do what is right by their own conscience. This is what he was taught in his home, in his school, in his church.

A previous speaker today said we must obey the law. There is only one law we must obey: the law of God or the law of conscience written in our own hearts.

Why should we have amnesty for war resisters, draft evaders, and deserters? For the men in Canada, not because they are asking for it, for they are not. Not because they want to come home, for most of them went well aware of the consequences and expecting to stay and make their homes in Canada.

There are better reasons for amnesty, reasons which are in our national interest:

1. Because we need all the good men we can get, and these are good men. Not many are cowards. Anyone who knew the courage it takes to leave family and friends, and security, and begin a new life in a new country knows these men are not cowards. They are extremely conscientious. They are sensitive to human need. They are highly idealistic. They have keen minds, good education, useful skills. A Canadian pastor said to me, "This is the finest wave of immigration Canada has ever received." If that is true, they are a correspondingly great loss to us, a loss that is not in our national interest.

2. Because they have influenced the thinking of our Nation. Today, virtually all of us see the war as a tragic mistake. But we did not always see it that way. These men were objecting, and paying the price of objecting, when I-and many of us-still felt the war was right and proper. At great cost to themselves, they have been a major factor in changing the thinking of our Nation on this war. 3. Because they were right on the issue. Sixty thousand young men who were able to see clearly on a crucial issue, and acted on their convictions, when most of the Nation did not see so clearly, or was unwilling to act, may give us insights in the future which will keep us out of another tragedy. They were right on this war. They may help us avoid another.

4. There is a humanitarian reason. A few, a small percentage, are not going to make it to Canada. They do not have the skills or education to become landed immigrants. They cannot work in Canada; they have no future there. There are a few others without strong enough personalities to survive so far from home and family. And there are some who have had situations develop in their families for which they are needed at home. This small number needs to return home. If we can release Jimmy Hoffa on the grounds of human compassion, can we not let these young men return, whose offenses are in no way comparable to Hoffa's?

5. There is a reason based on fairness. We have treated people differently as our national attitude on the war have changed. My own son always refused to apply for Conscientious Objector status because, as he understood it and as the draft boards applied the rules at that time, he was not one. His objection was to this particular war, or so he thought. His reasons the reasons he gave for not seeking conscientious objector status were: he would have fought in World War II; he would be willing to use violent means to protect

his family against violence; he personally had a quick temper. Today, Selective Service has advised the draft boards that none of these are reasons to deny a man the legal status of a conscientious objector. But a few years ago, at the time my son was drafted, that was not so. He was forced, by the practices in effect at the time, to either leave the country or go to prison if he would not participate in the killing. Today, the same boy, with the same reasons, would be given conscientious objector status.

We have lost to Canada about as many men as we have lost, killed in Vietnam. If we let that loss to Canada become permanent, we would actually double the number of men our Nation and its families will have lost in this war. Such a doubling of losses cannot be in our national interest.

I would just like to add that Mr. Kerns referred to the low morale of our Army and blamed this in part on the hearings on amnesty. Amnesty did not destroy the morale of our Army; the war in Vietnam destroyed it. I should personally be delighted to allow Vietnam veterans to decide about amnesty. They are more in favor of it than the American public is.

I would be quite willing to trust the decision about the men in Canada to the prisoners of war. I just wish we could put the decision about the prisoners of war in the hands of the men in Canada, for then they would be home by now.

Thank you.

Senator KENNEDY. Reverend, I have some questions-that is a bell for a vote. We shall recess for 6 or 7 minutes. Then we have some questions for you, and then we will have a panel and adjourn. (Short recess.)

Senator KENNEDY. The subcommittee will come to order.

Again I apologize for interrupting you. I know it is difficult to maintain continuity of thought when we get interruptions like that.

I would be interested, Reverend, in the reaction of your community. You are a minister of the Presbyterian faith, as I understand it. I would be interested in the reaction of your community to you and your family situation, how you have been able to cope with it, what the impact has been on your other children.

