Mr. FROHLKE. I would have two comments. First of all, they are directly involved and from their perspective they perhaps look at it as punishment. My first point would be I don't feel that way and I hope that they would not.

Mr. DRINAN. But suppose they do?

Mr. FROEHLKE. My second point, if they do look upon it as punishment, I don't think 2 years in the Peace Corps or 2 years working for a church or working for a hospital, if it is punishment, is a very great punishment. And I guess I would very pragmatically say if a young man is not willing to then subject himself to that 2-year service, he doesn't want very badly to come home to his family and to his country. Mr. DRINAN. But thousands of them are already at home under indictment or underground, what about them? Suppose they say "Listen, I don't want to do service. I will just get into some make-shift job and that is what it will be" because Senator Taft's bill say they can't take a real job; they can't exclude a Vietnam veteran or a veteran from being employed. So it is a make-shift job. And suppose they say "This is a pretense of those people who still think that this war was a good war"? I assure you that the overwhelming number of people who are asking for amnesty feel that way.

Are you possibly proposing a law that is not going to resolve the problem at all?

Mr. FROEHLKE. I would think obviously that it is useless to propose a law that would not accomplish anything.

Mr. DRINAN. Right.

And what makes you think you are proposing a law or Senator Taft is proposing a law that will serve anything?

Mr. FROEHLKE. Because from my perspective we are not punishing. From my perspective we are being reasonable in saying serve your country in some worthwhile capacity. And I think, although I have no way of proving it, that most reasonable in saying serve your country in some worthwhile capacity. And I think, although I have no way of proving it, that most reasonable youngsters who left will under those circumstances return and perform useful service to their fellow man. Mr. DRINAN. Do you have any indication of that?

Mr. FROEHLKE. No.

Mr. DRINAN. No?

Mr. FROEHLKE. No.

Mr. DRINAN. Do you think that Senator Taft might have any indication that even 5 or 10 percent of those who are in this category would in fact take advantage of his bill?

Mr. FROEHLKE. I do not know.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Froehlke, for coming here and giving us the advantage of your thoughts and feelings in regards to this matter and I think, as a former Secretary of the Army, your observations are perhaps in a little different category than most of us.

I think Father Drinan covered most of the things I wanted to ask you about, but I was particularly interested in your feelings that the American people would not now accept an unconditional amnesty, that is, general amnesty without any conditions attached to it.

Is that correct?

Mr. FROEHLKE. And it is my own political gage, and that is very subjective and perhaps very prejudiced, but as I read it, it comes through loudly and clearly to me that if we are going to have a form of amnesty in the months ahead, it must be of a conditional variety. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Froehlke, thank you for your help in the dialog, which has been started here in this committee. Thank you very much. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I would like to say in conclusion that I appreciate most deeply your testimony and I would say notwithstanding the fact that your position may not be approved by all applicants of amnesty, that if indeed the Congress

Mr. FROEHLKE. May I interrupt there?

My position-and this is the problem with the man in the middle-it really is not agreed to by anybody on the right or on the left.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I appreciate that. And I believe that if the Congress or the Federal Government does in the future move forward in this area. I think it will be due to your position and others like you. I want to thank you very much personally for the courage you had to come out and take the position you have. I compliment you for it. Mr. FROEHLKE. Thank you very much.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. I appreciate your appearance and the position you have taken.

Mr. FROEHLKE. Thank you.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I would next like to call Dr. W. Sterling Cary, president of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

Dr. Cary.

TESTIMONY OF DR. W. STERLING CARY, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY REV. RICHARD KILLMER, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL MINISTRY, VIETNAM GENERATION, AND MEMBER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES STAFF; AND E. WILLIAM D. GALVIN, JR., EMERGENCY MINISTRY ON CONSCIENCE AND WAR, UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Dr. CARY. Mr. Chairman, I have the Reverend Richard Killmer, Director of our Special Ministry, Vietnam Generation, and a member of the National Council of Churches staff, with me to answer technical questions.

