bers of jobs for conscientious objectors. Obviously these jobs exist in communities in each State, and they are known best to State directors and employees of the System in local offices. Perhaps this is what Senate conferees had in mind when they asked that the director continue to rely upon local experience and arrangements. Furthermore, jobs often remain open for a very short time, so that if we wait for cumbersome clearances such as those required if every contention must be settled at national headquarters, then our chances for placement diminish substantially. Recognizing these necessities, I have decided to hold State directors responsible for the placement of men into alternate service positions.

I feel confident that the visitation of my representatives to State headquarters and the reports I receive will make it possible for me to administer the alternate service program more effectively than I could if I were to centralize the administration entirely in Washington. I am certain I will place people more effectively in this way. Also, I have started to develop national programs with church groups and organizations that offer the possibility for placing considerable numbers of conscientious objectors, and these will be administered by my office.

Third, there is criticism that the State director, by waiving the criteria regarding the pay for an alterante service job, really has the power to compel a man to accept a starvation wage. At the outset, let me say that the State director has no authority to order a man to a job in the 60-day period in which he is free to look for himself; those who place themselves need not worry about what kind of job the State director may find for them. Additionally, it is not always possible that the State director will find sufficient numbers of jobs for all conscientious objectors that will provide a standard of living reasonably comparable to what the man would have enjoyed had he joined the Armed Forces, given present levels of pay in the services. Much as we would welcome this, we cannot guarantee it. If we were to make it mandatory that the State director assign men only to jobs with pay comparable to that in the Army, then in many areas the State directors would be inhibited severely from making placements. Accordingly I intend to supervise the work of State directors closely. It is my responsibility to make certain that no manager in this System conducts himself in a cavalier manner.

Now let us discuss briefly the form 150. We have needed a new form since the Welsh decision in June 1970. I delayed writing one, awaiting amendments to the law, but now I must publish something soon. Because the form attracts so much interest on the part of many registrants. I published it in the Federal Register for public comment. I did not do so because I considered it a regulation. I have received 19 letters that now are being evaluated. I can go into details concerning this form if the committee desires.

4. GOVERNMENT APPEAL AGENT

Mr. Chairman, in your letter to me you asked that I discuss with you the abolition of the post of Government appeal agent. We have

had several problems in connection with this position, the most important being the responsibility that the official had both to the local board and to the registrant. Critics of the System have complained about this dual responsibility for many years. Some time. ago the Committee on Ethics of the American Bar Association took the position that they no longer could agree to a lawyer serving both clients. Members of this subcommittee suggested a serious conflict of interest inherent in the post. Under these circumstances, we decided to abolish the position.

Senator KENNEDY. I must say the recommendation of this committee was the establishment of legal counsel.

Mr. TARR. Well, but with responsibility only to the registrant. Senator KENNEDY. Yes. Sorry, but even the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in his explanation of the section indicated that he thought the Government appeal agent had a very important role to play. Now, you not only do not permit legal counsel, but you also have abolished the appeal agent too.

Mr. TARR. But which transferred his responsibility with respect to the registrant to the adviser to the registrant.

Senator KENNEDY. Advisor to the registrant, and does he

Mr. TARR. Well, we now have emphasized that we appoint men and women who can advise registrants of their rights and responsibilities who will have some awareness of our law and our regulations, and we hope to have a training program that will prepare these people for this responsibility. There is no question that they are accountable only to the registrant and what they learn from the registrant they keep in confidence.

Senator KENNEDY. How many advisers to the registrant do you have?

Mr. TARR. Over 7,000.

Senator KENNEDY. And how many boards?

Mr. TARR. 4,100.

Senator KENNEDY. Does every board have an adviser?

Mr. TARR. No; some do not.

Senator KENNEDY. What percent do?

Mr. TARR. I cannot tell you that, Mr. Chairman, but part of our problem here is that we have used the post of adviser to registrants in many States in order to prepare people for service on local boards. It is an excellent training place for people who are breaking into the system, and thus when the new law began to apply at the first of the year, and many of our local board members, about 3,500 of them, were retired from the system, there were in some cases rather wholesale appointments of advisers to registrants to the position of local board membership.

Senator KENNEDY. As I understand, in your publication, in the follow-up in the recommendations to the Selective Service Youth Advisory Committee, you point out here that Government appeal agents, should be responsible only to draftees. And then you talk about, in the spirit of the committee recommendations, the general counsel is working on language of Selective Service regulation to

insure the Government appeal agent is of even greater assistance to the registrant, and at the same time continues to provide procedural advice to the board. And now we find that they have been abolished.

Mr. TARR. Well, we finally decided that our position of dual responsibility would not really work effectively.

Senator KENNEDY. Are these advisers paid, or do they serve voluntary?

Mr. TARR. All voluntary.

Senator KENNEDY. And you cannot tell us what percentage of the registrants do not have any advisers then today, can you?

Mr. TARR. I cannot now.

Senator KENNEDY. Can you tell us when everyone will at least have some?

Mr. TARR. Excuse me?

Senator KENNEDY. Can you tell us when everyone will be covered? Do you have a program with a target goal as to when everyone will be covered?

Mr. TARR. Mr. Chairman, I have not set a target, but I am going to meet with all State directors in the middle of this month, and I am going to emphasize to them the importance of recruiting and training advisers to registrants. There is some more in the statement that reflects on what we hope to do here.

Senator KENNEDY. All right.

