And most of all, those who wanted no part of the program felt they took the only possible course to oppose a war which, by now, most Americans agree was an unjust and immoral one. (It is indicative of this feeling that even the Justice Department decided to drop all charges against William Meis, the first draft resister to face prosecution publicly and risk a five-year jail term rather than accept the strings attached to Mr. Ford's "earned re-entry." The U.S. attorney said the government was "not willing to publicly prosecute a case which they might not win.")

There seems no prospect that President Ford will now grant unconditional amnesty to deserters and draft evaders, though we strongly feel he should do so and follow the example in generosity of Presidents Washington, John Adams, Lincoln and Andrew Johnson.

Yet Congress can and should take this action. Bills for unconditional amnesty have been filed in the Senate by Sens. Philip Hart (D-Mich.), Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.) and George McGovern (D-S.D.); another from Rep. Bella Abzug (DN.Y.) is pending in the House. Also pending, as a stopgap, are measures to revive the clemency program.

Not merely for cleaning the slate and binding up the wounds but for reasons of justice and morality and a sounder sleep at night, we urge the Congress strongly to vote for a total amnesty.

RENEW AMNESTY PROGRAM

President Ford's conditional amnesty program for Vietnam deserters and draft evaders, which expired at the end of March, satisfied few fully. Emotions ran strongly either in favor of or against amnesty. Ford's program sought the middle, and that is where the President found himself politically. The White House, after two short extensions, allowed the program to expire.

Having once offered amnesty in the spirit of reconciliation, there really is no good reason why it should be subject to a time limit. Only about 22,500 out of 126,900 eligible for the Ford program took advantage of it. Inducing more to come back to the mainstream of U.S. life ought to be reason enough for renewing the program.

It would seem proper for Congress to take up where the President left off. Thé conditional aspects of the Ford program-compensatory national service-should be left intact. As former Army Secretary Froehlke, a supporter of amnesty, put it recently: "The vast majority of Americans do not and will not support unconditional amnesty."

Congress ought to streamline the Ford program administratively, eliminating the divided jurisdictions between the Justice and Defense Departments and a clemency board, each with its own criteria and regulations. Uniformity is needed. Congress also could offer further inducements to overcome the lingering suspicions that exist among those remaining outside the law. For instance, both Sen. Nelson and Rep. Kastenmeier have proposed that some form of limited immunity be given, allowing deserters and evaders the opportunity to leave the country again if initial clemency negotiations prove unacceptable.

Our primary goal should be to hold open the door to reconciliation while upholding the primary rule of law. The conditional amnesty program should be renewed.

[From the Philadelphia Bulletin, Apr. 2, 1975]

LET'S EXTEND AMNESTY

WASHINGTON.-The time has come for Congress to take further steps to heal the deep wounds inflicted on our nation by the Vietnam war. Specifically, Congress should extend the President's amnesty program-which ended at midnight March 31-for the thousands of young men who evaded the draft or deserted the military during the conflict.

The need for congressional action is clear. Last September, President Ford took the constructive step of establishing a program to provide amnesty for thousands of young men who, for one reason or another, felt the need to refuse the draft or desert the military during the war. In creating that program, the President recognized, as we all should, that the interests of society were served

best when its system of justice reflected a good measure of understanding and mercy.

Already there is enough experience under the President's program to demonstrate that point. One representative case considered by the Clemency Board created by the President, for example, involved an individual who had served valiantly with the Army in Vietnam for almost a year.

He was wounded three times and was awarded three Purple Hearts, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Bronze Star for Valor. After he was reassigned. to the United States, his father went bankrupt because of a drinking problem and his family generally fell upon hard times.

He consequently returned home without Army authorization to earn money to help his parents and seven brothers and sisters. Despite these circumstances, the man was fined, sentenced to six months at hard labor, and given a badconduct discharge by the Army.

The problem here is that under the most recent executive order every eligible draft evader and military deserter had to apply for clemency before April 1. After that, there is no institutionalized opportunity for an eligible individual to seek the clemency he may deserve. This is most unfortunate.

