome was never in doubt. Anchored around the newly developed armored battleship advocated by Mahan, the "Steel Navy" of the United States defeated the outdated, outmanned, and outclassed fleet of the Spanish navy in every battle from the opening guns at Manila Bay, May 1, 1898, to the ultimate destruction of the Spanish fleet at Santiago de Cuba, July 3, 1898.The war with Spain involved naval operations in both the Atlantic and Pacific. Documentation concerning operations, training, administration, and personnel as well as other subjects relating to the naval establishment in 1898 are abundant among the holdings of the National Archives. Before conducting research at the National Archives, individuals are strongly encouraged to examine the variety of the published documentation that is available.Published DocumentationSignificant published primary sources consist of annual reports of the Navy Department (for specific years) and selected published proceedings such as the Report of the Naval Court of Inquiry Upon the Destruction of the United States Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor, February 15, 1898, Together with the Testimony Taken Before the Court (U.S. Senate document 207, 55th Cong., 2d sess.) and Record of Proceedings of a Court of Inquiry in the Case of Rear-Admiral Winfield S. Schley, U.S. Navy (2 volumes, 57th Cong., 1st sess). The Register of the Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Navy of the United States, and of the Marine Corps (for specific years) is also a fine source for information concerning the names and duty stations of the officers that staffed the navy for given years. These published documents are part of the congressional serial set and are indispensable for researching U.S. naval activities during the conflict. In many instances, testimony of officers and supporting documentation such as "extracts" from a decklog or ship movement orders are included. The Government Printing Office (GPO) published these reports and registers, and they are available at designated depository libraries throughout the United States.A unique resource for the study of U.S. Navy operations during the war with Spain is the Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Navy for the Year 1898. All executive branch agencies are required by law to submit an annual report to Congress explaining actions taken during the previous year. Under the direction of the secretary of the navy, who produced his own report on the overall "state of the navy" and his office's activities, each bureau and administrative office, such as the Judge Advocate General and the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), produced reports concerning its own specific activities. The Annual Reports for the Navy Department for the Year 1898 consists of two volumes of administrative reports by the bureaus and "independent" offices and a separate volume, Appendix to the Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, relating to "fleet" and other operational components of the navy in the war with Spain. The main volume consists of orders, maps, statistical summaries, and battle reports. The appendix contains the list of officers and enlisted men killed, drowned, and saved from the USS Maine and the findings of the United States and Spanish naval courts of inquiry concerning the destruction of the Maine. It also includes battle reports, orders, and other documentation relating to operations of the U.S. naval forces in Cuban waters and the Philippines. These printed reports compiled as the "appendix" were extracted and transcribed from the General Correspondence File, 1897–1926 (Entry 19), General Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, Record Group 80. All the entries include the "Sec. Nav." file number.Archival ResearchRecords in the custody of the National Archives are divided into "record groups," which maintain the same arrangement the creating agency used. Conducting research at the National Archives and Records Administration can be quite challenging, especially for first-time researchers. The depth of research depends on the researcher and the topic. The Guide to Federal Records in the National Archives of the United States is the first step for individuals conducting research on broad subjects, particular agencies, or getting general information on the holdings of the National Archives. It is available at most large reference and university libraries and is also available online through the "Research Room" section of the NARA home page on the World Wide Web at http://www.archives.gov/research/. Descriptions include administrative histories, record types (i.e., general correspondence, photographs), and dates covered. The Guide also provides the next step for archival research by listing the pertinent inventories for individual record groups.An "inventory" is a listing designed to tell the researcher both the quantity and nature of the records in a particular record group. Inventories contain a brief administrative history of the agency in question and a series-by-series description of the records. Inventories may also list related records available in other record groups (and in some cases, other repositories) and records that have been made into National Archives microfilm publications. Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Bureau of Naval Personnel (Record Group 24) even lists the "Chiefs of the Bureau of Naval personnel and of the Predecessor Bureau of Navigation, 1862–1959" (p. 4), and the Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (Record Group 38)includes as an appendix a "List of the First Naval Attachés, 1882–1919" (p. 105).One important source not to be overlooked is the Guide to Materials on Latin America in the National Archives of the United States, compiled by George S. Ulibarri and John P. Harrison. It includes descriptions of various naval record groups that contain information or documentation on a variety of subjects relating to the Spanish-American War. The guide is arranged by branch or function of government, thereunder by record group. A subject index is included at the back of the volume.Records DescriptionThis section describes record groups and pertinent finding aids relating to naval activities during the Spanish-American War. Many significant series of records are available as National Archives microfilm publications. All National Archives microfilm publications are listed in National Archives Microfilm Resources for Research: A Comprehensive Catalog.Record Group 19, Records of the Bureau of ShipsFinding Aid: Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Bureau of Ships (1961).(Bureau of Construction and Repair, 1898; Bureau of Equipment, 1898)Functions in 1898: Responsible for ship designs, building, fitting, and repairing all U.S. Navy ships and ship equipment.These records relate to the design and construction of U.S. naval battleships and auxiliary craft. Some general correspondence files concern steel construction of ships and include blueprints and specifications. One of the entries, "Returns of the New York (December 1898–September 1900)" includes cruising information, places sailed, weather conditions, and information on the physical features of the flagship of the North Atlantic Station, which was commanded by Capt. William T. Sampson.Other series include information on coaling stations and coaling equipment, in particular the U.S. naval coaling stations at Honolulu, Hawaii (1885-1899), and Pichilingus Harbor, La Paz, Mexico (1885–1897). One fascinating series, "Records Relating to Homing Pigeons (1896 - 1899)," contains, in addition to correspondence to the U.S. Navy Department, sample packets of pigeon food and one packet labeled "feces." These packets were sent by pigeon experts in Dijon, France, to show the quality of carrier pigeon produced in that region. (The navy experimented with the idea of using messenger pigeons especially for ship-to-ship service.)Record Group 24, Records of the Bureau of Naval Personnel(Note: To avoid duplication, this segment will not discuss records relating to U.S. Navy personnel since "Genealogy Notes" in this issue will cover records relating to individuals.)Finding Aid: Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Bureau of Naval Personnel (1960).(Bureau of Navigation, 1898)Functions in 1898: Responsible for personnel, i.e., recruiting training, staffing (enlisted men and officers), and movement/operations of ships. Perhaps the most powerful bureau within the naval establishment during the war with Spain, the Bureau of Navigation had jurisdiction over personnel decisions of the Department of the Navy, including those relating to officers, enlisted men, and civilians who worked for the department. It administered the United States Naval Academy, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and the Coast Signal Service.A very popular series records is the "Logs of United States Naval Ships and Stations. 1801–1946." The National Archives has custody of all decklogs of U.S. Navy ships commissioned during the Spanish-American War. Decklogs and station logs were standardized records maintained by a specific ship or shore unit. They include a daily narrative of the unit's activity and record weather and hydrographical data. They were usually handwritten by the officer of the day. Each log begins with the name and rank of the officers and the dates covered by the log.Generally, the more active the ship or station, the more information is provided. In some cases, especially during action or by accident, the decklog was lost. Most notably, the decklog of the USS Maine was lost in the explosion in Havana Harbor, Cuba, February 15, 1898. A few of the Spanish-American War-era ships whose decklogs are in the custody of the National Archives are USS New York, USS Iowa, USS Marblehead, USS Brooklyn, USS Texas, USS Montgomery, USS Oregon, USS Massachusetts, and the USS Olympia. Logs were gathered together and bound, and each volume consists of two or three years of entries. Researchers will find an abundance of information in these logs including narratives of battles; instructions; orders; ship movements; ordnance, cargo, and personnel (including, in some cases, Spanish prisoners of war) taken aboard; and other documented day-to-day activities of navy commissioned ships.The best source to locate the names of the ship and shore units whose logs are in the custody of the National Archives is Special List #44, List of Logbooks of U.S. Navy Ships, Stations, and Miscellaneous Stations, 1801–1947. Special List #44 lists all ship and shore units alphabetically with the accompanying years covered by the logs.Beginning in 1885, the Navy Department created a general file by registering incoming and outgoing correspondence with a serial number, which was then registered with the date received or sent, the file number, name of correspondent, subject, and action taken.5 In the series "General Correspondence, 1889–1913," can be found a variety of actions and decisions made by the bureau chief (Arent Schuyler Crowninshield in 1898) concerning ships, shore establishments, and men. To locate specific documentation for the year 1898 in this series, a researcher would have to examine another entry,"Subject Registers of Letters Sent and Received ("Correspondence/Subjects"), 1896–1902" (8 volumes), which is arranged by the subjects "Persons, Vessels, Miscellaneous."6 The registers give the name of the subject, division, brief (description of incoming correspondence), writer, number, and action taken. If a researcher knows that an officer on the USS Iowa was transferred in 1898 to the USS Brooklyn, it is possible, for example, to search under the officer's name to locate the orders that sent him to the Brooklyn.Among the records of the general correspondence file is an interesting file concerning Commodore George Dewey. It acknowledges the receipt of multiple telegrams from Secretary of the Navy John Long announcing Dewey's rank as "admiral": "Hoist flag as Admiral— (signed) Long." Another telegram passes congratulations from President McKinley, Congress, and the entire Department of Navy to Dewey on his promotion to admiral.7 Other subjects within the registers include the names of executives of the U.S. governrnent, foreign dignitaries, and heads of state.Record Group 38, Records of the Office of the Chief of Naval OperationsFinding Aid: Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (1966).(Office of Naval Intelligence, 1898; Office of Naval Records and Library, 1898)Functions in 1898: Responsibilities for the Office of Naval Intelligence included the collection of technical and scientific data on foreign navies, usually by written reports and newspaper clippings compiled by the various naval attachés staffing European posts. This office was placed administratively under the Bureau of Navigation when war was declared.Intelligence and intelligence-gathering activities conducted by the U.S. Navy in the war with Spain were adequate, at the least. Naval attachés stationed at U.S. consular posts abroad and commercial agents acting on behalf of the department or the U.S. government forwarded information to the department.8 This information was transmitted in the form of letters, reports, cables, or messages (sometimes in code); analyzed for content; and disseminated to appropriate offices within the department or passed onto other U.S. government agencies whose interests were represented.Letters from attachés in RG 38 are bound into twenty-five volumes covering the period October 28, 1882–December 29, 1900 (entry 90). These "letterbooks" are arranged by the name of post, including the name of the naval attaché stationed there, thereunder chronologically. The volumes covering the period of the Spanish-American War are:London (October 28, 1882–March 31, 1900), 9 volumes.Berlin, Rome, and Vienna (January 10, 1889–September 29, 1900), 6 volumes.Paris and St. Petersburg (September 6, 1892–May 30, 1900), 6 volumes.Tokyo, Madrid, London, Paris, and St. Petersburg (January 5, 1895–December 29, 1900), 1 volume.9Many of these letters include enclosures such as newspaper clippings, technical pamphlets, maps, charts, summaries, and diagrams. These letterbooks are a great source of information concerning foreign navies and merchant fleets, foreign technological developments, and in some instances, the attitude of a particular country towards the United States. They are indexed by a separate series of registers arranged by year, thereunder by subject (entry 89).Communications from the department to naval attachés are also available in this record group. "Cable Correspondence with U.S. Naval Attachés During the Spanish-American War (January 20, 1898–November 1, 1900)" consists of letters, cables, and instructions from the secretary of the navy to attachés stationed at London, Rome, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Tokyo, and Madrid. This series is arranged by post, thereunder chronologically, and consists of letters, bound in two volumes, detailing some of the actions the U.S. Navy took leading up to the actual declaration of war. Many of these letters are the instructions sent by Secretary Long and Assistant Secretary Theodore Roosevelt during March 1898 requesting information on Spain's naval preparations for possible war. Another topic with which the department concerned itself was the condition, preparation, and movements of the Spanish fleet. Accordingly, cables and letters are included in this series, instructing the naval attachés to provide related intelligence. One cablegram, written by Roosevelt to the U.S. attaché in Madrid, Spain, urged caution while instructing him to keep fully abreast of the situation:Alusna, Madrid.March 5, 1898Keep informed state of affairs and report fully by navy secret code preparation and movement Spanish navy. Exercise discretion.Roosevelt10The Navy Department was also concerned about its own overall readiness for a possible war with Spain. Researchers can find a wealth of information in this series concerning the various steps taken by the department such as the purchasing of guns, ordnance, and other weaponry.Record Group 45, Naval Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records and LibraryFinding Aid: Preliminary Checklist of the Naval Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records and Library (1945).(Office of Naval Records and Library, 1898)Functions in 1898: Administered the Navy Department Library; continued the publication and distribution of the Official Records of The War of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion.The records collected by the Office of Naval Records and Library cover the period 1775–1927 and document virtually every aspect of U.S. Navy history. The scope and depth makes it the most important record group for the study of U.S. naval history for the nineteenth century. Researchers who intend to study the U.S. Navy during the Spanish-American are strongly urged to start with this record group. The records that make up this collection were gleaned from other naval bureaus, offices, boards, and functions. They were placed into an artificial filing scheme created by the navy's historical section between the years 1923 and 1942.11 Two series are especially important.Entry 464, Subject File, 1775–1910. These records are arranged by an alpha-subject designation. An index lists the subject designations and the titles of the files in chronological order. All of the individual files are either in folders or envelopes, each clearly labeled with the contents and dates of the records inside. Information relating to the U.S. Navy during the Spanish-American War is scattered among these records. Some of the file designations and accompanying document titles are:File HA (Engagement with Enemy Vessels)"July 3,1898, Description of Battle of Santiago written by Lt. Thomas A. Kearney immediately after battle.""1898, Battle of Manila Bay—miscellaneous material. Also, a translation of a Spanish book relating to the battle.""July 3,1898, Spanish Account of the Battle of Santiago, Cuba. List of Spanish Personnel included."File HF (Fires, Explosions, Etc.)"Correspondence Relating to the loss of the USS Maine."File O1 (Reports of Inspection— U.S. Ships)File OO (Operations of Large Groups of vessels)These are the operational records of the fleet and squadron components of the U.S. Navy during the Spanish-American War, including auxiliary crafts. Some of the document titles include:"1898, Battles and Capitulation of Santiago, Cuba, including data concerning the sinking of the USS Maine from a Spanish point of view.""Activities of the German Squadron in Manila Bay, told by Chief Boatswain Ernest Heilman. Other data relative to Dewey and the German Fleet.""1898, Diary of Commodore George Dewey (Manila Campaign, January 1898–May 1898), (photostat).""1898, Narrative of Manila Campaign, preparation at Hong Kong— Battle of Manila Bay, enforcement of blockade and operations resulting in the surrender of Manila."Under the file designation VN (Naval Policy), there are two attaché reports concerning the effects or influence the Spanish-American War had on Europe, in particular, Germany and Great Britain. One report, dated September 16, 1899, written by U.S. naval attaché to Great Britain Lt. Comdr. John C. Colwell, concluded with the remark that, in respect to Her Majesty's Navy, the late war was of little interest since the "professional aspects" and outcome were already known. The second report, dated October 30, 1899, written by U.S. naval attaché to Germany Comdr. William H. Beehler, concerns the effect of the war on German naval policy. It discusses such topics as ship design, armored coast defense vessels, cruisers, and communications (telegraph). These two files reveal some general prevailing attitudes of Europe's navies to that of the U.S. Navy after the end of hostilities.12Entry 464, Area File, August 1775–December 1910. These records are arranged by geographic region, thereunder chronologically. The geographic divisions are further divided into eleven subdivisions. These records have been microfilmed as National Archives Microfilm Publication M625, Area File of the Naval Records Collection, 1775–1910 (414 rolls). The descriptive pamphlet accompanying M625 contains the administrative history of the collection; a description of the geographic locations or areas, including date or time period covered; a map of the divided areas; and a roll-by-roll list of contents.Two examples of the kind of documentation found in this collection are the famous "Sigsbee Telegram," written while the Maine's captain, Charles Sigsbee, was aboard the SS City of Washington, informing the department of the explosion of his vessel, February 15, 1898 (Area #8), and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt's instructions (in code) to Commodore Dewey to take action against the Spanish fleet in Mirs (Manila) Bay, April 1898 (Area #10).Record Group 52, Records of the Bureau of Medicine and SurgeryFinding Aid: Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Office of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (1948).(Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, 1898)Functions in 1898: One of the original bureaus since 1842, it concerned itself with naval medicine, including the overall health and welfare of officers and enlisted men of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. It administered U.S. Navy ship and shore medical facilities.As the title indicates, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery was the medical arm of the naval establishment in 1898. Included in this record group are personnel-related series, including individual personnel histories of medical officers; records relating to the history of naval medicine; and a general correspondence file, 1885–1912, which has an alphabetical subject index. Under the subject heading, "Maine, USS, Disaster the," researchers can locate records relating to casualty lists, lists of survivors, Marine Corps casualties, final disposition of survivors, permission from the secretary of the navy for the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery to give copies of death certificates to next-of-kin, and death certificates forwarded to the commissioner of pensions.13A thin volume entitled "Casualty Book—War with Spain" includes a statistical summary of total strength, casualties from battle, deaths from battle, and deaths from all causes. The volumes contain an alphabetical listing of men, nativity (residence or origin), where enlisted, and date and place of death. In the back of the volume is an envelope that contains correspondence concerning both U.S. Navy and Marine Corps casualties in the war with Spain. Some of the documents are annotated with additional names and dates of death. The volume and accompanying correspondence are dated 1903.14Record Group 80, General Records of the Department of the Navy, 1798–1947Finding Aid: Preliminary Checklist of the General Records of the Department of the Navy, 1804–1944 (1945).(Office of the Secretary of the Navy, 1898)Functions in 1898: The secretary of the navy (John D. Long in 1898) has charge of all duties connected with the U.S. Naval Establishment including setting policy, creating and abolishing boards, and fiscal matters.The records of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy were filed numerically by subject for the period of the Spanish-American War. The "General Correspondence File, January 1897–August 1926," has an index, arranged alphabetically by name or subject. It is available on microfilm as National Archives Microfilm Publication M1052, General and Special Indexes to the General Correspondence of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, July 1897–August 1926 (119 rolls). This publication's descriptive pamphlet contains an administrative history, notes on recordkeeping practices of the Navy Department in the late nineteenth century, and a roll-by-roll list of contents. Appendix B of the preliminary inventory for RG 80 contains an alphabetical list of the main subject headings in the file (entry 19), 1897–1926. Since the records were maintained by the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, information on a wide variety of subjects ranging from personnel actions within the department to shipbuilding programs in the navy's many shipyards may be found in this series.The Naval War Board, a policy organization whose members were Assistant Secretary of the Navy Roosevelt, Capt. Alfred Thayer Mahan, Adm. Montgomery Sicard, Capt. Arent S. Crowninshield, and Capt. Albert S. Barker, was crucial in providing coherent strategy and war planning for the navy in the war with Spain.15 Under this file heading are handwritten references to five documents whose titles are "Spanish Vessels" (file 7332-3-9), "Light Buoys" (file 7736), "Coaling Stations" (file 6951-6), "Papers from Board" (file 8153), and "Dept. directs Capt. A. T. Mahan to prepare a history of the work of the Board: The Causes leading to its organization, etc., etc., for the General Board" (file 22132). A further annotation remarks that this last document was filed in the records of the General Board. The records of the General Board (1900–1951), also part of RG 80, contain the original manuscript of "History of Naval War Board, 1898," written by Alfred T. Mahan in 1906. Attached to the manuscript are letters written by Captain Mahan to former Secretary of the Navy John D. Long and other members of the Naval War Board and a letter from the president of the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, dated January 26, 1940, requesting a copy of Mahan's work for the college. No organized body of records exists for the Naval War Board, however.16Examples of other documentation in RG 80 are records of various boards commissioned during the Spanish-American War including the Board on Construction, 1889–1909, and the Board on Auxiliary Vessels, 1898. Records of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Theodore Roosevelt during the period, April 1897–May 1898) also exist. There are eight volumes of letters sent by Roosevelt to other officers of the navy and to private and public individuals. Many letters relate to the formation of the First U.S. Cavalry ("Rough Riders"), the unit he and Col. Leonard Wood formed after he resigned from the position of assistant secretary in May 1898. Letters sent to the attaché in London concern the purchase of naval war stores and auxiliary vessels, and letters to various congressmen concern the push for naval preparedness. 17Record Group 313, Records of Naval Operating ForcesFinding Aid: Preliminary Inventory of the Records of Naval Operating Forces (1963).(Bureau of Navigation, 1898)Functions in 1898: Responsible for ship operations and movements. Records of the components of the U.S. Fleet include North Atlantic Squadron, Eastern Squadron, Asiatic Squadron, European Squadron, and the Flying Squadron (1898).Researchers examining the finding aid for RG 313 will find that the records described within its pages are almost exclusively of Spanish-American War vintage. There is a wealth of documentation concerning operations of the fleet, including squadrons and flotillas. Included are operational reports, journals, orders, and instructions issued by commanders of the various naval forces for the Spanish-American War. Historically, the Navy Department operated five geographically organized squadrons from immediately after the Civil War until 1906–1907: North Atlantic Squadron, European Squadron, Asiatic Squadron, Pacific Squadron, and Training Squadron.18 Accordingly, the records are arranged by squadrons thereunder by type of record and date. Included in this record group is the journal of Rear Adm. William T. Sampson, Commander, North Atlantic Squadron, March–August, 1898. Reports of action during the Battle of Santiago de Cuba can be found in the journal.There are records of the "Flying Squadron," commanded by Commodore Winfield Scott Schley, March 28–November 11, 1898, and records of the United States Auxiliary Naval Force, 1898, which had been organized for the coastal defense of the United States. Other series include correspondence with bureaus of the Navy Department (entry 47) and correspondence with Commodore John C. Watson (entry 51) and Commodore George C. Remey (entry 53). These series are letters sent to the officers by other commanders in the field and the Navy Department in Washington, D.C.These are examples of the kinds of documentation available in the National Archives relating to the U.S. Navy in the "Age of Empire." There is much more. Some of the record groups not covered in this essay includeRecord Group 37, Records of the Hydrographic Office;Record Group 71, Records of the Bureau of Yards and Docks;Record Group 74, Records of the Bureau of Ordnance;Record Group 125, Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Navy);Record Group 127, Records of the U.S. Marine Corps;Record Group 143, Records of the Bureau of Supply and Accounts (Navy);and Record Group 181, Records of Naval Districts and Shore Establishments.Researchers are encouraged to explore these sources as well.One final note for researchers to keep in mind: as mentioned previously, many records in these record groups were removed and placed in Record Group 45, Naval Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records and Library. If records cannot be found in the above record groups, chances are they were refiled in RG 45.Archival research takes time and patience. Both staff and scholars have compared it to detective work. It is important to remember that this kind of research is a layered process, going from the general to the specific. One of the best strategies for archival research is to know and understand the secondary sources relating to a topic before consulting primary documents. Checking footnotes and bibliographies cited by other authors and specialists in the field may help individuals open doors into the world of archival research. The "Suggested Readings" list contains several excellent secondary works concerning U.S. naval operations during the Spanish-American War written in the past thirty years.Researchers are also encouraged to consult with the NARA reference staff archivists who are familiar with the pertinent records and finding aids relating to the U.S. Naval Establishment at the turn of the century. NARA archivists who work with military records can help map out research strategies for prospective researchers.19 Letters of introduction and intention are especially useful prior to a visit to the Archives.This is not the first time a call has been made for more research in this period of U.S. naval history. David F. Trask, in his essay entitled "Research Opportunities in the Spanish-Cuban-American War and World War I," delivered at the National Archives Conference on Naval History, May 29–31, 1974, concluded with "a plea for efforts to stimulate use of the National Archives collections (for this period)." He further stated that, "if and when these sources are properly exploited, we will assuredly process more of the illusive 'new naval History,' about which we hear so much and which indeed is attainable in our time."20 These words echo as loudly today as they did when he first issued the call twenty-three years ago.War Plans and Preparations and Their Impact on U.S. Naval Operations in the Spanish-American Warby Mark L. Hayes, Early History Branch, Naval Historical CenterPaper presented at Congreso Internacional Ejército y Armada en El 98:Cuba, Puerto Rico y Filipinas on 23 March 1998.The United States Navy, much like the nation itself, was in a state of transition in 1898. Traditionally the navy embraced a defensive strategy with an emphasis on commerce raiding. In contrast, the navy was asked during the Spanish-American War to gain control of the waters around the Philippine Islands and the Caribbean Sea. After twenty years of rapid decline into obsolescence following the American Civil War, the navy was in the process of re-equipping itself with steel warships of modern design. The implications of these changes for the conduct of war at sea were not lost on America's naval leadership, who had spent the years and months prior to the war with Spain preparing for conflict with a European power. However, the war itself revealed the growing tactical and logistical complexities of modern naval warfare, and the U.S. Navy, like all navies, was in the process of overcoming the challenges presented by the technology of the new steel warships.The U.S. Navy had in commission over 600 vessels at the close of the American Civil War. Nearly all of the new ships were wartime purchases, hasty constructions, or made from unseasoned timber. After the war, most were sold off or destroyed. In spite of international crises such as the Virginius Affair in 1873, contention with Great Britain over the Alabama Claims, and problems with France over a projected canal in Panama, the strength of the navy continued to decline. By 1879 only forty-eight of the navy's 142 vessels were available for immediate service, and these were obsolete wooden or old ironclad ships. Naval technology had stagnated in the U.S., illustrated by the fact that there was not a single high-power, long-range rifled gun in the entire fleet. In 1884 the U.S. Navy's newest ships were wooden-hulled steam sloops built in the previous decade.1Modernization began during the administration of President Chester Arthur in the early 1880s. Rapid growth in overseas markets and a foreign policy aimed at U.S. control of communications across the isthmus of Central America drove the country towards naval expansion. President Arthur addressed a receptive Congress in his first annual message when he concluded, "I cannot too strongly urge upon you my conviction, that every consideration of national safety, economy, and honor imperatively demands a thorough rehabilitation of the navy."2 Two years of debate on the nature of this expansion culminated with the Navy Act of 1883, authorizing the construction of the steel cruisers Atlanta, Boston, and Chicago, and the dispatch vessel Dolphin. Congress continued the process by approving additional steel warships, including the New Navy's first armored ships, USS Texas and USS Maine. Toward the end of the decade the U.S. Navy still embraced a defensive oriented strategy with cruisers designed for commerce protection and raiding. Even the armored ships under construction were designed to counter the threat of similar vessels in South American navies.3It was during the administration of Benjamin Harrison (1889-93) that the navy's strategy and policy began to change. In his inaugural address, President Harrison called for the continued and rapid construction of modern warships, and the acquisition of bases to maintain the U.S. fleet in foreign seas. Later he urged Congress to authorize construction of battleships, giving support to Secretary of the Navy B.F. Tracy's goal of making the U.S. fleet strong enough "to be able to divert an enemy's force from our coast by threatening his own, for a war, though defensive in principle, may be conducted most effectively by being offensive in its operations."4 Tracy proved to be an excellent administrator, and he marshaled allies for his expansionist policies in both Congress and the navy, including Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan. Their work bore fruit with the Navy Bill of 30 June 1890, authorizing construction of three battleships later named Indiana, Oregon, and Massachusetts. Along with the battleship Iowa, authorized in 1892, this force formed the core of a new fleet willing to challenge European navies for control of the waters in the Western Hemisphere.While civilian leadership and U.S. industry prepared the navy materially for an offensive war, a new institution, the Naval War College, prepared the service intellectually. Founded in 1884 and placed under the direction of Commodore Stephen B. Luce, the War College contributed greatly to the professionalization of the U.S. Naval Officer Corps at the end of the nineteenth century. Explaining to the Senate the reason for creating the institution, Secretary of the Navy William E. Chandler stated that "the constant changes in the methods of conducting naval warfare imposed by the introduction of armored ships, swift cruisers, rams, sea-going torpedo boats, and high- power guns. . .render imperative the establishment of a school where our officers may be enabled to keep abreast of the improvements going on in every navy in the world."5By the 1890s the curriculum at the War College included training problems where students drafted plans for operations in the event of war with specific countries under particular circumstances. Beginning in 1894 the War College, and later special boards convened by the Secretary of the Navy, examined the possibility of war with Spain over trouble in Cuba. When Secretary of the Navy John Long formed the Naval War Board in March 1898, the Navy Department and the McKinley administration had the benefit of four years of planning for such a conflict. The first plan to emerge from the Naval War College was a paper prepared in 1894 by Lieutenant Commander Charles J. Train who was assigned to write on "Strategy in the Event of War with Spain." Train believed that the first priority of the U.S. Navy was the destruction of the Spanish fleet which should be accomplished at the earliest possible date. The plan called for the seizure of Nipe Bay on Cuba's northeast coast as an anchorage and coaling station to support a blockade of the island's principal ports. It was expected that a Spanish expedition from Cadiz would attempt to relieve Cuba via Puerto Rico, but would be met by a concentrated U.S. fleet ready to defeat it.6When the Cuban insurrection broke out the following year, the officers in charge at the Naval War College believed that it was important to undertake a full-scale study of a Spanish-American conflict. They gave the class of 1895 a "special problem" concerning war with Spain where the objective was to secure independence for Cuba. The plan, submitted to the Navy Department in January 1896, called for an early joint operations against Havana. Thirty thousand regulars would be landed near the colonial capital from a staging area in Tampa, Florida, fifteen days after war was declared, followed by 25,000 volunteers two