Mr. KASTEN MEIER. We are pleased to greet him as well, Dr. Cary. Dr. CARY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am W. Sterling Cary, president of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

The National Council of Churches is a federation of 31 Protestant and Orthodox Christian communions in the United States whose aggregate membership totals approximately 42 million persons.

I do not purport to speak for all members of the communions constituent to the council. I am speaking for the governing board of the National Council of Churches, its highest legislative body, which is composed of 340 members selected by member churches in proportion to their size. It is this body which determines the policy positions on

the basis of which the council seeks to fulfill its mandate "to study and to speak and to act on conditions and issues in the Nation and the world which involve moral, ethical, and spiritual principles inherent in the Christian gospel."

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to express our gratitude to you and the other members of this subcommittee for conducting these hearings at this time. During earlier periods of the history of our country, it was the executive who took the initiative in granting amnesty. However, that initiative has not been forthcoming in recent times. There was only a very limited amnesty after World War II, none after the Korean war, and none so far for the Indochina war.

In fact, a distinguished group of religious leaders have found it. impossible even to obtain the opportunity to discuss the subject with the present Executive. For nearly 3 months they have sought a meeting with the President. The White House response to me was "His schedule is such that a time is not foreseen when he can meet with them." Therefore, it is reassuring to us to see the Congress take the initiative on a matter which we feel is of crucial importance to society. The solemn fact we must face today is that we are not "one Nation indivisible.” Division and separation exist across American society, much of it is born of the war in Indochina, the longest war in the history of the United States. The war has divided families and friends. It has contributed to polarization between races, classes, age groups, and those with varying lifestyles.

While the whole Nation has been affected by dissension over the war, two groups have suffered especially-those who served and those who resisted participation. I appear before you today to support amnesty for those who have resisted the war. However, I am constrained to express, if but briefly in this particular forum, our abiding concern for others in our society who suffered because of the war.

These victims of the war include the families of men who died in Indochina, those who returned wounded and disabled and their families, those who were taken prisoner and those still missing, and their families. Then there are the more than 7 million other veterans of the Vietnam era. They do not represent a cross section of U.S. society because military manpower procurement during the Vietnam era was selective by race and class.

Many white, middle class, and educated men were exempted or deferred, and as a consequence, those of nonwhite and poorer economic backgrounds filled a disproportionate share of the ranks of the Armed Forces. Thus, many of the problems being experienced by Vietnam era veterans are further complicated by their backgrounds-approximately 20 percent of them return without a high school education, and too many have little to offer the job market.

The Nation is not using its resources to meet the needs of veterans as substantially as it did after World War II. Because of the controversial nature of the war, veterans and their special needs become an unwelcome reminder to a nation seeking to forget Vietnam.

The dynamics which flow from such a tentative relationship apparently contribute to such problems as underusage of the GI bill, unemployment, drug usage, and emotional difficulties. If we are to accomplish true reconciliation in our country, Government and the

institutions of society must provide an adequate response to the Vietnam veteran and his needs.

The National Council of Churches has sought to serve and minister to those affected by the war, through a program called Special Ministries/Vietnam Generation. The first thrust of the program in 1970 ministries to resisters, exiles, and their families, not only in this country, but in Canada and Sweden as well.

We have no desire to engage in a "numbers game" with those who seek to minimize the size of the problem and reduce human tragedy to figures on a page. However, based on 4 years of work in Canada, we can assure this subcommittee that there are around 35,000 U.S. exiles in that country alone.

Since mid-1971, our Special Ministries/Vietnam Generation program has also worked with local and regional church bodies in this country to help them assist Vietnam veteran projects responding to the needs of those returning from Indochina. In addition to working on educational, employment, and health needs, some of these projects have been focused on the special traumas of those veterans who are in prison or carry the added handicap of an other-than-honorable discharge. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we do not solicit the concern of the Congress for these men from a position of splendid isolation but out of first-hand acquaintance with the range of problems they and their families face each and every day.