Reverend WILSON. It was an interesting reaction. We were aware that it might be quite adverse. We were aware that it might mean that we would leave our church and move to another.

Much to our surprise, I do not believe I have heard in our town a word of criticism yet. I am sure there is something said; I am not deceiving myself on that. But none of it comes to my ears at all. As far as I know, no one stopped coming to church, no one has said an unkind word.

I was simply amazed at the breadth and the depth of the understanding that existed, and I am from a small Western Pennsylvania coal-mining town. Men whom I had put down as military types, who are members of the American Legion and the VFW, came to me and said, if I had to do it, I would do what your son did.

Senator KENNEDY. How have your children reacted, your other children, to this?

Reverend WILSON. It has not affected them very much. They were both away in college at the time. It appears that neither one of them has to face the draft; they have high enough lottery numbers. I think that they might do the same thing if they did. They simply have not had to face a decision about it yet.

Senator KENNEDY. What is generally your attitude on this question of amnesty? I know you have given a great deal of thought to the particular problem that your son is facing. What do you think the Government ought to be doing about it?

Reverend WILSON. Well, I am definitely in favor of an unconditional amnesty. I think amnesty, with conditions would be utterly meaningless. It is practically a joke to the men in Canada. They do not even want to talk about that.

I have read a statement that is to be presented here by a group from Canada, and it represents my son's thinking very well.

Senator KENNEDY. Very good. Thank you very much, Reverend. I appreciate very much your appearance here.

Our final witnesses today are two men who have been exiled in Canada: one, Mike Hendricks; the other Tim Maloney. They are working in centers in Canada where they work with other young men in similar circumstances. Both also can be here legally today because their position as to draft vulnerability has been changed.

Tim Maloney was reclassified, apparently punitively, and ordered to take a preinduction physical exam. He refused to report, and an indictment was returned. Mr. Maloney went to Canada in September

1968.

In October 1969, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the Gutknecht case, holding punitive reclassifications illegal. Some 6 months later, the indictment against Mr. Maloney was dropped. He was reclassified 1-A, and his name was placed in the first lottery. He turned up No. 361.

Mike Hendricks made a decision to leave while classified 1-A in 1968. He subsequently also received a high number and currently resides in Montreal.

You are welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Hendricks, would you like to go first?

STATEMENTS OF TIMOTHY J. MALONEY, WINNIPEG,

AND MIKE HENDRICKS, MONTREAL

Mr. HENDRICKS. I am going to yield to Mr. Maloney.

Mr. MALONEY. I am very glad to be here. Senator. I regret, though, that people like Mr. Kendall's son, who is in prison and Reverend Wilson's son, who is in exile, cannot also be here to testify, because their testimony would be very worth while.

I also regret that some of my friends in the exile community in Canada cannot be here today.

The last time I arrived in Washington, D.C., I was proud to be a U.S. citizen and anxious to serve my country. It was 1964 and I was accepting an appointment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a file clerk in the Justice Building. Five years later, in February of 1969, I discarded a Presidential order that instructed me to re

port for induction into the U.S. Army. At that time my wife and I were living in Canada where I was assisting war objectors as a social worker and attending graduate school.

Today I am again in Washington, D.C., not proud this time of being a U.S. citizen but willing to give you my views on the amnesty issue that has been raised by you and your colleagues. In doing so, I pray that you, who are leaders in this country, may see a way of reconciling the tragic wrongs that have alienated thousands of people like myself and have created grievous differences within the country that have torn asunder the American dream.

While many tragic wrongs have been committed and are being perpetuated, they all have one common denominator-the Indochinese war. Before any substantive reconciliation of the many wrongs can occur, there has to be a genuine U.S. commitment to ending the war. Yet, the issue of granting an amnesty to some of the victims of the war has been raised and it would be ludicrous not to discuss it at this time. If discussion does no more than kill the inept bills of Senator Taft and Representative Koch, it will have been worth while. Though, to stop there without constructively dealing with the issue only fosters more frustration that has been so characteristic of the entire Vietnam-Indochinese experience.