Of the approximately 125,000 men eligible to apply for clemency, fewer than 20,000 took advantage of the opportunity. We do not know all the reasons that may account for the unwillingness or inability of eligible individuals to apply. But we do know that the spirit of reconciliation will be undermined if the opportunity for those individuals to receive mercy is withdrawn forever.

Congress should not expect the President alone to continue to bear the burdens of the amnesty program. Congress, after all, repeatedly voted billions of dollars of public funds for the war. Congress thus assumed some responsibility for the conduct of American policies in Vietnam. Congress should now accept some responsibility for ending the divisiveness that the war created.

A bill has been introduced to continue the amnesty program, with certain modifications, including the following:

The Clemency Board would have jurisdiction over all cases of draft evasion and military desertion during the war. The President's program was operated by four separate departments, with the result that different agencies were applying different criteria to people in similar situations.

Any Vietnam draft evader or military deserter living abroad should be given a 30-day nonimmigrant visa at least once a year to allow for family visits. We should not compound the heartaches of the war by prohibiting a family from seeing a son, especially when his alleged offense may be based on moral principle or some other compelling reason.

All deadlines for application would be eliminated. There is no sense in making this process a continuous race to beat the clock.

There are indeed broad disagreements among people about the merits of the President's amnesty program. At some point Congress is going to have to resolve the question of unconditional amnesty. But in the meantime we should not allow thousands of youg men to become the unintended victims of our disagreements. Time is running out for them.

STATEMENT OF C. A. McKINNEY, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of more than 170,000 members of the NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION of the USA (NCOA), of which nearly 145,000 are active Noncommissioned and Petty Officers of the U.S. Armed Forces, I appreciate the opportunity to submit the following statement relative to pending legislative proposals before the Subcommittee on amnesty and/or clemency for Vietnam-era draft evaders and military deserters.

In March, 1974 the NCO Association's representative appeared before this very same Subcommittee on an identical issue. Our position then remains the same. We continue to oppose the granting of unconditional or general amnesty or clemency to those who shirked their lawful duty during the Vietnam hostilities. Our position has been mandated by the Association's membership assembled in International Convention in 1973, and reiterated by succeeding assemblies in April, 1974 and April, 1975.

First of all, the NCOA believes that Congress has no right under the Constitution to assume the power granted to the Chief Executive of the United

States. Article II, Section 2, clearly defines the right of the President to "grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States."

Congress defines and makes the rules, Congress changes the rules, but, except for impeachment proceedings, Congress we believe does not have the authority to stand in judgment of those who break the rules.

Secondly, the NCOA believes that Congress must support its previous mandates under law. Persons refusing to submit to, or violating those laws must be processed through the judiciary system as defined in Article III of the Constitution.

At this point, it is only fair to state that the Association's membership has very strong feelings concerning the future status of draft evaders and military deserters; however, we recognize the validity of the judicial system as established by the Constitution-and that no man is guilty until that guilt is proven under due process of law. Therefore, we make no overtures as to the alleged offenders' guilt or innocence. This is the exclusive property of our federal courts. Additionally, the NCOA does not intend to even remotely suggest that the offenders must be punished. Here again, this is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Finally, the NCOA cannot sympathize with the violent and bleeding heart attitudes of many Americans who support amnesty or clemency in any degree. The Vietnam conflict, as any war, was a nasty experience. Those who participated died, bled, and suffered as their brothers, fathers, and ancestors before them. And as their brothers, fathers, and ancestors, went to war because their government decreed that they do so. Most of them were not heroic. They were not interested in seeing the horrors of war, or in having to possibly kill their earthly brethren. But they served nevertheless, and those that served did so to keep this Nation free and unencumbered so that their fellow citizens could voice their objections to further wars.

Unfortunately, the objections failed to materialize earlier in World War II and the Korean conflict. It was only after Americans grew tired of a no-win policy in Vietnam, and of having the war and its horrors brought into their homes that they finally protested.

Perhaps Congress is now feeling the twinges of conscience and now wishes to forgive those who did not want to fight in what some call "an unpopular war." But how can Congress forgive those who did participate? Were our GIs guilty and the others innocent? It appears that the pro-amnesty (or pro-clemency) group believes the Vietnam war was so terribly wrong that those who shirked their duty were on the side of right. What a sad commentary for those who believe in their Country and respect its laws-the very same laws defined and enacted by this legislative body.

