Mr. KASTENMEIER. May I interrupt, to ask you a different question along the same lines?

Mr. GOODELL. If I might only conclude, they have gotten just a small percentage, by writing directly, an all-out campaign to communicate. It is a difficult thing to do even when you are asking nothing of them but to receive money.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I was going to ask you how the President justifies, rather than you personally, the termination of the program, based on just what you have said?

You have given the public and this committee statistics showing that there has been, as a result of your renewed attempt to communicate with potential applicants, a rise in the rate on the graph line, almost straight up. So that during January, February, and March, there were increasing numbers of people who were applying, even right up to the shutoff date of March 31.

That being the case, and with the eloquent suggestion you have just made that there are many who are ignorant of the program even to this day, and have not been reached, how can the President justify terminating the program arbitrarily on March 31 rather than continuing it for an additional period of time? Would not a further extension be consistent with attempting to reach the many thousands who were not reached?

Mr. GOODELL. Well, may I preface my statement to say that my comments are limited to the Clemency Board program? The other two programs, the graph did not go the way it did in the clemency program. In the last months it trailed off, the number of applications, significantly. They can give you the information on that. Ours did go up almost vertically in the last few weeks.

As far as the President's action is concerned, he has extended the program as far as he can, under his sole power and authority. If he extended it just 1 additional month, we would be unable to process the cases with any due process before the Clemency Board by September.

So, any further extension will have to be a joint decision by the Congress and the President. He went as far as he could go on his sole authority.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Only if one were to consider the logistics of processing claims-this has nothing to do with whether or not people on other grounds ought to be reached or not reached?

Mr. GOODELL. That is right. It is an administrative decision. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Well, may I say I am not impressed by that particular response on the part of the President. But nonetheless, I do give him credit for initiating this limited program in the area.

How do you personally react to a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Javits of New York and Senator Nelson of Wisconsin, which at least treats a number of items that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Pattison, mentioned? It is S. 1290. It statutorily recognizes the Presidential Clemency Board. It transfers all responsibility now exercised by the Department of Justice and Defense and the President's amnesty program, to that Board.

It grants temporary immunity to exiles who wish to return to the United States to apply for clemency. And after the determination, the exile is free to leave the country within 30 days if he does not wish to accept the Board's finding.

The exiles not participating in the amnesty program are authorized a 30-day visa to enter the United States each year under this proposal. All records involving the applicants are sealed, and the proposal extends the Board's authority until December 31, 1976.

Is that not a reasonable formulation for an extension of the program designed to reach more people? It does not really go into your guidelines or your rules or regulations, particularly.

Mr. GOODELL. Well, I think I would defer any comment on the authority of Congress to the testimony from the Department of Justice. As far as the specific provisions of that bill is concerned, the administration opposes any alteration of the clemency program beyond what the President has already implemented. So, to the degree that bill would specifically change the standards, or change the provisions of the clemency program, the administration would oppose it.

I have indicated to you earlier, not the administration's view but my personal view, which is a matter of public record, that I favor extension of the program as it now exists. That is a matter that is now under the complete jurisdiction of the Congress.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I want to ask you about other bills such as Senator Hart's National Reconciliation Act of 1973, and other bills by Members of the House. I assume that those are beyond reconciling with your or the administration's views.

But the Nelson-Javits bill, I must say, does seem plausible, in terms of the importance you have placed on reaching additional applicants. The gentleman from California? The gentleman from New York? Any additional questions? The gentleman from Massachusetts?

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goodell, I apologize for being late. The airlines will be seeking clemency or amnesty for their faults. I followed with the keenest interest the administration that you have finished, or terminated. And, as you may understand from letters that I have sent, I have serious questions about it.

But one specific question I would like to ask is this. That in many of the cases that you have administered in the Amnesty Review Board, you have given short 3-month to 6-month alternative service terms. These people have difficulty in obtaining jobs because of their record and because of the shortness of the term.

What is your conclusion? Is that worth while to give alternative service, especially in an era when we have mass unemployment?