Newsweek's recent Gallup Poll disclosed that 71 percent of the people interviewed favored some form of amnesty. To ignore that, to be unresponsive to the will of the people, or to consider solutions such as Representative Hébert's "I would send them out on a ship like a man without a country" is characteristic of much Government policy and attitude, but hopefully a change is in sight for the seven

ties.

If there is a sincere commitment on the part of Government to deal realistically with developing an amnesty proposal that will be beneficial for the Nation and the victims; that is, some of the 354,000 soldiers classified as deserters since 1967 and the thousands of draft evaders, the Government will have to have a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. To date, most elected representatives have illustrated through their statements and bills that they have an appalling ignorance of the phenomenon and the possible encompassing, constructive solutions.

In Canada, the exile community has viewed the development and discussion of the amnesty issue in the United States with deep concern. There is a wide consensus, as was illustrated at a national press conference in Toronto on January 17, 1972, that the word "amnesty" itself is inherently problematic. It implies forgiveness, and the exile community wonders what they are to be forgiven for-they did not commit the crime. They refused to.

There is also concern that the present intensity of discussion over amnesty in the United States will end after the Presidential election. The exiles see themselves being used as pawns in a political game. They see the issue being used by some politicians in an attempt to relieve American war guilt, to buy the votes of the newly enfranchised youth, to give the false impression that the war is winding down, et cetera.

They see the American news media portraying the exile community as being composed of sad, lonely, ill-begotten, misguided youth who made a mistake and are crying at the border to return; and that, the United States, being all-powerful and forgiving, is now in a position to show its paternal concern for its erring sons. They resent the fact that some people may be using them for personal gain and that others are definitely presenting an erroneous protrayal of them.

Senator KENNEDY. Let me interrupt and perhaps clear up one impression. That is the political capital that can be made on this. If you have the time and you want to come over and look at my mail count anytime, you are more than welcome to do it. But I think just in terms of the issue itself, as you can well understand, I am sure, it is an enormous emotional kind of question. I am not familiar with your Gallup Poll about 71 percent of the people interviewed favoring some form of amnesty. Perhaps you have it there; I shall get a look at it.

I do not know how Senator Taft's mail is running, but I would say mine is running about 20 to 1 against granting it at this time. So, just to put to rest any kind of potential gain that can arise from it at this time, I make this point.

Mr. MALONEY. That might be true. I am reflecting some of the concerns of the exile community. They see this happening.

Senator KENNEDY. That is fair enough. Good.

Mr. MALONEY. And they fear that in the process of being used they may be hurt, that is, that one of the current amnesty proposals might be passed. Both Senator Taft's and Representative Koch's proposals attach a punitive string called "alternative service" as you well know. Plus, both proposals exclude deserters, who comprise the majority of the exile community in Canada. I have not yet met a war objector in Canada who accepts either of the proposals, nor do I or anyone else I have spoken with see justice in them.

What the exile community would like is a totally complete nonpunitive restoration of their civil liberties. This sort of concept would turn the amnesty issue right-side-up by removing the indignity of having to accept forgiveness and punitive service. Also, it would apply to everyone and allow each individual maximum freedom in deciding upon whether to stay in Canada or return to the country which had no room for him.

Since the majority of men in exile and prison are deserters, any substantive "amnesty proposal" must incorporate provisions that will enable them to easily regain their civil liberties. None of the current proposals or suggested proposals to date allow for this. Suggesting that each deserter be judged individually is ludicrous, if not mechanically impractical, due to the sheer numbers involved. Surely the 1947 Truman amnesty illustrates the injustices of establishing criteria and attempting to judge thousands of men individually. Yet, there appears to be a gross misconception that operates on the premise that deserters have less morality and that their motives are less genuine and thus more suspect than the motives of their civilian peers.