weeks later. The U.S. fleet, based out of Key West, would intercept any Spanish expedition attempting to reinforce the defenders in Cuba. Such a relief attempt was expected thirty days into the conflict.7The Office of Naval Intelligence entered the planning effort later in 1896. Lieutenant William Kimball prepared a plan that focussed on a tight naval blockade of Cuba as the primary means of persuading Spain to release control of her colony. Supporting attacks against Manila and the Spanish coast would, it was believed, further induce Spain to negotiate an end to the conflict. According to Kimball's plan, only if these efforts failed to bring about peace, would the army land in Cuba and operate against Havana. The Naval War College criticized the plan on the grounds that it dispersed U.S. naval strength to a dangerous extent, and warned that a blockade alone would be insufficient to bring Spain to the negotiating table. The proposed expedition to Spanish waters was thought to be counter-productive as it might harden Spanish resolve and invite unwanted diplomatic pressure from other European countries. However, Captain Henry Taylor, president of the War College, endorsed the idea to use the Asiatic Squadron against Spanish forces in the Philippines, and this element would reappear in later plans.8Admiral Francis M. Ramsay, chief of the influential Bureau of Navigation, had long been an strong opponent of the Naval War College, and it is likely that he was the one who persuaded Secretary of the Navy Hilary Herbert to convene a board in the summer of 1896 to draft a separate plan for war with Spain. Like the Kimball plan, the Ramsay Board focused on the a naval blockade, but added the deep water ports of Puerto Rico to those of Cuba. The destruction of crops in Cuba by both sides led the Board to believe that the Spanish garrison needed to import food in order to survive. A relief force from Spain would consume most of its coal simply in crossing the Atlantic and thus would be in no position to engage American naval forces. Although the present strength of the U.S. Navy was sufficient to meet and defeat any fleet arriving from Spain, the Board called for the purchase of a number of small fast steamers to enforce the blockade. Finally, the European Squadron should be reinforced by ships from the U.S. and the Asiatic Squadron, and together operate against the Spanish coast after capturing the Canary Islands as an advance base. Captain Taylor strongly dissented from the views of the Board stating that large operations in Spanish waters were too dangerous, and that a naval blockade would not be sufficient to subdue Spanish forces in Cuba.9Perhaps confused by the different positions in the existing plans, the new Secretary of the Navy, John Long, convened his own War Planning Board under Commander in Chief of the North Atlantic Station, Rear Admiral Montgomery Sicard, in June 1897. Chief Intelligence Officer Lieutenant Commander Richard Wainwright was the only member who had served on the previous board. The Sicard Board endorsed the War College idea that joint operations against Havana would be necessary to end the war. Therefore, the plan called for the early seizure of Matanzas, sixty miles east of Havana, to serve as a base of operations against the latter, and to deliver arms to the Cuban insurgents. Purchased or chartered merchant steamers were to be armed and sent to the Caribbean to enforce a swift and strong blockade. This would also free the heavier ships to intercept a relief force from Spain. The members emphasized the need for colliers to refuel the fleet on blockade rather than forcing vessels to return to coaling stations. Although the Board rejected the idea of trying to capture the Canary Islands, it recommended the formation of a flying squadron consisting of two armored cruisers and two commerce destroyers to operate on the coast of Spain in order to detain Spanish ships in home waters. The plan called for the reduction and garrisoning of the principal ports of Puerto Rico as soon as circumstances permitted. The Board also returned to the idea of using the Asiatic Squadron against Spanish forces in the Philippines. As in the previous plans, the objects of these operations were to tie down or divert enemy ships and to give the United States' a stronger bargaining position at the peace settlement.10When war between the United States and Spain appeared unavoidable following the destruction of USS Maine in Havana harbor on 15 February 1898, the Navy Department had a solid body of plans and documents honed by four years of debate by its leading officers. Although the realities of war would force several modifications, many of the concepts laid out in the Sicard Plan were implemented: a strong blockade of Cuba; support for the insurgents; operations against Spanish forces in the Philippines and Puerto Rico; and the formation of a squadron to operate in Spanish waters. Perhaps more importantly, nearly every plan called for the purchase or charter of merchant vessels to serve as auxiliary cruisers, colliers, and transports. The data furnished in appended lists and the inspiration to act quickly served as a basis for decision making in those crucial weeks prior to war.At the beginning of 1898 the fleet of the United States Navy consisted of six battleships, two armored cruisers, thirteen protected cruisers, six steel monitors, eight old iron monitors, thirty- three unprotected cruisers and gunboats, six torpedo boats, and twelve tugs.11 Noticeably absent from this list are colliers, supply vessels, transports, hospital ships, repair ships, and the large number of small vessels necessary for maintaining an effective blockade of Cuba's numerous ports. As the Navy Department's war plans clearly indicated, the government would need to purchase or contract for scores of ships in the event of war with a naval power. The destruction of the Maine propelled the department into action. Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt organized a Board of Auxiliary Vessels which, utilizing material in the department's war plans, prepared a list of suitable private craft that would meet the Navy's expanded needs. On 9 March Congress passed a $50 million emergency defense appropriation bill, and the Navy Department began to acquire vessels. By the end of the war, the navy had purchased or leased 103 warships and auxiliaries. Another twenty-eight vessels were added from existing government organizations including revenue cutters, lighthouse tenders, and the vessels of the Fish Commission. After the war auxiliary vessels such as colliers, refrigerator ships, and distilling ships became a permanent part of the fleet.12The availability of coal was the single most important factor in determining naval operations in 1898. A lack of coal severely limited Admiral Cervera's options upon arriving in the Caribbean with his Spanish squadron in the middle of May, and American concerns over coaling nearly allowed him to escape from Santiago de Cuba near the end of the month. There were essentially three sources of fuel available for naval squadrons: coaling stations at friendly bases, neutral ports, and other ships (usually colliers). Key West served as the base for U.S. naval operations in the Caribbean. International law permitted, but did not require, neutrals to provide visiting ships of belligerents just enough coal to allow them to make it to the nearest friendly port, but this was an option of last resort. Colliers were the most common source of fuel for vessels of the fleet blockading Cuba. Six were available to the U.S. fleet early in the war, and an additional eleven were purchased by the end.The endurance of a ship depended on a number of circumstances, such as bunker capacity, the amount of coal stored on deck, the quality of coal, how many boilers were lit, and the ship's speed while under way. Most major warships of the U.S. fleet had an operational range in the neighborhood of 4000 nautical miles, or just over two weeks of continuous steaming at ten knots.13 Naturally, ships' commanding officers were reluctant to allow their bunkers to get anywhere near empty, and they availed themselves of nearly every opportunity to add to their supply of coal.Coaling from open lighters in port was the quickest and most efficient means of refueling a ship. Winches set up on the warships hauled the coal on board in bags, where small carts carried them to the coal chutes leading from the upper deck directly to the bunkers. When coaling from colliers it was best to find a sheltered anchorage safe from the effects of rough seas. Coaling in the open sea with a ship alongside was always considered a dangerous evolution. Colliers were equipped with cotton-bale fenders to protect the ships when the motion was slight. However, any situation where the swell was sufficient to cause either ship to roll more than three or four degrees or rise more than one or two feet was considered too dangerous to attempt. There were many occasions when coaling at sea was simply not possible, and perhaps many more where it was considered problematic. The speed with which coal could be taken on board varied widely, most often dependent on the weather. On 31 May USS Brooklyn took on coal at a rate of eighteen tons per hour, while eight days later she achieved a rate of nearly fifty-seven tons per hour. The weather rarely cooperated long enough for more than a few hundred tons to be loaded on board before rising seas called a halt to the operation.14 It is important to have an appreciation of the problems inherent in refueling warships of the day for a proper perspective on strategic and operational decisions made during the war.Secretary Long formally organized the Naval War Board in March 1898 to advise him on strategy and operations. Initial members were Assistant Secretary Theodore Roosevelt, Rear Admiral Montgomery Sicard (who had just arrived from command of the North Atlantic Station), Captain Arent S. Crowninshield, and Captain Albert S. Barker. By May, Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan joined the organization. Roosevelt left to become a lieutenant colonel in the First Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, and the Navy Department reassigned Captain Barker to command USS Newark. Although it had no executive authority, the Board exerted considerable influence on operations through its advisory capacity. In particular, Mahan's views often dominated. Following earlier war plans, the Board recommended concentrating on Spain's outlying possessions with a close blockade of Cuba, giving the army time to mobilize sufficient strength for land campaigns in Cuba and Puerto Rico.15As the Navy Department worked with the president and the War Department in developing strategy, Secretary Long began repositioning naval units in preparation of the opening of hostilities. Since January, much of the North Atlantic Squadron had been concentrated for winter exercises at Key West, Florida. The first colliers did not reach the fleet until 3 May, nearly two weeks after the blockade began. On 17 March the battleships Massachusetts and Texas were ordered to join the armored cruiser Brooklyn at Hampton Roads, Virginia, to form the Flying Squadron under Commodore Winfield Scott Schley. The protected cruisers Minneapolis and Columbiajoined Schley's force prior to the outbreak of hostilities. The squadron was organized to protect the U.S. coast against a sudden descent by the Spanish armored cruisers of Pascual Cervera's squadron, known to be concentrating in the Cape Verde Islands. The Navy Department recalled the protected cruiser USS San Franciscoand Commodore John A. Howell from Europe. On 20 April Howell assumed command of the newly formed Northern Patrol Squadron, which was responsible for the protection of the coast and coastal trade from the Delaware capes to Bar Harbor, Maine. Rear Admiral Henry Erben commanded the Auxiliary Naval Force with his headquarters on shore at New York City. This command consisted primarily of eight old iron monitors stationed at several U.S. ports.16Assistant Secretary Roosevelt sent a telegraphic order to Commodore George Dewey on 25 February commanding him to concentrate the ships of the Asiatic Station at Hong Kong. In the event of war he was to take his squadron and destroy the Spanish ships in Philippine waters. Dewey's command at Hong Kong consisted of the protected cruisers Olympia, Boston, and Raleigh, and the gunboats Concord and Petrel. The Revenue Cutter McCulloch joined the force on 17 April, and the protected cruiser Baltimore arrived on 22 April. Dewey also prepared for future operations in a region without friendly bases by purchasing the British steamers Nanshanand Zafiro to carry coal and supplies for his squadron.17Anticipating a showdown with Spanish fleet in the Atlantic theater, Secretary Long ordered the battleship USS Oregon to depart from its home port at Bremerton, Washington, for San Francisco, California, on 7 March, to begin the first leg of a 14,700 nautical mile journey to Key West. The gunboat USS Marietta made the battleship's voyage quicker and easier by arranging for coal and supplies in South American ports along the way. The Oregonleft San Francisco on 19 March, under the command of Captain Charles E. Clark, and arrived at Callao, Peru, on 4 April, traveling 4800 miles in just sixteen days. The battleship departed Callao on 7 April, and arrived at Sandy Point at the southern tip of the continent ten days later. Rendezvousing with the Marietta on 21 April, the Oregonheaded north, putting into Rio de Janeiro on 30 April, where Secretary Long warned Captain Clark that Admiral Cervera's squadron was at sea. Departing Rio on 5 May, the American battleship arrived at Bahia, Brazil, three days later. Not wishing to submerge his ship's armor belt in case of an encounter with the Spanish squadron, Clark ordered on board only enough coal to reach Barbados, where he arrived on 18 May. The Oregon steamed into the American base at Key West on 26 May in efficient condition and ready for operations against the Spanish fleet.18Although President McKinley continued to press for a diplomatic settlement to the Cuban problem, he accelerated military preparations begun in January when an impasse appeared likely. McKinley asked Congress on 11 April for permission to intervene in Cuba. On 21 April, the President ordered the Navy to begin the blockade of Cuba, and Spain followed with a declaration of war on 23 April. Congress responded with a formal declaration of war on 25 April, made retroactive to the start of the blockade.International law required a blockade to be effective in order to be legal. With the absence of colliers and the Atlantic fleet divided between Key West and Hampton Roads, the American effort was initially limited to the north coast of Cuba between Cardenas and Bahia Honda, and Cienfuegos on the south coast. The U.S. fleet at Key West at the beginning of hostilities consisted of three armored ships, three monitors, one protected cruiser, two unprotected cruisers, seven gunboats, one armed yacht, six torpedo boats, and five armed tugs. In the early light of 22 April, Sampson's fleet deployed from Key West to steam across the Florida Straits and begin the blockade. Sampson believed he could reduce the defenses of Havana by rolling up the Spanish fortifications from the west. However, Secretary Long, following the advice of the Naval War Board, ordered him not to risk his armored ships unnecessarily against land fortifications in light of Cervera's potential deployment to the Caribbean. The Navy Department was considering occupying the port of Matanzas, garrisoning it with a large military force, and opening communications with the insurgents. Long wanted Sampson to keep his most powerful ships ready to escort the transports if McKinley should decide on an early landing in Cuba.19By the morning of 23 April the advance ships of the blockading fleet were off their assigned ports. Additional vessels reinforced them over the next several days. The U.S. Navy struggled during the first weeks of the war to assemble the logistical apparatus necessary to support the blockade. Ships had to keep steam up in their boilers to pursue unknown vessels as they came into sight. Until colliers were fitted out and sent south, most of the blockading ships were forced to return to Key West to coal. Fresh water and food were also in short supply during the early days of the war.The blockade was monotonous duty broken only by the rare capture of a Spanish vessel or an exchange of gunfire with gunboats and batteries. Although the Navy Department prohibited Sampson's vessels from engaging heavy batteries, like those around Havana, they allowed the bombardment of smaller field works. On 27 April the New York, Puritan, and Cincinnati shelled Point Gorda at Matanzas to prevent the completion of new batteries.20 Most encounters were only skirmishes resulting in few if any casualties.A few actions were intense, such as the one at Cardenas on 11 May when the U.S. Navy gunboat Wilmington, the torpedo boat Winslow, and the Revenue Cutter Hudson were drawn deep into the harbor by Spanish gunboats. Hidden Spanish batteries ambushed the Winslow, severely damaging her, killing ten and wounding twenty-one of her crew. While under heavy fire the Hudson towed the torpedo boat out of the harbor as the Wilmingtoncovered the withdrawal with rapid fire against the Spanish guns.21The U.S. blockading forces also undertook operations to isolate Cuba from telegraphic communications to Madrid via Cienfuegos, Santiago, and Guantanamo. The most celebrated action of this type occurred on 11 May off Cienfuegos. Commander Bowman McCalla of the cruiser Marblehead organized the party and planned the operation to cut the underwater cables leaving the city. Marine sharpshooters and machine guns in steam cutters poured a continuous fire into Spanish positions on shore, along with gunfire support from the Marblehead and the gunboat Nashville, while sailors in launches dragged the sea floor with grapelling hooks for the cables. The launch and cutter crews endured heavy Spanish fire for three hours and cut the two main telegraph cables (leaving a third, local line), and dragged the ends out to sea. Every member of this expedition was awarded the Medal of Honor.22The strength of the North Atlantic Fleet and the effectiveness of the blockade grew as U.S. Navy vessels concentrated in the Caribbean and yards converted and armed vessels purchased by the Congressional Bill of 9 March. From the start of the blockade until the capitulation of Santiago de Cuba in mid-July, the North Atlantic Fleet added to its strength three battleships, one armored cruiser, one monitor, five protected cruisers, one unprotected cruiser, seven auxiliary cruisers, four gunboats, two torpedo boats, five armed tugs, six revenue cutters, nine armed yachts, two supply ships, a hospital ship, a repair ship, a distilling ship, and thirteen colliers.23Secretary Long telegraphed Commodore Dewey at Hong Kong on 21 April informing him that the U.S. blockade of Cuba had begun and that war was expected at any moment. On 24 April, British authorities informed the commodore that war