Mr. GOODELL. Yes; I think it is reasonable, and I think, in terms of how it will work out, the alternative service for those who are under the Clemency Board's jurisdiction, it is too early for us to tell.

I indicated earlier that I believe only 9 of our individuals have reached the stage of reporting and are now working under alternative service, under the Selective Service, and I believe 19 have actually sent their names-I can tell you in broad terms and leave it to the Selective Service to go into the details--but basically, as I understand it, the individual strives to find his own job.

He is free to find his own job, as long as it qualifies for the first 30 days. Selective Service undertakes to find jobs in the broad areas in which they have some interest. It is a difficult job atmosphere right now. Selective Service is very careful not to put people in jobs that are in the competitive job market. And that makes it even more difficult.

And thus far, I think, they have done a very fine job doing that. But it is under very difficult circumstances.

They can give you greater detail about the nature of the jobs and how it is handled, if somebody cannot get a job for 3 or 4 months, when he only has 3 months' alternative service requirement.

Mr. DRINAN. Going to another question which, pardon me if it has been covered in part-will the administration be opposed to any action by the Congress by which we would seek to give amnesty?

Mr. GOODELL. Would the administration be opposed to any action by the Congress to grant amnesty?

Mr. DRINAN. Yes.

Mr. GOODELL. I believe the answer to that is yes.

Mr. DRINAN. Under all circumstances and on what basis? Mr. GOODELL. I believe, first of all, that the Justice Department will indicate that it is their view that there are constitutional barriers, that this is the authority granted to the President under the Constitution and not to the Congress. That is a matter that I will leave for them to deal with. I think the precedents are somewhat mixed on the subject.

Mr. DRINAN. The Department of Justice is going to rely on a very mixed precedent to say to the Congress that you have no jurisdiction. Conceding that it is mixed, they will say that we are adamant and under no circumstances will they ever allow Congress or the President to sign a bill for amnesty because of mixed precedents. Is that what you are telling us?

Mr. GOODELL. I would not seek to speak for the Department of Justice. Our inquiries to them with reference to this question, you know, and our own preliminary research on the question brings a mixed precedent. The administration, and I think previous administrations, have consistently said they feel that the Congress does not have authority to implement the pardons, the President's pardon authority under the Constitution.

As to other things that Congress can do, as I indicated earlier, the President cannot even carry on this program with a clemency board more than 1 year without congressional authorization and appropriation of the funds to implement the program, iust as Congress could presumably deny the appropriation for the office of the pardon attorney and the Justice Department, which is a way that the President institutes his pardon authority absent a clemency program.

With that exception, I believe it is the administration's position that the Congress has no authority in this area.

Mr. DRINAN. A related question, and pardon me if you have mentioned this before, but 15 Presidents in all of American history have given amnesty in one form or another, usually unconditional, usually general, usually covering all the cases.

Would you predict that President Ford will ever come to the position that he, after this war like all of his predecessors, will give amnesty?

Mr. GOODELL. To answer the question, no, I do not think he will come to that.

Mr. DRINAN. All right, that is the answer. Thank you very much.

Mr. GOODELL. As a matter of record, Mr. Chairman, I would dispute the historical aspect of the preliminary to that question. I believe this is the most generous amnesty program ever implemented by any President, including the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. There is much confusion about what Abraham Lincoln did. Abraham Lincoln gave amnesty to the Confederate soldiers. It was a blanket amnesty. He was mighty tough on the deserters and the draft evaders from the Union armies. And there was no general amnesty given by President Lincoln to those individuals.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I have just one quick question. That is, in the recent Senate hearings you mentioned a plan to have the Defense Department review all clemency discharges.

To your knowledge, have they followed up on that? I think you recommended that they do review clemency discharges.

Mr. GOODELL. I believe you are probably referring to the matter that is still in dispute between the Clemency Board and the Defense Department. We are having discussions about it. There has been some misleading publicity with reference to it. One pamphlet I saw 3 or 4 weeks ago. There was a headline-"Goodell's goodies"-which indicated that I was preparing to try to get the Clemency Board to convince the President to give veterans benefits to all of the people applying before the Clemency Board.

