Two speakers from the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the bill, asserting that it would threaten activity that is protected by the first amendment. They argued that the bill's language was too broad and that the bill gave broad discretion to the Secretary of State to stifle dissent from the prevailing foreign policy. They argued that a strong possibility would exist that any criminal conviction would be reversed on constitutional grounds. They also pointed out that new terrorist groups would not be designated and thus would not be covered, while old ones could escape coverage by changing their names. The other witness was a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former counterinsurgency advisor to the Secretary of State. He praised the bill's goal while objecting to the bill's scope and language. He criticized the absence of a tight definition of international terrorism or terrorist activity and the unilateral mandate given the Secretary of State to determine which foreign governments, factions, or groups to place on the list of covered organizations. He also commented critically on two draft bills that the State Department has proposed as substitutes for H.R. 5613. Written statements and additional letters, testimony, articles, and texts of H.R. 5613 and the other bills are supplied.