had been declared and he must leave the neutral port within twenty-four hours. Dewey also received a telegram from the Navy Department, instructing him to proceed immediately to the Philippine Islands and begin operations against the Spanish fleet. However, Dewey wanted to receive the latest intelligence from the American consul at Manila, Oscar Williams, who was expected daily. The American squadron moved to Mirs Bay on the Chinese coast thirty miles east of Hong Kong to await a circulating pump for the Raleigh and the arrival of Williams. They spent two days drilling, distributing ammunition, and stripping the ships of all wooden articles (which could add to the damage of fires on board ship caused by enemy gunfire). Almost immediately after Williams arrived on 27 April, the American squadron departed for the Philippines, in search of the ships of the Spanish squadron. The consul correctly informed Dewey that Rear Admiral Patricio Montojo y Pasaron intended to take his ships to Subic Bay. What Williams did not know is that Montojo returned to Manila after taking his squadron to Subic Bay only to discover that the defenses he had hoped to fight under were far from complete.24Dewey sent two of his cruisers to reconnoiter Subic Bay on 30 April. Finding it empty, and in defiance of the reports of mines in the channel, the Americans pressed on into Manila Bay and discovered the Spanish squadron near Cavite. Leaving his two auxiliaries in the bay guarded by the McCulloch, Dewey formed his remaining ships into a line and steamed in a oval pattern along the five-fathom curve, pouring a heavy fire into the outgunned Spanish force. Montojo's gunners replied from their ships and two 5.9 inch guns on Sangley Point, but with little effect. The Americans scored critical hits on the larger Spanish warships, setting them ablaze. After nearly two hours of fire, Dewey ordered his captains to withdraw, acting on reports that his ships were running low on ammunition.25Dewey took his squadron five miles off Sangley Point and signaled his captains to come on board and report their condition. The commodore discovered that his squadron had sustained very little damage and that he had plenty of ammunition to continue the battle. After allowing the crewmen of his ships to enjoy a light meal, Dewey ordered his ships to reengage the remnants of Montojo's shattered squadron. The Spanish admiral had pulled his surviving vessels behind Cavite into the shallow waters of Bacoor Bay to make a final stand. Hitting the Spanish ships in their new anchorage proved difficult, and Dewey ordered the gunboats Concord and Petrel, with their shallow draft, to destroy them at close range. The garrison at Cavite raised a white flag at about 12:15, and the firing ended shortly thereafter.Montojo's fleet was destroyed, suffering 371 casualties compared to only nine Americans wounded. When official word on the magnitude of the Navy's victory reached the United States, nearly a week later, the American public heaped enthusiastic praises on Dewey as wild celebrations erupted throughout the country. Meanwhile, the U.S. squadron took control of the arsenal and navy yard at Cavite. However, 26,000 Spanish regulars and 14,000 militia garrisoned various points in the Philippine Islands including 9000 at Manila. Dewey cabled Washington stating that, although he controlled Manila Bay and could probably induce the city to surrender, he requested 5000 men to seize Manila.26Admiral Cervera had repeatedly warned the Spanish Ministry of Marine that his squadron would face certain destruction if sent to the Caribbean. Even so, he departed the Cape Verde Islands under orders on 29 April with his squadron of four armored cruisers, towing three torpedo-boat destroyers, intending to steam for Puerto Rico. To look for the Spanish squadron, the U.S. Navy Department had three fast former mail steamers, Harvard, Yale, and St. Louis, establish a patrol line stretching from Puerto Rico and along the Leeward and Windward Islands. As long as Cervera's location remained uncertain, the strength of the U.S. fleet would be divided between Rear Admiral Sampson's North Atlantic Fleet based in Key West and Commodore Schley's Flying Squadron based in Hampton Roads; the former to maintain the blockade of Cuba and the latter to guard the east coast of the United States from a sudden descent by the Spanish cruisers.27Sampson correctly deduced that Cervera intended to make for San Juan, Puerto Rico, and he determined to deprive the Spanish fleet of the benefits of that port. Leaving his smaller ships to maintain the blockade of Cuba's northern ports, the American admiral embarked on an eight-day journey, plagued by the slow speed and mechanical unreliability of his two monitors. The American force arrived off San Juan early on 12 May. After a nearly four-hour bombardment of the Spanish works, Sampson broke off the engagement and returned to Key West, satisfied that Cervera's ships were not in San Juan.28The Spanish squadron's crossing of the Atlantic had been slowed by the need to tow the fragile destroyers. As he approached the West Indies, the Spanish admiral dispatched two of these vessels to the French island of Martinique to gain information on American movements and the availability of coal. On 12 May Cervera learned that Sampson was at San Juan. The Spanish admiral also discovered that the French had refused to sell him any coal. Driven by the need to refuel his ships and the desire to avoid combat with a superior American squadron, Cervera steamed for the Dutch harbor of Curaçao. He arrived there on 14 May only to be further disappointed when the expected Spanish collier failed to arrive, and the Dutch governor authorized the purchase of only 600 tons of coal. After considering his options, Cervera chose to take his fleet to Santiago de Cuba where he arrived on the morning of 19 May.29With Sampson out of touch for long periods during his return from Puerto Rico, the Navy Department on 13 May ordered Commodore Schley's Flying Squadron to Charleston, South Carolina, in preparation to intercept the Spanish fleet. Further orders directed Schley to Key West and a meeting with Rear Admiral Sampson. The Navy Department believed that Cervera's most likely objective was Cienfuegos because of its rail connection to Havana. Therefore, after arriving in Key West on 18 May, Schley received orders to take his squadron, reinforced by the battleship Iowa and several small vessels, and proceed to Cienfuegos. On 19 May, after Schley left on his mission, the White House received a report that the Spanish ships had run into Santiago de Cuba. The source of this information was Domingo Villaverde, an agent working as a telegraph operator in the governor-general's palace in Havana. This connection was a closely guarded secret, so when the information reached the Navy Department as an unconfirmed report, Long's telegram to Sampson sounded less than certain.30Sampson forwarded Long's notice to Schley along with his own decision to maintain the Flying Squadron off Cienfuegos, believing that even if Cervera had put into Santiago, he would have to bring his squadron west to deliver the munitions thought to be an essential part of his mission. USS Minneapolis and the St. Paul were sent to Santiago to confirm the presence of the Spanish squadron, and Sampson instructed Schley to keep in communication with them. On 20 May Sampson received a report from the assistant chief of staff at Key West confirming the previous report from Washington that the Spanish squadron had put into Santiago. He then sent orders instructing Schley to proceed to Santiago if he was satisfied that Cervera was not in Cienfuegos. On 21 May Sampson sent the collier Merrimac with 4500 tons of coal to Schley's support. Two days later the rear admiral departed Key West and cruised in the Bahama Channel with a force of thirteen ships to block any attempt by Cervera to enter Havana from the north side of the island. As additional information arrived at the Navy Department confirming Cervera's presence at Santiago, Long and Sampson dispatched several messages encouraging Schley to proceed to that port and prevent the Spanish squadron from escaping.31The Flying Squadron arrived off Cienfuegos early on the morning of 22 May when Schley received the first notice that the Spanish squadron might be at Santiago. The following day he received the second. However, the initial uncertainty of the Spanish squadron's whereabouts and the difficulty of observing ships in Cienfuegos led Schley to remain where he was. Finally, on 24 May, the commodore learned through Cuban insurgents that Cervera's ships were not in port. That evening the American squadron headed east, two days later than Sampson expected.32In his message informing Sampson of his departure Schley stated that he was concerned about having a sufficient supply of coal in his warships. The Iowa had arrived off Cienfuegos with half her capacity, and on 23 May she took on just 255 tons more. The Texas was also short of coal, and her projecting sponsons made coaling at sea almost impossible. The one collier then with the squadron was insufficient to coal enough ships when the weather afforded an opportunity. Schley informed Sampson that these concerns and his desire to coal his ships at a protected anchorage led him to choose Môle St. Nicolas, Haiti, as his next destination.33The Flying Squadron arrived at the longitude of Santiago on 26 May, and Schley communicated with the American cruisers watching the port. Engine problems on the collier Merrimac caused the squadron to average only seven knots in its journey from Cienfuegos. The weather had been too rough to allow coaling at sea and several of his smaller vessels in addition to the Texas were running low on fuel. Rather than remaining on station with his larger ships and trusting Sampson to supply him what he needed, Schley ordered his squadron to head west for Key West to refuel. Sampson, who had since returned to Key West, and Secretary Long were shocked when they learned of Schley's intentions on 28 May. Making it clear that he and the Navy Department expected the Flying Squadron to remain on station, Sampson assembled his squadron and departed for Santiago. On 27 May the weather off the south coast of Cuba improved, and Schley reversed course once again, finally establishing a blockade at Santiago de Cuba on 29 May.34Schley's coaling problems impressed on Sampson and the Navy Department the need to seize a sheltered anchorage on the south coast of Cuba, and Guantánamo Bay had already been considered. Shortly after Schley established the blockade of Santiago Sampson ordered the First Marine Battalion at Key West to embark on their transports and prepare to land in Cuba. At the same time he sent Commander Bowman McCalla and USS Marblehead to reconnoiter Guantánamo Bay as a possible anchorage. McCalla's report was favorable, and on 10 June the Marine battalion under Lieutenant Colonel Robert Huntington landed, establishing a position on the east side of the outer harbor that served to protect the fleet during its coaling operations throughout the campaign.35 Having a reliable location to refuel so close to Santiago proved invaluable to the blockading fleet. It allowed American captains to keep steam up in their ships' boilers ready to pursue Cervera's squadron when it attempted to break out. On the morning of 3 July, the battleship Oregon had all four boilers lit, giving her the speed necessary to catch the Cristobal Colon in the running fight during the final stage of the Battle of Santiago de Cuba. This high rate of coal consumption could be maintained because the Oregon was able to refuel four times from 1 June to 3 July, once at sea and three times at Guantánamo Bay.36Although McKinley and his advisors had intended to wait until the end of the rainy season to send a major land expedition to Cuba, they believed that the bottling up of the Spanish squadron at Santiago afforded the U.S. an opportunity to strike a damaging blow to the enemy's military capability in the Caribbean. On 1 June Sampson received a report from Secretary Long that 25,000 men under Major General William Shafter were preparing to embark for Cuba from Tampa, Florida, and that the North Atlantic Fleet should convoy the troops and assist the landing near Santiago. As the navy prepared to carry the troops, Sampson took steps to tighten the blockade of Cervera's squadron.At the onset of the campaign Sampson seized on the idea to sink a vessel in the narrow channel leading to the harbor of Santiago. His intention was to keep the Spanish ships from escaping until the army could capture the city or assist the navy in passing the forts and mines at the harbor entrance. The Naval War Board in Washington approved, and Sampson selected the collier Merrimac under naval constructor Richard Pearson Hobson for the operation. Hobson and seven volunteers took the ship into the channel during the early morning hours of 3 June. Spanish gunfire from shore batteries shot away the vessel's steering gear and anchor chains making it impossible for the Americans to sink the vessel in the proper location. Only two of the ten prepared scuttling charges went off, and the Merrimac came to rest too far up the channel to pose a serious obstacle. Hobson and his men were captured by the Spanish.37Major General Shafter's troop transports departed Tampa on 14 June, rendezvousing with their navy escorts the following day. The expedition arrived off Santiago on 20 June and began to disembark east of the city at Daiquiri two days later. In addition to providing escort for the convoy, Sampson's ships furnished fifty-two steam launches, sailing launches, whaleboats, lifeboats, and cutters to help the army and its equipment ashore. Shafter expressed deep appreciation for the navy's assistance in this matter, as the boats on the army's transports were too few in number to disembark the expedition in any reasonable length of time.38Sampson's armored ships maintained a tight blockade of Santiago de Cuba, coaling from colliers in open water when the seas were calm and from colliers at Guantánamo Bay when the weather required it. On the morning of 3 July, Admiral Cervera attempted to break out of the American blockade thus precipitating the Battle of Santiago de Cuba. Off the entrance to the bay that morning were the battleships Texas, Oregon, Iowa, and Indiana, the armored cruiser Brooklyn, and the armed yachts Vixen and Gloucester. Most of the battle was a running fight as the blockading vessels attempted to get enough steam up to keep up with their quarry. Foul bottoms and poor quality coal reduced the speeds of the usually swift Spanish cruisers. Ranges were often in excess of 4000 yards: greater than the crews trained for and longer than the new rangefinders could handle. In addition, radical turns in the early stages of the battle further complicated the gunnery problem for the Americans. Smoke from the weapons' brown powder and frequent mechanical failures further reduced the effectiveness of the U.S. Navy's gunfire. The battleships and the Brooklyn generally registered hits when they achieved a parallel or near parallel course with the Spanish cruisers and maintained it for several minutes. Although only 1.29 percent of American shots hit their targets, the volume of fire was sufficient to destroy or run aground each one of Cervera's vessels.39 The defeat of this squadron freed President McKinley and the Navy Department to pursue other plans.In the years prior to the war, U.S. planning boards had never reached a consensus on the issue of deploying a squadron of warships to European waters. Although the Naval War Board had not ordinally planned such a deployment, the formation of the Spanish Navy's Reserve Squadron resurrected the debate. Following the departure of Cervera's squadron to the Caribbean, the Ministry of Marine began to organize a second squadron under Rear Admiral Manuel de la Cámara y Libermoore centered around the battleship Pelayo and the armored cruiser Emperator Carlos V. Although it was believed by the Navy Department that this force would reinforce Cervera, it held out the possibility that the Spanish ships would head for the Philippines. Consequently, the monitors Monterey and Monadnock were prepared to undertake a slow and hazardous voyage across the Pacific to reinforce Dewey's command at Manila. On 16 June the Reserve Squadron departed Cadiz and steamed into the Mediterranean bound for the Philippine Islands.40The Navy Department responded to the news of Cámara's deployment by ordering Rear Admiral Sampson to detail two battleships, an armored cruiser, and three auxiliary cruisers to be ready to depart for Europe if the strong Spanish force passed into the Red Sea. When the Reserve Squadron arrived at Port Said on 26 June, Washington decided to organize formally a force entitled the Eastern Squadron. The command was activated on 7 July under the leadership of Commodore John C. Watson, and consisted of the battleship Oregon, the protected cruiser Newark, and the auxiliary cruisers Yosemite and Dixie. The battleship Massachusetts was added on 9 July, the auxiliary cruiser Badger on 12 July, and the protected cruiser New Orleans on 17 July. The navy also assembled six colliers and a refrigerator ship at Hampton Roads, Virginia, to support the Eastern Squadron's deployment. The Navy Department allowed news of the squadron's formation and its intended target to be widely circulated. It was hoped that such news would force Spain to recall the Reserve Squadron to Spanish waters.41Cámara ran into difficulty attempting to refuel his ships at Port Said. The Egyptian government refused to sell him coal, nor would it allow the Spanish squadron to take on coal from its own colliers while in port. Cámara was forced to take his ships out to sea where bad weather prevented any attempt at coaling. The Spanish admiral took his squadron through the Suez Canal, into the Red Sea and began to refuel on 7 July. The delay gave the Spanish government an opportunity to reconsider Cámara's mission in light of the near certainty that American ships would enter Spanish waters. The Sagasta government made the decision to recall the Reserve Squadron to Cadiz, and Watson's deployment was held in abeyance for the time being.42Even though Spain no longer threatened Dewey's control of the situation at Manila, the Navy Department was still concerned about German intentions, especially in the Philippines where it was thought Germany might try to take advantage of the situation to increase her colonial possessions in the Pacific. Rear Admiral Sicard and Captain Crowninshield of the Naval War Board still wanted to send Watson to reinforce Dewey. Captain Mahan dissented from this view. In the mean time, Watson's ships were needed to support the expedition to Puerto Rico. By the time the Eastern Squadron was free to depart the Caribbean peace negotiations were under way and Watson's deployment was held back for good.43One overlooked role in the story of the Eastern Squadron is that played by the repair ship Vulcan. She was fully equipped with lathes, jacks, and small foundries for brass and iron castings. The Vulcan reported for duty