ly the opposite of what our Nation is dedicated to, which is the inclusion and acceptance of all our citizens.

To summarize, we at B'nai B'rith support religious expression, but we do not see the public school as the proper place for it. Imposing prayer on schoolchildren can only have the effect of giving the State stamp of approval to the potential exclusion of religious minorities. Isn't it better that we continue to center religious activities in the church, synagogue, home, and family, without any Government intrusion? Haven't these institutions worked well enough for the past 200 years?

Thank you.

Mr. SCOTCH. Thank you.

I believe that concludes the list of witnesses, unless anyone present here has been omitted by inadvertence?

That not being the case, I would like to thank you, all of you particularly in the room who stayed this afternoon despite the mixup and confusion. I think it was very, very important that the record was completed on this most significant proposal for an amendment to the Constitution.

As I indicated earlier, some Senators may want to address questions, not being able to be here, and we are going to leave the record open for 10 days for the questions to be dispatched and answers to be received for those Senators who wish to ask questions. Again, thank you very much, and this hearing will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [The following was received for the record:]

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH, UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, EXECUTIVE SESSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO SCHOOL PRAYER, JULY 13, 1983.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WHILE THIS COMMITTEE PROBABLY DEALS WITH MORE DIFFICULT AND MORE DIVISIVE ISSUES THAN ANY OTHER COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE, I HAVE FOUND THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL PRAYER TO BE THE MOST DIFFICULT ONE PERSONALLY WITH WHICH I HAVE EVER DEALT. IT HAS BEEN SO DIFFICULT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN SCHOOL PRAYER; I BELIEVE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THIS ISSUE; I BELIEVE THAT THE SUPREME COURT WAS WRONG IN ITS DECISIONS IN ENGEL AND ABINGTON; I BELIEVE THAT THE HISTORIC, SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE AND EXPRESSIONS OF RELIGIOUS PRAYER OUGHT TO

BE RESTORED.

I BELIEVE IN ALL THIS, YET-- I CANNOT MUSTER ENTHUSIASM FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION. ALONG WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE, I INTRODUCED THIS AMENDMENT BY REQUEST-- LAST YEAR AND AGAIN THIS YEAR. I HAVE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN IN SUPPORT OF IT. I HAVE VOTED TO REPORT IT OUT OF

SUBCOMMITTEE.

YET-- I STILL CANNOT GENERATE WITHIN MYSELF

THE FEELING THAT THIS AMENDMENT OUGHT TO, UNEQUIVOCABLY, BE-
COME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. INDEED,

WHAT PROBABLY CONCERNS ME THE MOST OF ALL, IS THAT THE MORE
THAT I ASSESS THIS AMENDMENT, THE MORE THAT I ACTUALLY ATTEMPT
TO ASSESS ITS REAL-WORLD IMPACT, THE LESS ENTHUSIASM THAT I
HAVE FOR IT. AS I HAVE SAT THROUGH DAYS OF HEARINGS AND STU-

DIED PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANALYSES, AS I HAVE SPOKEN TO
INDIVIDUALS WHOSE JUDGEMENT I RESPECT ON THESE MATTERS, AND
WHOSE SENSE OF PERSONAL SPIRITUALITY CANNOT BE QUESTIONED,
I HAVE BECOME LESS CONVINCED OF THE MERITS OF THIS AMENDMENT.
PERHAPS, IT IS MY OWN MEMBERSHIP IN A MINORITY CHURCH THAT
HAS OFTEN BEEN SUBJECT TO OFFICIAL HOSTILITY. I CANNOT DENY
THAT I HAVE BEEN, LIKE MOST OF US, SHAPED AND INFLUENCED BY
MY CHURCH. PERHAPS, IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS PERSONAL HISTORY

THAT I SIMPLY CANNOT COME TO ENTHUSIASTIC TERMS WITH THE
NOTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALLY ENCOURAGING AND SELECTING

PRAYERS TO BE DELIVERED BY EVERY STUDENT IN A CLASSROOM-

EVERY STUDENT UNLESS SEVERAL WISH TO OFFICIALLY HAVE THEM-
SELVES EXCUSED BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, AND WISH TO HAVE
THEMSELVES FOREVER CHARACTERIZED AS "DIFFERENT" BY THEIR
YOUTHFUL AND GENERALLY IMMATURE PEERS AND COLLEAGUES.
SIMPLY CANNOT COME TO ENTHUSIASTIC TERMS WITH THE STATE,
NOT SIMPLY ACCOMODATING PRAYER IN A NEUTRAL MANNER, BUT

ACTIVELY AND OFFICIALLY ENCOURAGING A SPECIFIC FORM OF

PRAYER.