Mr. TARR. Many of our Government appeal agents either have become advisers to registrants or members of local boards. We intend to start a training program for advisers to registrants based upon instructional material that now is in preparation. We have worked out an agreement with the young lawyers section of the American Bar Association to recruit their members to become advisers to registrants. Currently over 7.000 persons are serving in this way, and we are continuing recruitment.

Two more criticisms remain. First, why not require that at least one adviser to registrants be appointed to each local board? I cannot place this requirement on myself now without making it impossible for many of our boards to meet the standard. Some advisers to registrants have become local board members following the retirements brought about by amendments recently enacted. We have just completed extensive recruiting to provide members so that our local boards can operate.

Second, why not give the adviser to registrants the authority to order the reopening of a registrant's classification? This was an unusual grant of authority to the Government appeal agent, equal at the local board level to that of the Director and the State director. It could be justified because the Government appeal agent had a dual responsibility both to the registrant and his particular circumstances, and to the board and its previous handling of the registrant. The adviser to registrants does not have the authority to reopen a classification. But he can importune the State director to intervene, and he can do so to the Director as well. Frankly, I

80-620-72-4

that this is a sufficient check against abuse by the local coupled with the system of inspection that I have established.

AMNESTY

Mr. Chairman, you have asked me to address myself to the impact of amnesty on the Selective Service System. The President has given his views on amnesty in a news conference on November 12, 1971, and more extensively in a conversation with Mr. Dan Rather of CBS on January 2, 1972. I do not wish to make further comment on the wisdom of the timing of any such expression of the President's pardoning power or any possible action that might be taken by Congress.

Perhaps I can be of some assistance concerning the administrative implications of a general amnesty.

First, I would like to emphasize that historically there has been administrative relief available for those who have evaded responsibility but later elected to serve. Thus, during the FBI investigation, many registrants submit to induction. Some men do so after indictment, others before the trial begins. No U.S. attorney or Federal judge that I know would refuse in the absence of unusual circumstances a young man the chance to volunteer for induction and thereby avoid prosecution.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that one advisor to these proceedings this morning told be about a case where he may be able to request service in lieu of a jail term. That option exists in our regulations now. So there is leniency in the System, some of which already causes uneasiness among those who report promptly when they are called for induction. Recently we have seen a small increase in the numbers of men who return from hiding or Canada or some other sanctuary to volunteer for induction and avoid the penalty of a felony. Thus considerable relief is provided and has been available for many years.

With respect to a general amnesty, the logical concern would be the ability of Selective Service to function. Several possibilities must be weighed. If the amnesty affected only those 300 or so men presently serving prison sentences, then inductions probably could continue but with some hard feelings among those ordered to report. If on the other hand, the amnesty made it possible for approximately 10,000 men who have been convicted since 1947, and 6,000 registrants who face possible prosecution, to return to the full rights of citizenship without any penalty, then it would be difficult to justify the continuation of inductions. Our youth could not understand such opposing policies. I am certain that it would be nearly impossible to maintain membership on local boards as well.

Finally, there is the alternative whereby amnesty is granted if the man serves the Nation in some way, apart from the armed services. This really would be an acceptance of selective conscientious objection, but it would be offered only to those who had evaded the law. I am not certain that such an arrangement would make impossible a continuation of inductions, but I have grave doubts about the

equity of doing so. Furthermore, the Nation would accept a precedent for permitting the evasion of selective service law that might some day be an unwelcome tradition. This policy also could affect the attitudes and the discipline among young men in the armed services. In short, I believe that any widespread program of amnesty would be incompatible with the continuation of inductions.

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to discuss these or any other matters with you, and I await your questions.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much Mr. Tarr.

Perhaps we can start at the latter part, and try to follow the 10minute rule so that we can get through. I have used most of my time, but I would like to just get into this last point, and then yield to the members of the committee here. I am sure they have some questions for you.

You indicated there the President has given his view on the amnesty, in the news conference of November 12, and also more extensively. Would you care to restate those views for us?

Mr. TARR. Mr. Chairman, would you mind if I read them into the record?

Senator KENNEDY. No, that is fine.

Mr. TARR. If I can just find them. On November 12, 1971, the question at a news conference was asked: "Mr. President, do you foresee granting amnesty to any of the young men who have fled the United States to avoid fighting in a war that they consider to be immoral?" And to this question, the President answered: "No."

Then on January 2d, 1972, Mr. Rather on a televised conference, I said, "Mr. President, recently you were asked a question about amnesty. You were asked if you foresaw any possibility of granting amnesty to those young people who have fled the country to avoid the I draft, and you had a one-word answer, which was 'No.' Since then some Congressmen, among others, have proposed allowing these young men who want to come back, and are willing to do it, to come back without punishment if they will take alternate service of 2 years or 4 years. Is there no amount of alternate service under which you could foresee granting amnesty?"

The President replied: "No. The question that I was answering in that conference that you referred to, as you will recall, followed one where I had talked about the withdrawal of our forces, and the question was prefaced with that, as I recall."

Mr. Rather responded: "It was."

And then the President said: "In view of the withdrawal, how about amnesty? And I said 'No.' The answer is at this time 'No.' As long as there are Americans who would choose to serve their country rather than desert their country, and it is a hard choice, and they are there in Vietnam there will be no amnesty for those who deserted their country. And as long as there are any POW's held by the North Vietnamese, there will be no amnesty for those who deserted their country.

"Just let me say, Mr. Rather, on that score, I don't say this because I am hardhearted. I say it because it is the only right thing to do. Two and a half million young Americans had to make the choice