Can we afford to perpetrate a mockery of Congress, of our laws, of our system of government? Can we in good conscience and belief in democracy cancel the sins of those who literally spat upon this body, our laws, and the system? We say, "No!"

The laws must be enforced. The system of checks and balances written into our Constitution must stand resolute-and it is the duty of every American to insure that our government stands firm in treating all men equal.

The granting of amnesty or clemency, as defined in the legislative proposals before this panel, would be a ridicule of justice for all. We sincerely hope that Congress in its wisdom will not permit such a mockery to persist or exist in "the home of the brave."

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. WAGONSELLER, NATIONAL COMMANDER, THE

AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee: The American Legion upon learning that subcommittee #3 would hold hearings to discuss the results of President Ford's clemency program which expired on March 31, 1975, requested the opportunity to offer testimony in person. Had the hearings been limited to Government witnesses, we would not have requested to appear. However, we feel that the selection of "public witnesses" was not balanced by opposing views such as those represented by our organization. We truly regret that those organizations and individuals who have demanded nothing less than a sweeping program of general amnesty are afforded the opportunity to appear, while organizations who oppose this plan are deferred until "later in the session". The American Legion sincerely hopes that no substantive recommendations on the amnesty or clemency programs are made by the subcommittee until all responsible spokes

men from the private sector have been given the opportunity to personally appear and present their views.

As the largest of all veterans organizations, whose membership numbers more than 2,700,000 honorably discharged men and women, we are deeply concerned with the present and long-range effect of legislation being considered. The more than half-a-million Vietnam veterans who belong to the American Legion have more than a passing interest in the treatment of men who chose to cut and run rather than to obey the existing law of the land enacted by the Congress of the United States.

As the subcommittee is aware, the American Legion consistently opposed general amnesty for draft evaders and deserters, and has recommended that the handling of the cases of deserters and draft evaders should be by existing judicial systems. While we did not agree with the program which President Ford established, the American Legion did not advise young men not to enter the program nor did we place roadblocks in its path. We still believe, however, that the national interest will best be served by an individual review of each case by the existing judicial process.

On September 16, 1974, in his remarks announcing Presidential Proclamation 4313, Mr. Ford said the purpose of the clemency program was "to give those young people a chance to earn their return to the mainstream of American society". We feel the President's program has indeed provided an ample opportunity to those young men desiring to avail themselves of its provisions. We emphatically oppose the liberalization or reopening of the Presidential clemency program which terminated on March 31, 1975, after 197 days of operation.

The American Legion acknowledges the oversight responsibility of this subcommittee on the clemency program, but we question claims that there is a massive public outcry for immediate executive or presidential action on amnesty, Of far greater national concern is the depressing unemployment among the Vietnam-era veterans, and this requires immediate national attention and action. The plight of 537,000 unemployed Vietnam-era veterans is certainly disconcerting. But, the 17.5% unemployment rate among these veterans in the 20-24 age group certainly demands immediate action. This rate of unemployment is 3% higher than the rate for non-veterans. The American Legion is proud that more than 500,000 of its members based their eligibility on service in the Vietnam era. In correspondence and conversations with many of them throughout the country, I can attest that their concern is for the serious problems facing them, and not for the reinstatement of those who chose not to serve.

Our position of individual disposition of each case by existing judicial authority asks that each person be given "his day in court". Many of those who propose unconditional amnesty suggest that those who did not participate in the President's clemency program are now "left out in the cold” and unable to productively reenter American society and without any legal redress. This is patently false, for just the opposite is true. Of the 99,000 young people who did not formally accept or reject the program, and the additional 20,000 possible eligibles identified by the Department of Defense, over 108,000 of this 119,000 (more than 90%) have the right to immediate or eventual appeal (in the cases of the 3,855 deserters still at large) to the existing system of reviews established by 10 USC 1552 and 1553. Moreover, a vastly larger number of veterans of the Vietnam era who received less than honorable discharges have these same rights. The jurisdictions of the Respective Boards Empowers them to correct any errors or remove any injustices in a claimant's military records in the case of the corrections boards, and to change, correct or modify any discharge based upon the facts presented to them in the case of the discharge review boards. Obviously, the draft evaders are afforded their "day in court" upon apprehension or surrender and have the traditional appeal rights afforded by our judicial system. As a matter of information, only 33% of those prosecuted in FY 1974 for selective service violations were convicted, and only 7% of those were sentenced to prison terms. One point should be reemphasized in regard to both the military deserters and draft evaders they broke the law. Irrespective of the loftiness or baseness of their individual motives, each of these young people bears the risk of paying the penalty for the law which he violated.