I

WHILE PERHAPS I AM ALONE ON THIS ISSUE, I FIND THE
PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT TO S.J.RES. 73 TO BE EVEN
MORE OFFENSIVE TO THIS PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE THAN THE UN-
AMENDED VERSION OF THIS MEASURE. I FIND IT OFFENSIVE BE-

CAUSE IT SEEKS TO PLAY POLITICS WITH THE CONSTITUTION BY
PURPORTING TO ESTABLISH A POLICY WITH RESPECT TO OFFICIAL
PRAYER THAT IT HAS NO REAL INTENT TO ESTABLISH. IN RES-
PONSE TO THE CONCERN THAT I AND OTHERS HAVE RAISED ABOUT
THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE STATE DRAFTING PRAYERS FOR THE CLASS-
ROOM, THE NEW AMENDMENT WOULD ADD LANGUAGE FORBIDDING THE
STATE FROM "COMPOSING" ANY PRAYER. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
WHAT DOES THAT ADD TO THE AMENDMENT? IT MEANS NOTHING AND
IT ADDS NOTHING. IT IS INTENDED TO MEAN NOTHING AND IT IS

INTENDED TO ADD NOTHING.

IT IS NOT INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE STATE SELECTING OF PRAYER, THE STATE CHOOSING OF PRAYER, THE STATE MANDATING OF PRAYER, OR THE STATE INFLUENCING OF PRAYER. ALL THAT IT IS INTENDED TO DO

IS ADDRESS THE NARROW MECHANICAL OPERATION OF THE STATE COMPOSING

OF PRAYER. UNDER THIS PROVISION, THE STATE COULD NOT OFFICIALLY SIT DOWN AT THE DRAFTING TABLE AND COMPOSE AN ENTIRELY NEW PRAYER; IT COULD, HOWEVER, SIT DOWN AT THAT SAME TABLE AND THUMB THROUGH

THE BAPTIST PRAYER BOOK OR THE EPISCOPAL PRAYER BOOK OR THE MORMON

PRAYER BOOK AND SELECT DIFFERENT PRAYERS FOR DIFFERENT DAYS; IT COULD ACCEPT THE PRAYER OF ANY HELPFUL "VOLUNTEER" WHO COULD PUT TOGETHER THE "RIGHT" LANGUAGE FOR A PRAYER; IT COULD SELECT THE DEVOTIONAL LANGUAGE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL, LIVING OR DEAD, SO LONG AS THE STATE ITSELF DID NOT COMPOSE THE LANGUAGE ITSELF.

APART FROM THE CYNICISM OF ADDRESSING A SERIOUS PROBLEM

RAISED IN S.J.RES. 73 WITH SUCH TRANSPARENT "REMEDIAL" LANGUAGE, I BELIEVE THAT THE NEW LANGUAGE MAY INVITE, FAR MORE EXPLICITLY THAN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, THE STATE TO EXERCISE PRECISELY THE

AUTHORITIES THAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED. THE PRINCIPLE SUBSTANTIVE

EFFECT OF THE NEW AMENDMENT IS TO MAKE EXPLICIT IN THE CONSTITUTION STATE AUTHORITY THAT WAS FAR MORE IMPLICIT IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE AMENDMENT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WHILE I RESPECT THE ADMIRABLE EFFORTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE TO FOCUS NATIONAL ATTENTION UPON THE SCHOOL PRAYER ISSUE, AND WHILE I STRONGLY SHARE THEIR CON

CERN THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE MUST BE FORTHCOMING FROM

CONGRESS, I HAVE RELUCTANTLY AND WITH NO ENTHUSIASM COME TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT I CANNOT SUPPORT S.J.RES. 73 IN ITS PRE-

SENT FORM.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, EXECUTIVE SESSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO SCHOOL PRAYER, JULY 14, 1983.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS MORNING'S EXECUTIVE SESSION FOLLOWS SEVEN DAYS OF HEARINGS BY THIS COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO SCHOOL PRAYER. ON JUNE

9, THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION VOTED TO REPORT TWO AMENDMENTS ON THIS HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL MATTER-- S.J.RES. 73, OFFERED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, AND S.J.RES.

A NEW MEASURE

EMERGING FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE OFFERED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. IT IS TO THIS LATTER MEA-
SURE, THE SO-CALLED 'SILENT PRAYER' AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE

TO ADDRESS MY REMARKS.

WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD DO IS TO ALLOW STATES AND LOCALI

TIES TO PERMIT INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP SILENT PRAYER OR MEDITATION

AT THE OUTSET OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL DAY. IN ADDITION, IT WOULD CLARIFY THAT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER TO LOCAL SCHOOL

DISTRICTS ALLOWING VOLUNTARY, EXTRA-CURRICULAR STUDENT ORGANI

ZATIONS OF A RELIGIOUS CHARACTER FROM USING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACI

LITIES ON THE SAME BASIS AS SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS OF A NON

RELIGIOUS CHARACTER.

ACCESS" ISSUE.

THIS RELATES TO THE SO-CALLED "EQUAL

BECAUSE THIS AMENDMENT REPRESENTS AN EFFORT TO ACHIEVE A CONSENSUS APPROACH ON AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND DIVISIVE ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CRITICISM BY A NUMBER OF SINCERE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS ON BOTH ENDS OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM WHO WOULD PREFER DIFFERENT APPROACHES.

I RESPECT

THEIR JUDGEMENTS BUT WOULD, NEVERTHELESS, LIKE TO OFFER SEVE-
RAL BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT THEIR CRITICISMS.

TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS OF A MORE LIBERAL PERSUASION WHO

HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF S.J.RES.

IMPORTANT POINTS.

LET ME EMPHASIZE SEVERAL