In a policy statement entitled "Healing the Divisions of the Nation" adopted in December 1972, the National Council of Churches governing board expressed its concern for all those adversely affected by the war. On the subject of amnesty, it said, "We view amnesty not as a matter of forgiveness, pardon, or clemency, but as a 'blessed act of oblivion,' the law's own way of undoing what the law itself has done." To whom besides a long-suffering, divided Nation, should amnesty be granted? In its statement, the governing board suggests:

Genuine reconciliation demands that amnesty be granted to all who are in legal jeopardy because of the war in Indochina. The only exception would be for those who have committed acts of violence against persons, and even these cases should be reviewed individually to determine if amnesty is appropriate.

Such amnesty would include:

(a) Draft resisters and deserters who have exiled themselves to other countries:

(b) Those currently in prison or military stockade, those on probation, those who have served their sentences, and those who are subject to prosecution for violations of the draft or military law;

(c) Draft resisters and deserters who have gone underground to avoid prosecution;

(d) Vietnam-era veterans with less-than-honorable discharges; and (e) Those who have committed civilian acts of resistance to the war, or are being prosecuted upon allegations of the same.

The traditional way to deal with those in legal jeopardy to whom a nation would extend compassion is an amnesty-the nonprosecution of the law for certain violations by a class of persons and the expunging of the effects of the law for those charged with certain crimes. It is granted not because the Government agrees with the political and moral positions of those affected, but because it is in the national interest. It is forgetting, not forgiving.

The National Council of Churches supports amnesty because:

1. It is a necessary first step toward healing and reconciliations. Abraham Lincoln granted amnesty, even though the idea was unpopular with many, because it was necessary to bring the country together. He knew it would bring reconciliation in the long run and was required if the North and South were ever to be reunited.

2. The imprisonment of persons in legal jeopardy for following conscience rather than law does not serve the Nation in any productive way. It is not rehabilitative-persons are not going to have their consciences changed through incarceration. It is not a deterrent. If there were a truly defensive war or if another nation were truly in need of our support, many of those who would currently be affected by an amnesty would participate. Imprisonment is simply punishment-a further visitation of the trauma caused by the war upon those who did not make the decisions about our involvement in that conflict but must carry the burden of those decisions.

3. We need to have those who would be affected by amnesty play an active role in our society. We need their skills and insights. We need their expression of conscience, their commitment to the universality and interdependence of persons.

4. As Christians we are called to be reconcilers, to be open to God's new and continuing creation, to have and teach compassion, and seek an end to vindictiveness.

The National Council of Churches supports a universal amnesty because:

1. The basic difference between deserters and draft resisters is only a matter of timing.

2. Those with other-than-honorable discharges are barred from many jobs and many cannot receive assistance from the Veterans' Administration. No worthy national purpose is served by demanding continuation of this stigma.

3. The healing, unifying purpose of amnesty can be realized only by extending it to all those in legal jeopardy because of the war. Barring one group or another from an amnesty would only dramatize the division which the war has created in our society.

The National Council of Churches supports an unconditional amnesty because:

1. Case-by-case review is impractical if not impossible. Who among us is qualified to probe the conscience of another, to judge motivations when society asks its young men to forget they have been taught "Thou shalt not kill." As the National Council of Churches governing board said in its statement:

God alone knows what actually motivates the actions of persons, and few act for one reason alone. Therefore, we feel it unwise to attempt to judge the motives of those to be given amnesty, just as we do not presume to judge the motives of those who were in the Armed Forces. 2. Conditional amnesty is still punishment-punishment which serves no useful purpose. Since it seeks to conform the dictates of conscience, it would be neither rehabilitative, nor a deterrent.

3. A conditional amnesty would postpone, perhaps destroy, the healing and unifying value of amnesty.

Mr. Chairman, the bitterness of the war years lingers on; yet, we detect a hunger for healing in this country. Some say that all those