off Santiago on 1 July and was stationed at Guantánamo Bay for the remainder of the war. During that time she filled 528 orders for repairs and 256 requisitions for supplies. This work included making extensive repairs of boilers, engines, and pumps, much of it fitting out the ships of the Eastern Squadron as it prepared for its trans-Atlantic voyage.44 It is thought that the pressure put on the Spanish government by the possible deployment of the Eastern Squadron was an important factor in starting peace negotiations in August 1898. If so, the repair ship Vulcan played a significant role in bringing about an end to the war.The U.S. Navy provided escort and support for the army's final two campaigns of the war. On the afternoon of 21 July the lead forces for the invasion of Puerto Rico got under way from Guantanamo Bay. Thirty-five hundred men embarked in nine transports were escorted by the battleship Massachusetts as well as the Dixie, Gloucester, Columbia, and Yale, all under the command of Capt. F. J. Higginson. Originally planning to land east of San Juan at Playa de Fajardo, the expedition's commander Major General Nelson A. Miles directed the Navy to land his force on the island's south coast. The expedition arrived off Port Guanica on the morning of 25 July. Lieutenant Commander Richard Wainwright of the Gloucester requested and received permission to send a landing party ashore. They soon came under fire from the small Spanish garrison, but held their position until the first army troops arrived and secured the landing place. Wainwright also assisted the amphibious landing at Port Ponce three days later by sneaking into the inner harbor the night before, gathering up a number of barges for the army to use.45 In Manila Bay, Dewey's squadron maintained a foothold at Cavite, opened communications with the insurgents, and provided naval gunfire support during the army's assault on Manila on 13 August.Pre-war plans and preparations by the U.S. Navy contributed substantially to the American victory. Most major strategic decisions were anticipated by the Naval War College studies and the secretary's war planning boards. Information appended to the boards' reports on merchant ships available for purchase or charter provided a strong background for Roosevelt's Board of Auxiliary Vessels as it sought to provide the U.S. fleet with ships such as colliers, auxiliary cruisers, and repair ships, indispensable for conducting war. In particular, the early procurement of colliers gave the U.S. Navy the strategic mobility to extend the blockade to Cuba's southern ports, keep Cervera's squadron bottled up in Santiago de Cuba, and threaten to send a major force to European waters. In addition Dewey's purchase of Nanshan and its cargo of coal permitted him to hold Manila Bay until an American expedition arrived from across the Pacific Ocean. Secretary Long's pre-war orders preparing and concentrating U.S. warships in the Atlantic theater ensured material superiority over any expedition Spain might send to the Caribbean.There are several areas where more extensive preparations would have enhanced the navy's effectiveness even further. If the U.S. had constructed specialized colliers with their own winches, like those in the British Navy, these vessels could have refueled Schley's ships at sea more rapidly during the brief times that the weather allowed. If the navy had had plans to seize Guantanamo Bay, the Isle of Pines, or some other sheltered anchorage on the south coast of Cuba at the beginning of the war, the U.S. Navy would have been in a much better position to prevent Cervera from entering any port in Cuba. Stronger coastal defenses might have prevented the public cry for warships to defend the major harbors of the United States, thus negating the need to divide the fleet between the North Atlantic and Flying Squadrons.The overall success of U.S. naval operations during the Spanish-American War demonstrated the value of extensive peace-time preparations. In the technological warfare of the last one hundred years, the most important preparations have not always been the construction of major warships, but also planning for adequate logistical support and vigorous intellectual debate.

The United States has supported DICTATORS, right wing Governments as well as countries like Saudis Arabia and has overthrown governments like Iran for over 70 years.The countries the US supported as in Saudis Arabia from the 40s till now have subjected their people. As long as the US got oil and gas and other natural resources, they looked the other way as they subjugated their own people with money and weapons that the US used to prop these countries up.The ideology of Muslim terrorists are wahhabism. That version of Sunni Islamic was created in Saudis Arabia and exported around the world. Any other version of Islam was killed off.Go to any country and visit a mosque. If it says paid by the Saudis Government that it means the wahhabis ideology was taught there.AL QAEDA follows wahhabism that Osama bin laden has been a follower of.It was in the news that ISIS were using Saudis Arabian textbooks to teach their own children.[House Hearing, 115 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]    SAUDI ARABIA'S TROUBLING EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM  =======================================================================   HEARING   BEFORE THE   SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE   OF THE   COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES   ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS   FIRST SESSION   __________   JULY 19, 2017   __________   Serial No. 115-46   __________   Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/   or   http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/   ______      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE  26-312PDF WASHINGTON : 2017    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,  http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,  U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).  E-mail, [email protected]                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS   EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York  Wisconsin TED LIEU, California ANN WAGNER, Missouri BRIAN J. MAST, Florida FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia   Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director    ------    Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade   TED POE, Texas, Chairman JOE WILSON, South Carolina WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida PAUL COOK, California BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada LEE M. ZELDIN, New York NORMA J. TORRES, California BRIAN J. MAST, Florida BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia    C O N T E N T S   ----------   Page   WITNESSES  Ms. Nina Shea, director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson   Institute...................................................... 4 David A. Weinberg, Ph.D., senior fellow, Foundation for Defense   of Democracies................................................. 14 The Honorable Frank Wolf, distinguished senior fellow, 21st   Century Wilberforce Initiative (former U.S. Representative).... 34 Douglas Johnston, Ph.D., president emeritus, International Center   for Religion and Diplomacy..................................... 40   LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING  Ms. Nina Shea: Prepared statement................................ 7 David A. Weinberg, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 16 The Honorable Frank Wolf: Prepared statement..................... 37 Douglas Johnston, Ph.D.: Prepared statement...................... 42   APPENDIX  Hearing notice................................................... 62 Hearing minutes.................................................. 63 David A. Weinberg, Ph.D.: Material submitted for the record...... 64 The Honorable Frank Wolf: Material submitted for the record...... 72     SAUDI ARABIA'S TROUBLING EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM   ----------     WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017   House of Representatives,    Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade,   Committee on Foreign Affairs,   Washington, DC.   The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in  room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Poe (chairman  of the subcommittee) presiding.  Mr. Poe. The subcommittee will now come to order.  Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit  statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record,  subject to the limitation in the rules.  The Chair will ask that the witnesses come forward and sit  in your designated positions.  The Chair has distributed to all members an expert from-- excerpts from current textbooks published by Saudi Arabia's  Ministry of Education. The Chair would ask and direct that the  staff furnish this material to all of the witnesses at this  time.  Saudi Arabia is an ally in the fight against terrorism.  Many of the same terrorist organizations that threaten the United States also desire to overthrow the Saudi Government and  break our partnership with the government. It is a key member of the Coalition to Fight ISIS, with its pilots flying alongside Americans since day one of the campaign in Syria.  Last year Saudi Arabia adopted strict laws prohibiting fundraising for terrorism, jointly designated support networks  for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  However, the Saudis still have much more they need to do at home to counter the sources of extremism in the region. The  battle against terrorism will ultimately have to be fought and won on the battlefield of ideas. Saudi Arabia has simply not done enough to defeat extremist ideology.  The Kingdom is playing the role of both arsonist and  firefighter when it comes to Islamic extremism. Nowhere is this more evident than the textbooks Saudi Arabia produces to teach  young people. For too long, Saudi Arabia's education curriculum  has inspired the very ideology that is at the root of many terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Saudi textbooks  are full of anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, and calls to violence that have incited students both at home and across the  world.  This poisonous ideology has provided the groundwork for generations of extremism. In fact, ISIS adopted official Saudi textbooks for its schools in 2015 until that terrorist organization could publish its own textbooks. However, its  export of hateful material through Saudi-funded schools abroad  has helped spread the toxic ideology to more tolerant and open Muslim communities in countries such as Kosovo and Indonesia.  While the Kingdom has repeatedly pledged to remove  extremist content from its curriculum, troubling language  remains in many of the most recent editions of Saudi textbooks.  In 2006, the Saudis committed to eliminate all passages that promoted hatred toward any religion by 2008. Yet even today, years later, textbooks include content that discourages befriending infidels, claims the goal of Zionism is world domination, and encourages fighting any infidel who refuses to  submit to the supremacy of Islam. This intolerance is  unacceptable and directly contributes to the widespread  persecution of religious minorities that plague the Middle  East.  Another passage in a current Saudi textbook for middle school students states that ``the mujahideen who are doing good deeds for the sake of Allah . . . should be given transportation, weapons, food, and anything else that they may  need to continue their jihad.'' Messages such as this undermine  the Saudi's own counterterrorism efforts. By indoctrinating  children into the belief that the people of other faiths are inferior or that are a threat to Islam, Saudi Arabia is ensuring future generations of extremists that will join the  ranks of terrorist groups.  This is not to ignore that some positive steps have been taken. In recent years, the Kingdom has introduced passages that denounce terrorism and encourage dialogue with other faiths. But these steps only send mixed messages to easily  influenced young minds so as long as those more extreme  messages remain.  The State Department has previously in other  administrations, failed to hold Saudi Arabiacounterparts to past pledges. The Saudi--the State Department has even refused to publish reports that shed light on these troubling textbooks  for fear of embarrassing our Saudi partners, information that they have in the possession of the State Department. This is  troubling.  While we appreciate Saudi Arabia's contribution to our  overall counterterrorism efforts in the region, we must hold  them accountable for their role in fueling the very extremism that we are both trying to combat. It is in both of our countries' interests in the fight against terrorism. We all  need to be on the same page. And that is just the way it is.  I will yield from the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Keating, the ranking member, for his opening statement.  Mr. Keating. Thank you, Chairman Poe, for holding this  hearing. And thank you to our witnesses for being here. Mr.  Wolf, welcome back.  We have dedicated a lot of time in this subcommittee with talks of countering terrorism and violent extremism. Our last  hearing addressed that very issue in Europe, in light of the  many attacks carried out against so many innocent civilians across the region.  We are here to discuss the issue in the context of Saudi Arabia's school curriculum, and in particular, reforms that  have been made to ensure children just going to school are not  being trained in intolerance and violence but, also  importantly, to identify what work still must be done. The  spread of extremist ideologies and instances of individuals being inspired to commit acts of terrorism has forced us to learn much, much more about the factors that make individuals vulnerable to committing acts of violence and taking human  lives.  We realize that the messages these individuals are exposed to can change the course of their lives and push them to carry out heinous crimes of their own in their own communities, and  in those communities they may have never known, but their  actions have led to dehumanization, and they actually come to believe legitimate targets of violence are their victims.  These materials that our future generations spend every day of the most formative years of their lives learning from are  therefore very important. Texts that dehumanize and condone violence against others simply cannot be tolerated.  Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States in fighting terrorism. And if there is ever to be a lasting peace and security in the Middle East it will require every country in the region stepping up and being a leader in eradicating  extremism and promoting the institutions and rule of law needed to ensure that such hatred and violent ideologies are never again permitted to take root or to spread.  Today I hope to learn more from our witnesses about the reforms and progress the Kingdom has already made, what existing challenges lie before us and, specifically, how we in Congress can support progress in this regard. Every year that  goes by children are being taught intolerance. And that  compounds the challenges we will face in creating a safer world for them to grow up in going forward.  So, I am looking forward to today's hearing about the steps that can be made sure to take these materials molding our future generations and bringing them forward, not only in Saudi  Arabia but in communities around the world. We all have forms of intolerance, and we all must work to remove these from our own countries. This must be achieved as quickly as possible, however. We cannot afford to be patient while intolerance that  promotes or condones violence in any form is not only shared but taught and continues to undermine our collective efforts to  protect communities from terrorism and violent extremism.  Again I would like to thank our witnesses and I yield back.  Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.  Do any other members wish to be recognized?  [No response.]  Mr. Poe. Seeing none, without objection all witnesses'  prepared statements will be made part of the record. I ask that each witness please keep your presentation to no more than 5 minutes. If you see a red light that appears before you, that means stop. And we do have your statements and all members have had access to those statements for some time.  I will introduce each witness and then give them time for their opening statements.  Ms. Nina Shea is the director of the Center for Religious  Freedom at the Hudson Institute. Previously she was appointed by the United States House of Representatives to serve seven terms as a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International  Religious Freedom.  Dr. David Weinberg is a senior fellow at the Foundation for  Defense of Democracies. Prior to joining the FDD, he served as Democratic professional staff member at the House Committee on  Foreign Affairs.  The Honorable Frank Wolf served, God bless you, 17 terms in the United States House of Representatives. His now a distinguished senior fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce  Initiative.  And Dr. Douglas Johnston is the president emeritus and  founder of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy.  Prior to his current position he served as vice president and COO of Center for Strategic and International Studies.  Ms. Shea, we will start with you. You have 5 minutes.   STATEMENT OF MS. NINA SHEA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR RELIGIOUS   FREEDOM, HUDSON INSTITUTE   Ms. Shea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the  committee.  This is an important hearing. It comes at a critical time  when Saudi Arabia itself is expressing a new vision for itself  of reform. And many thoughtful voices after 9/11 made a  connection between the fact that most of the perpetrators and  the mastermind behind those attacks were from Saudi Arabia, and  that their educational system could have a lot to do with what  happened that day.  The Saudis--the Saudi King--back in 2003 convened his own  panel to examine the Saudi textbooks and they confirmed some of  our worst fears. And they found that the Saudi Kingdom, and I  am quoting, ``religious studies curriculum encourages violence  with others and misguides the people into believing that in  order to safeguard their own religion they must violently  repress and even physically eliminate the others.''  For 15 years after 9/11 Saudi Ministry of Education  textbooks still teach an ideology of hatred and violence  against Jews, Christians, other Muslims such as Shiites, Sufis  and Amadiyyas, Hindus, Baha'is, Yezidis, animists, sorcerers,  and infidels of all stripes, as well as other groups with  different beliefs. The most objectionable passages are from the  upper grades' religious textbooks.  