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 Brith 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 BE-
LIEVE 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, BECOME 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. I
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.

་ ་

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 CONSTI-
TUTION 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, C.S. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION EXECUTIVE SESSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONST TION 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 MATTERS.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 MEASORE, THE SO-CALLED 'SILENT PRAYER' AMENDMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS MY REMARKS.

WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD DO IS TO ALLOW STATES AND LOCALITIES 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 ORGANIZATIONS OF A RELIGIOUS CHARACTER FROM USING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES 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 SEVERAL BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT THEIR CRITICISMS.

TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS OF A MORE LIBERAL PERSUASION WHO

HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF S.J.PES.

IMPORTANT POINTS.

LET ME EMPHASIZE SEVERAL