I would say to you that the three veterans, Vietnam veterans, on the Clemency Board has moved in some cases that we urge the President and the Defense Department to upgrade the discharges to, under honorable conditions, to qualify the individuals for veterans benefits.

Those cases were individuals who, in simplest terms, went to Vietnam, volunteered for extra hazardous duty, fought with valor, and cracked up and received bad discharges.

It was the view of General Walt, who was the commanding general of the Marines there, Jim May, who suffered serious disabilities from wounds in Vietnam, and Jim Dougovito, who was an Army captain decorated in Vietnam many times, that these individuals should have veterans benefits. That matter is still at issue.

But I can say to you that the overwhelming number of applicants to the Board do not fall into that category and do not qualify for veterans benefits.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I am glad to give you the opportunity to clarify that for the committee.

Mr. GOODELL. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. On behalf of the committee I would like to thank you for an able presentation before us today, and we appreciate your appearance.

Mr. GOODELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Following Mr. Goodell, the Chair would like to call Mr. Byron V. Pepitone, who is the Director of the Selective Service.

Mr. Pepitone, you are most welcome. We are pleased to have you here.

Your statement, as the Chair has it, is a brief statement and you may proceed from it, sir, however you wish.

TESTIMONY OF BYRON V. PEPITONE, DIRECTOR OF THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE

Mr. PEPITONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am pleased to be here and to speak on our portion of the President's program.

I wish to highlight my statement, if I may.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. In which case your statement in its entirety will be received and without objection made a part of the record. [The prepared statement of Mr. Pepitone follows:]

STATEMENT OF BYRON V. PEPITONE, DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, in response to Chairman Rodino's letter of March 19, 1975, I have come to inform the Committee of the manner in which the Selective Service System is performing the functions which have been delegated to it as an outgrowth of the Proclamation made by President Ford on September 16 which announced a program for the return of Vietnam era draft evaders and military deserters. As you know, the opportunity for individuals to apply for this program terminated on March 31, 1975.

The President's program for the return of Vietnam era draft evaders and deserters involves several agencies of the Federal Government each with different actions to be taken in implementation of the program. The actions themselves differed depending upon the type of person involved evader, deserter, or convicted evader or deserter.

The Department of Defense acted initially with the individuals who were classified as deserters with exception of a few from the Coast Guard which is under the Department of Transportation; the Department of Justice with those who were classified as evaders; and the Clemency Board with those who have been convicted of a draft evasion offense or those who received a punitive or undesirable discharge from the armed forces because of a military absentee offense, or who were serving sentences of confinement for such violations. The Selective Service System, by contrast, and as a result of the provisions of Executive Order 11804, bears a responsibility for action in behalf of individuals within all three groups who were eligible for the program. Although the period to apply has expired the Selective Service System has the continuing responsibility to enroll those individuals who have been processed and to assign them to alternate service.

Executive Order 11804, which is entitled "Delegation of Certain Functions Vested in the President to the Director of Selective Service," is a short one. It reads as follows:

"By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution. and under Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

"Section 1. The Director of Selective Service is designated and empowered, without the approval, ratification or other action of the President, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to establish, implement and administer the program of alternate service authorized in the Proclamation announcing a program for the return of Vietnam era draft evaders and military deserters.

"Section 2. Departments and agencies in the Executive Branch shall, upon the request of the Director of Selective Service, cooperate and assist in the implementation or administration of the Director's duties under this order to the extent permitted by law."

Signed by Gerald R. Ford, The White House, September 16, 1974.

The alternate service referred to in the Executive Order is that decreed by the President in Proclamation 4313 dated September 16, 1974, wherein he pointed out : "... that in furtherance of the national commitments to justice and mercy, these young Americans should have the chance to contribute a share to the rebuilding of peace among ourselves and with all nations.... and that they should be allowed the opportunity to earn return to their country, their communities and their families, upon their agreement to a period of alternative service in the national interest together with an acknowledgment of their allegiance to their country and its Constitution."