While the Saudi Government has made much of reform in the  early grades, those religious texts, like those for math or  English, have not been particularly problematic, though overall  critical thinking and ideas that conflict with the government- approved ones are banned.  Each academic year the Ministry of Education issues a new  edition of grades 1 through 12's religious textbooks. And they  are mandatory in all Saudi public schools. Each edition  reflects some changes in wording, content, and placement.  Nevertheless, over the past some 10 years, the content, that I  have been looking at these books, the content has continued to  retain violent passages and directives.  Christians, Hindus, and those practicing witchcraft are to  be fought and killed. The textbooks incite violence against  polytheists, a category that would of course include all non- monotheistic religions, but in Saudi Wahhabi teaching can  include monotheistic religions too, such as Christianity.  Christians are also considered infidels who must be fought  unless they have a protection contract with Muslims. Conspiracy  theories are taught as fact about the Freemasons, the Rotary  Club, the Lion's Club, the American University of Beirut, and  so on.  Dogmatic lessons in Saudi middle and high school textbooks  include that many--instruct that many Muslims should be killed  for their beliefs, including blasphemers, Christian converts,  and those who merely doubt the Prophet's truth, as well as  Shiites and Sufis, who are condemned as polytheists for praying  or even seen crying at gravesites.  No group, however, is more vilified than the Jews. The  problem is far deeper than that conveyed by the State  Department's characterization of it as simply stereotypical or  anti-Semitic language. Repeatedly Jews are demonized,  dehumanized, and targeted for violence. The textbooks instruct  that the Zionist aim is Jewish domination of the world and  controlling its destiny.  When I was in Saudi Arabia in 2011 with the U.S. Commission  on International Religious Freedom I had a chance to ask the  Saudi justice minister at the time why the Protocols of the  Elders of Zion, an infamously anti-Semitic fabrication from the  Russian revolution, is included in the textbooks on Hadith,  which is the traditions of Islam's Prophet Mohammed, where it  continues to be taught as historical fact. He responded that  the Protocols are treated as part of Islamic culture because it  is a book that has long been found in plentiful supply in Saudi  Arabia and that it was a book that his father had in his house.  In the interests of time I am going to refer to my written  testimony for specific examples. You have already cited a few.  But just to say that apostates are singled out for  punishment in this life, death unless they repent within 3  days.  Christians, again, are considered polytheists, and  polytheists are to be--is a reason to fight those who practice  it and to commit jihad against it, is another quote from these  books.  Homosexuals, the punishment is death.  Jihad is extolled and defined. Its first definition is  asserting effort in fighting unbelievers and tyrants.  And there are many more examples. And these are posted on  the Internet and shipped worldwide. And they have been linked  by our counterterrorism officials to growing extremism.  The Saudis, the one point I would like to make is that the  Saudis themselves have admitted that the textbooks need reform.  They do not deny it. Any Saudi that I talked to has agreed,  including the Saudi Minister of Education in 2011, but they  have not really finished it. They have never finished it. And  they have a long history of broken promises where they have  said that they did; either they did clean them up, as our  Ambassador to Washington, former Ambassador Turki al-Faisal  told us, or that the reform is just around the corner and that  it will be completed in 2 years or 5 years or 10 years. And  over this period it has not happened.  The government--U.S. Government--has failed to verify this.  And has even, as you mentioned, covered it up.  So, I will conclude my testimony there and urge you to  mandate that Congress, mandate--that Congress mandate the State  Department review the textbooks and highlight and detail the  troublesome portions of it. And to, even to make defense  contracts with Saudi Arabia contingent on the cleanup of these  textbooks and so that they are not in danger of hurting or  killing any American that might be a member of the groups that  are singled out for violence and dehumanization in these  reports.  Thank you.  [The prepared statement of Ms. Shea follows:]  [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    ----------    Mr. Poe. Thank you, Ms. Shea.  Dr. Weinberg.   STATEMENT OF DAVID A. WEINBERG, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW,   FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES   Mr. Weinberg. Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Keating, and  distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you on behalf  of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies for having me here  today. I will deliver an abridged version of my written  testimony.  As I explain in that text, encouraging Saudi Arabia to  remove incitement from its government-published textbooks for  its public education system is not just the right thing to do,  it is also a national security issue. Fighting terrorists  militarily can only achieve so much if Saudi textbooks and  other sources of incitement continue to provide fertile  intellectual ground for violent extremism.  This past May I published a long list of intolerant  statements in Saudi textbooks from the most current school  year, which I will draw from extensively here. I have included  all of these passages in their original Arabic as an appendix  to my written testimony.  I found that Saudi textbooks still recommend killing people  for many acts that U.S. law would characterize as personal  choices. That included adultery, anal sex, converting from  Islam, or purported acts of sorcery.  The textbooks are also rife with anti-Christian and  particularly anti-Semitic inciting, often framed as anti- Zionism. One book called Christianity an invalid, perverted  religion. Another accused Zionism of plotting a global Jewish  government. And a third called Zionism an octopus that it  accused, falsely, of trying to destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque and  the entire Islamic creed.  A fourth book taught that befriending infidels is  forbidden, citing a Quranic verse that says not to take  Christians or Jews as allies. That textbook called such  infidels enemies of Muslims and of God, and taught that Muslims  must abhor them, quite literally teaching hatred.  These are all examples from current textbooks used in the  2016 to 2017 Saudi school year.  According to a forthcoming report by Human Rights Watch,  the textbooks also repeatedly refer to well-known stereotypes  of Shiite or Sufi Muslim rituals as horrendous examples of  polytheism. This is particularly important, because a passage I  found in a current Saudi textbook called for fighting such  polytheists except under a handful of extenuating  circumstances.  That book also teaches that there are four types of  infidels, and that if a non-believer doesn't happen to fit into  one of the first three categories--diplomats, peoples with whom  Muslims have a non-aggression treaty, or people who agree to  pay a special tax associated with second class status--then  they are combatant whom it says Muslims are commanded to fight.  Saudi Arabia has made some positive changes to its  textbooks in recent years but not enough. A few passages  condemning terrorism or racism and permitting kind treatment to  peaceful non-believers have been added. Direct calls to  violence or hatred are somewhat less common.  By the way, I would like to share a little bit of news with  you today. Seventeen minutes after this hearing was scheduled  to start the Saudi Embassy posted on Twitter that, ``The  Ministry of Education has finalized a round of textbook  revisions in line with the objectives of the national  transformation plan.'' This is particularly puzzling because in  an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier this year  Saudi Arabia's education minister seemed to suggest that the  broader change involving incitement and other issues in its  curriculum would have to wait until 3 years, up to 3 years from  now when the Kingdom would move to tablets in the classroom.  Saudi officials routinely oversell the success and ambition  of their efforts to reform these books to date. In 2005 Saudi  Arabia said it had removed all the problematic passages from  its textbooks. When Nina Shea proved that that was incorrect,  the Saudis assured the U.S. that all intolerant passages would  be removed by 2008. They missed that deadline, as well as  others they had pledged for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Even  some of the textbooks they claim to have fixed in recent years  still contain incitement.  U.S. policy on this issue has not been up to the task. For  example, the State Department issued the country reports on  counterterrorism today. And while there are several lines in  there about the Saudi curriculum, there is only half, less than  a full sentence on what incitement still remains.  But there is much that Congress can do to help. The U.S.  Commission on International Religious Freedom called on the  executive branch this year to ``undertake and make public an  annual assessment'' of Saudi textbooks to ``determine if  passages that teach religious intolerance had been removed.''  Congress should help by passing legislation that requires the  administration to issue such a yearly report, and allocates the  resources of it to do so, no later than 90 days after the start  of the Saudi school year so such findings are actually still  valid for diplomats. And such a report should quote all such  passages that could be seen as encouraging violence or  intolerance for public scrutiny.  There are a number of other recommendations that I include  in my written testimony. But in the interests of time, I will  leave off there.  [The prepared statement of Mr. Weinberg follows:]  [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    ----------    Mr. Poe. Thank you, Dr. Weinberg.  The Chair will now recognize Congressman Wolf.   STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK WOLF, DISTINGUISHED SENIOR   FELLOW, 21ST CENTURY WILBERFORCE INITIATIVE (FORMER U.S.   REPRESENTATIVE)   Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the  committee.  The issue of Saudi educational curriculum as a means of  promoting intolerance and inspiring terrorism is not a new one.  This topic hit close to home in 2003, when Ahmed Omar Abu Ali  was arrested while in class at the Islamic University of Medina  for an attempted plot to assassinate President Bush. Before  attending the University of Medina, Mr. Abu Ali attended and  was a valedictorian at a high school which was located here in  northern Virginia, the Islamic Saudi Academy. Mr. Abu Ali was  ultimately sentenced to life in prison and is currently serving  out his sentence in a supermax in Colorado.  The reason I would like to highlight this particular case  in particular is due to the fact that concerns were raised  regarding the educational material being used by the Islamic  Saudi Academy over and over. Not only was the school funded by  the Saudi Arabian Embassy, which meant it fell under the Saudi  Ministry of Education, but the Saudi Ambassador to Washington  led the board of directors. He literally led the school.  In 2007 when asked by the United States Commission on  International Religious Freedom to make textbooks publicly  available, the school refused to comply. We got copies from a  professor that gave us one on the side. One letter from USCIRF  on the issue stated, ``Based on past documentation, significant  concerns remain about whether the Saudi textbooks used at the  ISA Academy explicitly . . . hate, intolerance and human rights  violations, and in some cases violence, which may adversely  affect the interests of the United States.''  In 2008, I wrote Secretary Rice on five different occasions  regarding the concerns held by the Commission regarding the  content of the textbooks. At that time I requested a meeting be  convened between relevant State Department officials, USCIRF  representatives, and expert analysts commissioned by USCIRF to  translate the textbooks in order to determine what was being  taught by the Academy. Such meeting never took place.  Generally, the State Department has been weak on this issue  in both Republican and in Democratic administrations.  During this time, USCIRF was finally able to obtain copies  of some of the textbooks being used by the Islamic Saudi  Academy. After a thorough analysis, the Commission concluded  that the textbooks contained very troubling passages that did  not conform to international human rights standards, including  vilification of those who adhere to Christianity, Judaism,  Baha'i'ism, Ahmadism, and Shia Islam and others. I have  submitted for the record some of those statements.  And in 2009 I sent a letter, again, to Secretary of State  Clinton, urging the State Department monitor and report on the  textbooks published by the Saudi Government. In that letter I  acknowledged, ``To date, we have had only vague assurances on  the part of the State Department and the school that the  curriculum has been reformed. But these assurances are  insufficient, particularly when they are utterly at odds with  USCIRF's findings, and may be indicative of wider problems,  namely, the status of Saudi commitments made in 2006 to conduct  a comprehensive revision of textbooks and educational curricula  to weed out . . .''  While it is impossible to say that Mr. Abu Ali was directly  radicalized by the textbooks used at the Islamic Saudi Academy,  the use of the books that promote religious discrimination and  the justification of violence toward non-believers cannot be  tolerated, certainly not in Fairfax County, not in Virginia,  not in America, but quite frankly, anywhere around the world.  Consider that if this is the academy's curriculum in the  United States, just imagine how prolific the problem has been  across Saudi-affiliated academies, funded programs in other  countries around the world, especially in some countries in the  Middle East.  While the Ahmed Omar Abu Ali case is now almost a decade  old, Saudi Arabia has continued to promote and export radical  Wahhabism. In the wake of the Orlando shooting just last year,  Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton stated, ``It is  long past the time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis  and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist  organizations. And they should stop,'' she said, ``supporting  radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too  many young people on the path toward extremism.''  And, unfortunately, by funding top American university  research centers, the Saudi Government has been able to  minimize voices of those in academia who you would have thought  otherwise would have had the best means for researching the  effects of radical Wahhabism.  While there are many concerns regarding the influence of  Saudi Arabia, more specifically radical Wahhabism, on countries  around the world, it would be remiss not to acknowledge that  very recently some small improvements have been made to the  educational material. In the latest report by USCIRF they said,  ``In February 2017 Saudi officials stated that the final stage  of revisions to high school texts was underway. During its  visit, USCIRF obtained some textbooks currently in use and  found some intolerant content remained in high school texts,  though at a reduced level.''  They go on to explain while there has been progress in  terms, there is still concern that some of the teachers may be  promoting a more radicalized version of Islam.  Some recommendations: One, the USCIRF has some very good  recommendations. Undertake and make public and annual  assessment.  I believe you have to put this in the legislation. If you  just let the State Department or the American Embassy in Saudi  Arabia, they will always find a reason not to do it. So I think  it needs to be mandated that the relevant Ministry of Education  textbooks determine the passages that teach religious  intolerance have been removed.  Secondly, press the Saudi Government to denounce publicly  the continued use around the world of older versions of Saudi  textbooks and other materials that promote hatred and  intolerance. And make every attempt to retrieve and buy back  previously distributed textbooks that contain intolerance.  You know, even in America's schools sometimes you're in a  class there will be a textbook that is 10, 15 years old. These  are still in schools around, around the world.  And keep in mind, lastly, the Saudis funded almost all of  the madrasas that were up on the Afghan-Pakistan border that  helped lead to what took place in the Taliban. Mullah Omar, the  head of the Taliban, was a graduate of a Saudi-funded academy.  The issue needs more work.  And I want to thank the subcommittee and the members  because I kind of thought for a while this issue was kind of  forgotten about. Mandate it and put it in. If you take the  pressure off the Saudis they will slip back in and this will  come in. You keep the pressure on and you can make a tremendous  difference.  I thank you for the hearing.  [The prepared statement of Mr. Wolf follows:]  [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    ----------    Mr. Poe. Thank you, Congressman Wolf.  Dr. Johnston.   STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS JOHNSTON, PH.D., PRESIDENT EMERITUS,   INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RELIGION AND DIPLOMACY   Mr. Johnston. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you  for the honor of presenting to your committee some of the work  our center has been doing to try to help facilitate educational  reform in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We have a written  testimony that covers that comprehensively. I will just touch  on some of the highlights.  Before I do, though, I would like to just take 1 second to  honor the other witnesses here. Each is a champion of human  rights and religious freedom in their own right, and it is an  honor to be with them.  Our task, which I consider complementary to their own, has  been to take action to address the problem. And in 2011, we  received a grant from the State Department to develop  recommendations that would help facilitate reform efforts that  were already underway in the Kingdom. Toward this end, we  assessed all the textbooks for discriminatory content. And we  also tried to determine global dispersion of those textbooks.  It was a--from the start our approach was one of seeking to  be balanced, giving them credit for whatever progress had been  made, not only in that but in their deradicalization program,  but to be very unsparing in our detail of what yet remained to  be done. And there we completed a report, very comprehensive,  included 99 textbooks. I could go into great length on that,  but just suffice it to say that this report is just replete  with examples of the kinds of problems that have been cited  here with the other witnesses.  