Since the scope of this subcommittee's review has been expanded to include the legislation pending before it, we wish to comment on H.R. 353, H.R. 1229, H.R. 2230, H.R. 2568 and H.R. 2852. Each of these proposals would establish unconditional amnesty in one form or another and we oppose their enactment. In addition to our very deep ideological opposition to these proposals, we feel

that any amnesty program would seriously impair our future ability to raise and maintain military forces in time of war or serious national emergency. While the all-volunteer force has fulfilled its quotas at the currently low force levels, even its strongest advocates realize that conscription would be necessary to raise and sustain the levels required for wartime. We also oppose S. 1290 which would liberalize and extend the clemency board. Of particular concern is section 8 of S.1290 which would create entitlement to veterans benefits for those who participate in the program. Presidential Proclamation 4313 specifically states that the "clemency discharge shall not bestow entitlement to benefits administered by the Veterans Administration." We, therefore, strongly oppose the possible impact of Section 8 of S.1290 on entitlement to veterans benefits.

In summary, the American Legion believes that the overwhelming majority of young people to whom President Ford offered the chance to earn their way back into American society were aware of the clemency program. Many did not participate because of personal reasons; others, the draft evaders in particular, feel that it is not enough. However, they still have available equitable and individual reviews of their respective situations within the existing judicial systems and before the discharge review boards and the boards for the correction of military records.

We oppose any liberalization and extension of the clemency program in any form, and any legislation or executive action which would establish general or unconditional amnesty.

STATEMENT OF F. P. JONES, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chairman: 1a. On behalf of Mr. John J. Stang, National Commander-inChief of the 1.8 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, whose continuing mandate to oppose "amnesty" is, I would judge, well known to you and to other members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to place the relevant views of the V.F.W. into the record.

b. As to your wide consideration of the notion of "amnesty"-as opposed to "clemency" or "leniency”-the views of the V.F.W. opposing "amnesty" can be summarized as follows:

"Unconditional amnesty" would constitute class action legislation (by a Congress) or a decree (by a President) which would equal mass burial of due process of the law. Judicial findings in light of individual circumstances would never see the light of day. A general "amnesty" would define the word "prejudicial.” "Amnesty" on its merits breaks down badly in terms of (1) equity; (2) precedent, and, (3) faith in the efficacy of our home-grown system of justice and whatever else may or may not be wrong with the United States, American justice(properly prodded by a free press) is doing just fine.

I have had the opportunity to argue against "amnesty" before a variety of audiences, both local and national. During these debates with hard-core pro"amnesty" proponents, my conviction has grown that for many in these groups (ACLU, Clergy and Laity Concerned, Pacem in Terris, Am-Ex, etc.), the name of their game is to force America into an act of collective contribution for our country's manifold "sins." The people concerned-draft dodgers, deserters, "bad" paper discharges, and jailed resisters-are but ideologically convenient and congenial props for pulling off multiple (and media-conscious) happenings designed to challenge and dilute values that most non-vocal citizens hold dear beyond the telling of it.

c. As to "clemency." some have claimed that President Ford's recently ended "clemency" program is faulty in that it has been tested in the marketplace and found wanting. I suggest this is not the point.

If numbers on this issue could be equated to sales goals or recruiting objectives, this view would be unarguably correct. I suggest, rather, that "success.” or lack of it, on the "clemency" (ne "amnesty") issue turns on other criteria: (1) the integrity of our on-going systems of civil and military justice; and, (2) the persistent conviction that no American need expect more, nor settle for less, than his fair day in court.

I have argued the case against "amnesty" widely in this country and in Canada. In so doing, I have never speculated about the motivation of those who dodged or deserted. In my travels and debates, however, one aspect of this issue has