There is, at that point in time, this is 2011, sprinkled  throughout you would find direct license given for violent  behavior toward others who do not subscribe to that similar  brand of Islam. You would also find direct license for such  things as desecrating the tombs of the Sufi saints in Timbuktu,  which the extremists did before the French kicked them out. So,  lots of problems.  There were not only problems in the textbooks as a whole,  but even in the six grades that had already been thoroughly  revised we did find problems.  So, one of the things I would just point out, though, in  terms of looking at these things, I think it is important to  try to avoid using a western lens as we do so. By that I mean  what we try to do is hold their feet to the fire by comparing  what is in those textbooks to what is in the Holy Quran with  respect to that same subject area, what is in the Cairo  Declaration of Human Rights in Islam with respect to that. In  all cases, the Saudi textbooks were much more conservative than  the sources I just mentioned.  So, that is, that is a very important piece is just  understanding exactly where, how much freedom the Government of  Saudi Arabia has to really maneuver. There are so many wild  cards in the mix. There are charities through which textbooks  are distributed. There are maverick members of the royal  family. There are deep-pocketed Saudis who are not members of  the royal family. Lots of people with lots of agendas.  And one of the things that is also a bit of a constraint is  the fact that the original pact between the monarchy and the  Salafi Ulema called for education belongs to the religious  establishment. So one of the things that the Saudis were having  to do is to finesse that aspect, that obligation. They also  need to worry about the credibility that they maintain within  Islam itself as custodian of the two holiest sites. So this is,  this is not to forgive any of the textbook content, this is to  just explain why sometimes it may take a little bit longer than  we would like.  We established a comprehensive baseline for future  analysis. And we felt that the progress that the Saudis were  making was credible enough that we should probably keep the  report private, not release it to the public. Our concern was  that western critics seizing upon the offensive passages that  still remain might just shut down the whole process as a  defensive backlash sets in and the conservatives move in. We  have seen this time and again in different situations in the  Islamic world.  So, we spent the next 3 years implementing some of the  recommendations that we had come forward with.  Now, just to bring it right up to the present, we are in  another month we are going to be starting a new effort to look  at the textbooks of the high school grades which had not been  revised the last time we looked at them. We are also going to  take an in-depth look at three countries on how the Saudi  educational materials are affecting the religious and social.  What is that impact?  And I will say this, right now the Saudis claim to have  just completed that process, reform process that started way  back in 2007. And they realize, however, that they still have  problems. Many of those have been mentioned here right now. And  what they are planning to do is tackle it from two aspects.  One, is by 2020 to have developed a set of curriculum  standards. They have never had curriculum standards before. And  this is part of their national plan on educational reform which  was articulated in 2014, $22 billion behind it. It is very  serious money. That money has stayed protected even during  their budget shortfalls. And by these curriculum standards they  will then revise wholesale the content in all of the textbooks.  In the meantime, on a more urgent basis, they are going to  be looking at the current revised textbooks and within-- starting within 3 months they will start making changes on a  priority basis. And they will have these completed, according  to them, by the next school year, 2018 to 2019. And there is so  much going on right now. They are going to--in 3 years they  will have converted from textbooks to tablet computers. So  there is a lot of change underway.  I believe that the commitment is real. And they certainly  do understand the problem.  Thank you.  [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnston follows:]  [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    ----------    Mr. Poe. Thank you, Dr. Johnston. The Chair recognizes  himself for some questions.  I want to be clear that when we are dealing with Saudi  Arabia it is not all or nothing. Like I said earlier, they are  the arsonists but they are also the firefighters when it comes  to terrorism. That is what makes this very troubling, this  whole issue.  And, Ms. Shea, let me start with you. If I understand  correctly, Saudi Arabia agreed in 2006 that they would fix this  problem and they would have it all fixed by 2008. Is that  correct?  Ms. Shea. Yes, Mr. Chairman. They----  Mr. Poe. Okay. Reclaiming my time because I only have a few  minutes.  So here it is now 9 years later and it is still not fixed,  maybe some progress, but it is the issue that they promised in  2006 to fix the textbooks has not come about. Is that right?  Ms. Shea. Yes, that is correct.  Mr. Poe. So that is nine grades. That is almost a  generation of students that they furnished the textbooks to  that are still receiving this, in my opinion, violation of  human rights.  Saudi Arabian schools teach religion and it is mandatory  that all students go to these religious classes. Is that  correct?  Ms. Shea. Yes.  Mr. Poe. And that is where these textbooks are used?  Ms. Shea. Yes.  Mr. Poe. And they are not only used in Saudi Arabia but  they are used in other places in the world, including in the  United States, as Congressman Wolf has stated; is that right?  Ms. Shea. They have about 20 schools that they directly  run. And then they are spread--for example, Dr. Johnston's  report said that there were 150 schools that Saudi Arabia has  established in Burkina Faso alone. So that gives you some, you  know, some idea of the scale. It is all over the world, all  continents and where there are people, where there are Muslim  communities. And they are--not every one is receiving Saudi  textbooks, but many, many are.  Mr. Poe. And some say that the radicalization in Kosovo and  Indonesia are a result of these textbooks being in these  schools. Are you aware of that?  Ms. Shea. Yes, I am. I hear it all the time.  Mr. Poe. Congressman Wolf.  Mr. Wolf. Yes.  Mr. Poe. Dr. Johnston, I know the State Department  contracted with your group to study this issue, gave a grant,  American taxpayer money, a grant for you all to study the  issue. You studied it. You have got a report there in your  hand. But the State Department still to this day refuses to  release to the public that report. Is that correct?  Mr. Johnston. No, that is not true, sir.  Mr. Poe. So they have, they have released the report?  Mr. Johnston. They have. But not, not on their own doing.  Mr. Poe. It has been released because somebody leaked the  report.  Mr. Johnston. No. It was because the New York Times used  the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of the report.  Mr. Poe. So it has been. The public does have access to  your entire report?  Mr. Johnston. Absolutely.  Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you. I did not know that.  So, Congressman Wolf, let me ask you. You mentioned a few  things that must be done. This has been going on for a good  number of years. And where we are today, I think the United  States--this is my opinion--doesn't want to endanger the  sensitivities of our relationship with our Saudi allies. What  would--how would you characterize this relationship and the  demanding that we--that they change their textbooks?  Mr. Wolf. Well, it goes up and down. And during the area of  oil crisis nobody wanted to offend the Saudis. America is fast  becoming basically energy independent.  I think what you are doing with the hearing today by  bringing the attention.  Two, there ought to be the new U.S. Ambassador for  Religious Freedom, the person whose name I have heard is a very  outstanding person who will be very good on this issue, the  subcommittee should meet with that person.  Thirdly, you ought to have questions going over to the  Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. When they send the name up of  the new Ambassador there will be very tough questions from both  sides of the aisle--this is not a political issue, if you  will--aggressively putting him on record or her on record,  whoever it is, that they will speak out.  Lastly, when he or she is confirmed this subcommittee  ought, ought to meet with them.  And I think the more you pressure and do it publicly, in a  very respectful way, you have to be careful, though, because  the Saudis put a lot of money in different universities. They  also hire prominent law firms in town. I couldn't believe, 3  weeks ago a prominent law firm was hired to represent Bashir,  an indicted war criminal, indicted for genocide, responsible  for the death of 200,000 to 300,000 people in Darfur, bombing  people in the Nuba Mountains, and yet a law firm, prominent law  firm working for him. So you have to be careful that there  isn't pressure.  But what you have done today following up with it, I don't  think the State Department will aggressively do it unless the  Congress pushes them.  Mr. Poe. Last question. Dr. Weinberg, you mentioned that 17  minutes into this hearing, that was a public notice that we  were having this hearing, the Saudi Arabians did something.  What did they do?  Mr. Weinberg. They, they announced on social media that a  new round of curriculum revisions had been completed which,  again, needs to be not a justification for letting scrutiny off  but a justification for added scrutiny to see if they have  actually delivered on what they pledged.  If I could just add my voice to what the Honorable Mr. Wolf  said about envoys. In addition to encouraging the  administration to nominate a qualified individual for the  congressionally-mandated post of Ambassador-at-Large for  International Religious Freedom, there are four other important  positions that are laying vacant on this issue right now.  There is currently no nominee, at least as of last I  checked 2 days ago, for a U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. It  should be somebody with real experience in the relationship and  not just business experience.  Additionally, there is no nominee for the Special  Representative of the State Department to Muslim Communities  Abroad, a crucial vacancy.  Additionally, there is still no nominee, no nominee for the  Anti-Semitism Envoy at the State Department. And the Secretary  of State even suggested that such a nominee might be  counterproductive for addressing anti-Semitism by taking it out  of the priorities of the State Department, which I think is a  deeply counterproductive perspective.  And then, lastly, there is the position of Ambassador for-- or Special Envoy for Religious Freedom of Minorities in the  Broader Middle East, a position that is mandated by Congress.  There is somebody serving in this capacity but not with the  level of seniority that Congress has mandated.  So those are all areas where you all can have an important  voice.  Mr. Poe. Four positions, four witnesses, I think maybe we  can solve that problem right here.  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking  member Mr. Keating.  Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Dr. Johnston, you mentioned that the Center is moving  forward and they are looking at three countries to see what the  effect, do an in-depth examination of the religious and social  impact of Saudi educational materials in those countries. Can  you tell us and expand on what countries were chosen and what  reason were those countries included in this study?  Mr. Johnston. They have not been chosen. We are currently  examining the feasibility of securing a memorandum of  understanding with selected governments that would pass this  test. These are going to be three countries of strategic  consequence. They will be drawn from Southeast Asia, the Middle  East, and Europe.  Mr. Keating. Could you share any timetable that you might  have?  Mr. Johnston. I would say that we would, we would have this  firmly underway within 2 months.  I would say, too, and I am sorry that time didn't permit  this earlier, but in response to our study on the global  impact, the Saudis actually put out a request to the Cultural  Attaches of every one of their Embassies around the world  encouraging them to, directing them to retrieve any old  textbooks that might be in use within their respective  geographic areas and to replace them with new.  The problem with that, of course, is the new still have  problems. But this is to just show you that they are not deaf  to the issue of this stuff going worldwide. And one of the  things we are trying to do is just to impart a sense of  ownership on all of that. And I think they are stepping up to  the plate.  Mr. Keating. Well, 9 years, they might be not be deaf but  they are slow of hearing I would say in a sense.  Mr. Johnston. It is glacial.  Mr. Keating. Certainly.  And one of the concerns, too, when we are looking at this  overall problem and the expansion of these materials, I think a  lot rests on the control that the home country has on its  education curriculum. I think Ms. Shea mentioned Burkina Faso  and Mali.  And how much are countries like that reliant on these Saudi  materials? Financially, what is the control? And this should  seem to me an opportunity for the United States to try and deal  with this directly. What opportunities could we have in those  countries if they are reliant on money and resources for  curriculum from Saudi Arabia, which we are learning today still  contains material that is not, not appropriate, to say the  least?  So, tell us about what your views are of the impact of  those home-controlled countries on the curriculum?  Ms. Shea. Yes, it is very determinant. I even spoke to an  imam from a mosque in the United States about--who had Saudi  textbooks in his library that he made available in the school.  And he has since removed it he said. But he, he said that the  reason why is that he didn't--he was working with an immigrant  community that was impoverished, and that they do not have a  school, they do not have textbooks, they do not have religious  textbooks. So they turn to the country in the world with the  deep pockets for such things. So they----  Mr. Keating. Could I interrupt to say that given the U.S.  interest here, isn't that a priority for our country perhaps?  Is there an opportunity? Or would they not be receptive to the  United States?  Ms. Shea. Well, it is going to be very tricky. The United  States cannot be funding religious things like that.  Mr. Keating. How about through NGOs or funding through NGOs  or anything like this?  Ms. Shea. Well, I think the solution, again, is to force  the--or press the Saudis to clean up their textbooks because  they are going to be online. And----  Mr. Keating. Well, if they are, if the Saudis are so  sincere about this, what are they doing currently to the  current generation and the prior generations that have been so  indoctrinated in this material? Have they done anything in a  remedial nature to deal with this whatsoever?  Mr. Johnston. Well, one of the things they did in their  deradicalization program is that they fired 3,000 imams. They  retrained 20,000 others out of a total pool of 75,000 imams. So  that is, that is taking care of it within their own borders.  Beyond that, the question that you asked where they have  paid for the mosques and all the rest of it, you find in most  countries they have significant control over what is taking  place in the schools.  Again, I would just point out there is an important caveat  here. That may not be the Government of Saudi Arabia very  easily it seems. You know, peel back the onion, it is very  difficult to follow.  Mr. Keating. If I could----  Mr. Johnston. But, but a more----  Mr. Keating [continuing]. Just because my time is about to  expire, if I could just--then you can have your chance with the  committee to address that, a little bit of an expansion here.  Congressman Wolf mentioned some of the things directly he  thought. He gave specifics about what the U.S. could do. Just  in a very short summary, if any of you have specific, specific  ideas I would like to hear them.  Mr. Weinberg. So on the topic of exportation that we were  just discussing, one thing that has always plagued this issue,  and this was a challenge for that New York Times investigation  that the chairman was discussing, I spoke with some of the  reporters who were involved in that and related efforts at the  Times, and one of the challenges when it comes to studying this  exportation issue is there is often only anecdotal data or it  is, you know, very, very vague and impressionistic.  So, one of the things that the U.S. Government can do to  really play an important role here is to use all the assets of  the U.S. Government on this, and in particular, the  intelligence community. The easiest thing, or the most  important thing that can be done in terms of informing this  debate would simply be a directive from Congress to the  intelligence community to monitor the exportation of incitement  from Saudi Arabia, including but not limited to textbooks, and  to direct them to report on this.  Additionally, Congress can call for rebooting the U.S.- Saudi strategic dialogue with a track to include issues related  to incitement. And that rebooting, in a general sense, is  something that the new crown prince of Saudi Arabia is reported  to support.  And then, additionally, Congress can publicly and privately  raise this issue, as well as urging the President to do so, and  to issue a formal directive to U.S. agencies and cabinet  members to do so as well.  Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Weinberg. In respect to my  other committee members, if you can do that in writing----  Mr. Johnston. Do you want any more ideas?  Mr. Keating [continuing]. I think that would be helpful.  We might, but I have to be respectful of the other  committee members, unless we have a second round. But anything  like that I think the committee would appreciate in writing.  And, also, you know the committee is aware perhaps that  there is classified material along the lines that Dr. Weinberg  suggested that they may want to review, something that I think  the committee might be interested in doing.  And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman.  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.  Perry.  Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the panel here.  Mr. Weinberg, you mentioned a report in your testimony, or  maybe in questions, I can't remember, but what is the report  going to do? What is it going to do to Saudi Arabia and what is  it--said report, so to speak, what would it do to the United  States?  Mr. Weinberg. So, one of the challenges of this issue to  date is something that Ms. Shea addresses in her written  testimony, which is the tendency of the State Department,  because its priority is maintaining constructive relations with  Saudi Arabia and advancing a range of other issues in the  bilateral relationship such that they usually don't want to  rock the boat, that a long-term strategic priority for the  United States like textbooks doesn't get raised in the  immediate term when it needs to get raised, and it gets kicked  down the road indefinitely.  So as a result, State Department language on this issue  every year in their International Religious Freedom Report, in  their Human Rights Report, as well as in their country reports  on terrorism such as the one that came out today, basically  have a throw-away line or two about some incitement still  remaining, without providing any specific examples typically,  or at least without providing direct quotations. And so, and  well----  Mr. Perry. Is this not like widely known? Like, doesn't the  whole world, like, we all know this; right? Everybody knows,  everybody in the room knows this. With all due respect, I just,  look, the report might be nice but I don't, I don't see it  moving the ball quite honestly.  Mr. Weinberg. Yes.  Mr. Perry. I mean, maybe in the panoply of everything you  are going to do that, you have to add that.  Mr. Weinberg. If I could play devil's advocate for a  moment. So, part of the challenge with this issue has been the  absence of current data when people actually have their  conversations with Saudi officials.  So, for example, the important study that Mr. Johnston's  institute did, its results were not raised with Saudi officials  by them or by the U.S. Government to the best of our  knowledge----  Mr. Perry. But that is the, that is----  Mr. Weinberg [continuing]. Until the books were already  obsolete.  Mr. Perry. That is an issue of will, not of information. I  mean, I have got textbook experts right in front--excerpts  right in front of me here, so.  Mr. Weinberg. But the reason those excerpts were done,  until May most of those excerpts were not actually in the  public sphere because nobody had gotten access to the books and  sat down and read them and transcribed them.  Mr. Perry. You are telling me that we legitimately----  Mr. Weinberg. So for several years we didn't know.  Mr. Perry. And I am not trying to be bellicose or  difficult----  Mr. Weinberg. Yeah.  Mr. Perry [continuing]. But you are telling me we had no  physical evidence like this----  Mr. Weinberg. Right.  Mr. Perry [continuing]. Until May 2017?  Mr. Weinberg. For this academic year, yes.  Mr. Perry. Oh, for this academic year. But we have for  every other academic year back to 1970, 1980 or something.  Mr. Weinberg. But just, just like that tweet from the Saudi  Embassy that we were discussing, the Saudi Government every  year claims that this has, this has been seriously worked over  and so the stuff that people are concerned about is old news.  And so it is important for the United States Government----  Mr. Perry. Well, of course there is propaganda. I mean, you  can listen to Russia T.V. and Al Jazeera as well if you want to  believe all that stuff. But I mean, I hope that Americans are a  little brighter than that.  Let me ask anybody this: Regarding incitement, because I  just don't feel like we ever go far enough, and I am not sure  even the suggestions I have heard go far enough to suit me-- that is just me--but does anybody know whether incitement, you  know, when you talk about the penalty for the adulterer who has  previously consummated a marriage is stoning to death, that is  in the book; or apostasy, you know, the penalty for apostasy is  killing, that is, you know, that is in the textbook; you know,  I don't know if this is incitement in the classic example or  case. And I don't know if it meets the Brandenburg test.  Does anybody know if it does? Have we ever tried to? I  mean, nobody wants to get into the suppression of free speech,  but at some point free speech crosses over the line into  incitement. Now, I guess the test is intended, likely, and  imminent, and which the courts at some point decided what  imminent was. Does anybody know whether that has ever been  challenged? Have we ever taken a shot at it? Does the  government have an interest?  Okay. Yes, ma'am.  Ms. Shea. Well, I think, I think we have done that in the  case of Americans who have posted such death threats against,  like for example, the South Park cartoonist who did an  irreverent cartoon of----  Mr. Perry. But I am talking about the textbooks. Is this,  is this,----  Ms. Shea. But no, I mean I don't see how that----  Mr. Perry [continuing]. Is this considered incitement?  Ms. Shea. I don't see how that could be, I don't see how  there is--there is diplomatic immunity--I don't see how the  Saudi textbook.  Mr. Perry. The textbook has diplomatic immunity?  Ms. Shea. Well, they are published by the Government of  Saudi Arabia who would be held responsible. The Ministry of  Education of Saudi Arabia is the, the printer. And the  Government of Saudi Arabia is the sponsor.  Mr. Perry. So if the Government of Saudi Arabia publishes  information that says that every, every citizen that has an  affiliation with Saudi Arabia living in the United States  should kill the next American they see, there is nothing we can  do about that? Like we can't, we can't have that removed from  the shelf because it is the Government of Saudi Arabia?  Ms. Shea. Well, that is the--I mean, we have pressed people  who actually carried out the crime. But it, you know----  Mr. Perry. But incitement, there have been prosecutions for  incitement in advance of the crime based on incitement; right?  The question is has, to anybody's knowledge has anybody in the  United States on behalf of the United States pursued that  avenue regarding the textbooks and the passages therein as  incitement?  Ms. Shea. Some of the 9/11 victims' families may have been  suing Saudi Arabia for reparations. But, but I don't know what  the theory of their case was, whether it was the incitement.  Mr. Perry. It seems like maybe either the answer is no or  unknown. So maybe that is a place we can go into further.  Mr. Chairman, I yield back.  Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  The Chair will have one more round of 2 minutes per member.  I will yield my time initially to the ranking member Mr.  Keating from Massachusetts for his questions.  Mr. Keating. Mr. Weinberg, you said one of the things that  we can all do is speak up more and be consistent in doing it at  every level. Taking into consideration what Congressman Wolf  said, you know, there are generations of leaders before this,  both sides of the aisle, that haven't been aggressive enough,  as he testified.  However, President Trump was just in Saudi Arabia.  President Trump was talking about extremism and the need to  band together to do it. Yet there is no report that he brought  this issue up in the course of that.  What is the danger in not bringing this up, particularly at  that level, particularly under that thing?  Mr. Weinberg. Yes. So this is, this is, this is the  challenge is that the President almost never raises the issue.  This was the case with President George W. Bush, this was the  case with President Obama. This was the--appears to be the case  with President Trump. Which is part of why the strategic  dialogue was inaugurated between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia  under the Bush administration so that senior officials could  still raise priority concerns when it didn't rise to a level of  the Commander-in-Chief as their number one, or two, or three  priority but still needed to be addressed because of U.S.  interests.  But that having been said, that is not an excuse for the  President not to address it. It is not an excuse for the  President not to direct cabinet members to do so as well.  President Trump, when he participated in the inauguration  of a global center for combating extremist ideology in Saudi,  while he was in Saudi Arabia--which by the way was in the works  for 2 years and then they repackaged it to be a deliverable  during this summit--he predicted it would make history.  Reflecting on his visit to the Kingdom several weeks later,  he urged all nations to stop teaching people to kill other  people, stop filling their minds with hate and intolerance. And  he said he would not name other countries besides Qatar.  Now, I actually have an article draft forthcoming which  explains why Qatar's record on counterterrorism issues is  actually worse than all of its other neighbors in the Gulf  monarchies. But that having been said, the books need to be  addressed directly, with knowledge, on a regular basis with  current information about the current school year, or else it  is not going to have any impact with the Saudi Government.  Otherwise, the Saudi Government is going to keep doing what it  is doing, which is reprinting these books year after year with  incitement, and indoctrinating, you know, at least several more  years of students with this problematic information.  Mr. Johnston. May I correct the record on something? This  report was in fact--I briefed the Saudis in Riyadh on this  report. It was sent over through diplomatic channels as well.  And out of that came one ray of hope.  We worked for several years on one of the recommendations  which was to bring Saudi educators together with American  educators to deal with the problem of bias and intolerance in  national education systems. Out of this came a series of  recommendations to their government, and our own, but to their  government which I delivered to their Minister of Education.  One of the things I feel is so important, and it hasn't  been mentioned here, but far more important than these  textbooks, far more important is the teacher training. And we  have opportunities now to be able to go over there and in the  context of this national plan for educational reform, which was  crafted mostly by McKinsey & Company, it is a dynamite plan,  and if they fully implement it it will actually leapfrog some  of our own habits. But I think there the door is open that we  could go and help them implement this and particularly get at  the teacher training, which is, as I say, far more important.  Mr. Keating. I yield back.  Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman.  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.  Perry.  Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Johnston, Dr. Johnston, I understand one of the  problems for the United States is how the actions, the  statements versus actions coming from Saudi Arabia are  determined. And I indeed asked the Secretary about the metrics  to determine efficacy of the Saudi's actions and how we are  measuring their progress.  I will tell you now--well, the man's been on the job for 4  or 5 months, right, so we have to give him some leeway--but I  didn't get a lot of confidence that anything meaningful was  there. And I actually wonder, some of the officials who may be  determining whether what the efficacy is, literally that might  be, I hate to say it, but so to speak working for the other  side.  So, in your work with the, the ICRD how would you  characterize the metrics we use and who is determining? Is it,  it is appropriate or is that problematic that--that needs to be  addressed? And where is that addressed?  Mr. Johnston. No, I, I think one of the metrics is the  baseline that we established here back in 2011. To be sure, we  haven't looked at those books in 5 years. But the U.S.  Commission on International Religious Freedom did several years  ago. We provided them the baseline.  They determined that further reform was taking place. And  in this year's annual report they even talk about a visit there  in February of this year where they determined that more reform  was taking place. So this is a metric.  We are going to be looking very hard at it starting in  another month on the high school grades. That is where most of  the onerous content exists.  And one of the other things in terms about why this is so  slow is they took a full year to field test their revisions to  the 10th grade, which was, as far as we were concerned, was the  one grade where it was the worst. And they did those revisions.  I don't know what has come of that. We will find out. But they  did take a full year to test it.  And the other thing we have to remember is that a lot of  this is getting in on religious grounds. And some of that is  pretty----  Mr. Perry. But I think they use that. And good for them, I  suppose.  Mr. Johnston. Sometimes yes. Yes.  Mr. Perry. But it is an Achilles heel for the United  States. And we can't allow that to be used against us,  especially for what many consider to be seditious activity.  And I also would question what progress means or what, you  know, reforms are taking place at what level. I mean, reform,  you know, they might change one word in that sentence and of  course they reformed the sentence, I guess in this classic,  very strict constructionist sense. But from the greater sense  and the spirit of it, it is not getting the job done and it is  not getting done quickly enough for us.  And what they do in their country, quite honestly and quite  frankly from my opinion, that is their business, but what they  do in our country is our business.  Mr. Johnston. Yes. No, your points are very valid.  One thing I would say is in addition to eliminating  negative content, one of the things we have found, and we just  took a quick glance, there is the addition of very positive  content that sort of works in the other direction.  I don't know to what extent they are constrained by this  needing to keep their religious establishment on board, because  that is where they get their, their authority from is from the  religious establishment. That is part of the package. So it is  a difficult walk that they are making. The people that I have  worked with I am 1,000 percent convinced are very sincere. And,  in fact, one of them----  Mr. Perry. With the chairman's indulgence, I agree, in  their country it is inexorably linked since they came to power,  the House of Saud. And I get all that and why the need to keep,  to do all the things they need to do. I don't agree with it but  I understand it.  However, in this country none of it is appropriate, none of  it is appropriate and we should take action.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Poe. I thank the gentleman.  Congressman Wolf, I have a question for you first and then  I will let you make a comment because I know you want to keep,  you want to talk about the last question.  ISIS used Saudi Arabian textbooks up until 2015. That was 2  years ago. And now they use their own textbooks. Would you like  to comment on where ISIS gets--got their textbooks to begin  with?  Mr. Wolf. Well, you are right. In the New York Times piece  they say, ``In a huge embarrassment to the Saudi authorities,  the Islamic State adopted official Saudi textbooks for its  schools until the extremist group could publish its own  textbooks in 2015.''  Secondly, when I was in 2 years ago we went up into the  Nineveh Plains. We went into meetings with all the different  people. At every meeting I said, Tell me, who is helping the  Saudis--rather, who is helping ISIS? And every meeting, every  meeting two came up, some three, but two came up: The Saudis,  not always the Saudi Government but Saudi individuals, and he  sort of alluded to the renegade guy; secondly, Qatar. They were  aiding and abetting ISIS. And there was another country,  Turkey, who was for the longest period of time was allowing  people, they go to Istanbul, they call a telephone number, they  go south and they join.  They may have changed. But don't forget, 15 of the 19  hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was from Saudi  Arabia. The number of people from my area who were killed in  the attack on the Pentagon, the guys who did it, Saudi Arabia.  And so I think what this committee has done today with the  hearing, the textbooks are important, but all these issues, and  you push and you push and you push. And I urge you to meet with  the new ambassador, and I urge you to sit down with him or her,  whoever it is, and pressure them, and the new religious freedom  ambassador. I think you may have started something here.  And the real danger is you even recall last year--I read  the 28 pages--you remember last year the issue came up, the  Saudis hired law firms and PR firms in this town to do  everything. Fortunately the Congress, to its good credit,  passed it and was not influenced. But you know what is going  on, so by this hearing you can cover all the textbooks are  important but terrorism is important. All these things are  very, very important. And, hopefully, this can be the genesis  if you guys, men and women, continue to really make a  difference and stop what Saudi Arabia has been doing for a long  period of time.  Mr. Poe. Thank you. And the ranking member and I will  request a meeting with the Ambassador and we will go from  there. Maybe have a hearing in the future on Qatar, have all of  you back.  And I want to have one last question for all four of you.  Since we are talking about textbooks and schools, how would you  rank the--at this time--the goal of changing the textbooks so  that they don't preach hate, intolerance, and violence? And it  is real simple, it is not pass or fail, it is A, B, C, D, or F.  You understand the question, Ms. Shea? How would you rank  what Saudi Arabia is doing right now?  Ms. Shea. F.  Mr. Poe. All right. Dr. Weinberg?  Mr. Weinberg. F with credit for effort.  Mr. Poe. F with credit for effort. Okay.  Congressman Wolf?  Mr. Wolf. F plus instead of F.  Mr. Poe. Dr. Johnston?  Mr. Johnston. I would give it a D.  And one of the things I would point out is that as long as  we are, you know, buying 150 billion--selling $150 billion  worth of arms to the Saudis, they are not going to pay a whole  lot of attention to western criticism. When you couple that  reality with the line they are walking with the religious  establishment, I think that they are making as much progress as  one could hope for at this point in time.  They need to do a lot better, but there is, there is  sincere desire to do better on their part, the government's  part. I don't know about the religious.  Mr. Poe. And without belaboring the point, if we take Ms.  Shea's recommendation, we tie defense contracts to Saudi Arabia  with the repairing of their textbooks, that may get somebody's  attention. I don't know. We will see.  Anyway, I want to thank all of you for being here. I want  to thank all of the people in the audience for being here as  well.  And this subcommittee is adjourned.  [Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]        A P P E N D I X   ----------  [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   [all]