AMNESTY MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert M. Kastenmeier (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Kastenmeier, Drinan, Mezvinsky, Railsback, Smith, and Sandman. Also present: William P. Dixon, counsel; and Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel. PROCEEDINGS Mr. KASTENMEIER. The committee will come to order. Today, the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice, begins its second day of hearings on legislation relating to the subject of amnesty. Like our first day of hearings, this past Friday, we again have a larger than usual list of witnesses to hear. For that reason we would respectfully request witnesses to keep their testimony to a maximum of 15 minutes to permit time for questions from committee members. Our first witness this morning is a former colleague of ours from the House. He is the Honorable Senator from Ohio, Senator Robert Taft, Jr. We are very pleased to greet you, Senator, and have you return to the House of Representatives and come before this committee this morning. Please proceed. TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT TAFT, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Senator TAFT. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend the subcommittee for holding these hearings and thank you for permitting me to appear this morning. The application of our Nation's Selective Service laws during the Vietnam war confirmed a great number of the apprehensions I had regarding the desirability of the continuation of compulsory military service. As members of this subcommittee are no doubt aware, a great number of inequities developed regarding the application of these laws over the last 10 years, particularly with regard to conscientious objection. Not only were legal standards changed in this area, but additionally there were significant variances in the way the military Se lective Service System was implemented throughout the country. Unfortunately, even with negotiation of the Paris Peace Agreement on January 27, 1973, and the successful transition to the concept of an All-Volunteer Army, many inequities and problems remain with regard to individuals who refused induction into the Armed Forces, or decided to unilaterally withdraw from service after induction. To date, however, almost with unanimity, any discussion directed toward consideration of the plight of such individuals becomes entangled in emotional debate as to the propriety of U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia. I submit to this subcommittee that the issue to be considered is not whether the draft resisters were right or wrong, nor whether the United States should have become involved in the Vietnam conflict. Enough bitterness has already been generated in the discussions of these issues. Rather, consideration should be given to the issue of establishment of a practical method whereby an estimated 30,000 individuals could return to this country or cease to be fugitives without creating further divisions among Americans. Understandably, there will be controversy generated by groups with inflexible positions on this issue, no matter what policy is pursued, but I am of the opinion that a sizable majority of citizens of this country will support constructive action by the Congress and/or the President on this subject. Particularly, those of us who are elected officials, I believe, must be responsive to problems that have been created in this area-these problems simply will not disappear, no matter how much or how many of our colleagues in the Congress or officials in the executive branch may wish that they would. In this regard, I would like to quote from a letter that former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird sent to Cmdr. Ray R. Soden, Veteran of Foreign Wars of the United States, regarding the question of amnesty: Throughout my career of public service, I have learned to avoid absolute, dogmatic position. Neither the political system nor the judicial system of the United States works on "blanket" and arbitrary approaches. Both recognize the vital roles of (1) circumstances and (2) motivation in determining political or judicial solutions to our problems. As I have stated, we pride ourselves on administering justice with mercy and understanding. Mr. Laird goes on to state, and I again quote: With respect to the question of a "blanket" or "general" amnesty, let me emphasize that I am now and always have been opposed to a sweeping general grant of amnesty. However, there are individual cases where the circumstances require that justice provide for what some have termed "conditional amnesty" And what I have referred to in my bill as "earned immunity." I do not like this term and only use it for lack of a better description of an equitable approach to this difficult problem. It is my view that circumstance and motivation on a case-by-case basis, under our concept of justice, must be taken into account today when dealing with violators of our Selective Service laws. It is noteworthy that only a small percentage of these men have thus far been prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and in these cases widely differing penalties have been assigned to individuals varying by jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to have this correspondence that Mr. Laird has shared with me printed in its entirety in the hearing record as an appendix to my statement. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Inasmuch as the letter you refer to was sent to me by Mr. Laird, it will be inserted in the record at this point, together with my letter inviting him to testify. To avoid duplication, the letter appended to your statement will be kept in the files of the subcommittee. [The letters referred to follow:] Hon. MELVIN R. LAIRD, Reader's Digest Association, Washington, D.C. FEBRUARY 20, 1974. DEAR MEL: My Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice has scheduled hearings on March 7 and March 8, 1974, on pending legislation relating to the subject of amnesty. The measures involved are H.R. 236, H.R. 674, H.R. 2167, H.R. 3100, H.R. 5195, H.R. 10979, H.R. 10980, H. Con. Res. 144, and H. Con. Res. 385. I have read with interest your recent statements on amnesty and it would be of great value to the Subcommittee if they could have the benefit of your views on this subject. Hearings are scheduled for the morning of March 7 and the entire day of March 8. Although I would prefer to receive your testimony at 10:00 a.m. on March 8, I would be pleased to hear from you at your convenience on either of these days. I would greatly appreciate it if you could give me a call if you are able to testify before us. Sincerely yours, ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, Administration of Justice. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 22, 1974. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR BOB: Many thanks for your letter of February 20th and for your kind invitation to me to present testimony on the subject of amnesty before your Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice. I am very sorry that my schedule is already full on March 7th and 8th and I will not be able to testify. I am, however, enclosing a copy of my letter to Commander Ray R. Soden, Veterans of Foreign Wars. This letter accurately portrays my position on the subject of amnesty and you are welcome to use it. With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely, MELVIN R. LAIRD. Comdr. RAY R. SODEN, THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, January 28, 1974. Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Washington Memorial Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR COMMANDER: I received a copy of your letter to the President on amnesty and would like to comment. As a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I share with you, Commander, a great pride in our nation's strength and freedom. As part of our heritage of freedom, we have always cherished the redemptive quality of our system of justice. As you know, during my tenure as Secretary of Defense, I felt strongly that it was completely inappropriate, unwise and unjust to consider granting any form of amnesty. I felt that while brave Americans were fighting and dying in battle any consideration of granting amnesty was unwarranted and would have had an adverse effect on the morale of our Armed Forces. My feelings at that time were identical whether the amnesty being discussed by some was "conditional" or "general." I did make known, however, that looking beyond Vietnam we were studying various reports and studies on the complex question of amnesty. On my departure from the Department of Defense, circumstances had changed markedly. No longer were American troops fighting and dying in combat anywhere in the world. As a result of changed conditions, my views with respect to considering the question of amnesty have also changed. Throughout my career of public service, I have learned to avoid absolute, dogmatic positions. Neither the political system nor the judicial system of the United States works on "blanket" and arbitrary approaches. Both recognize the vital roles of (1) circumstances and (2) motivation in determining political or judicial solutions to our problems. As I have said, we pride ourselves on administering justice with mercy and understanding. With respect to the question of a "blanket" or "general" amnesty, let me emphasize that I am now and always have been opposed to a sweeping general grant of amnesty. However, there are individual cases where the circumstances require that justice provide for what some have termed "conditional amnesty." I do not like this term and only use it for lack of a better description of an equitable approach to this difficult problem. It is my view that circumstance and motivation on a case-by-case basis, under our concept of justice, must be taken into account today when dealing with violators of our selective service laws. It is noteworthy that only a small percentage of these men have thus far been prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and in these cases widely differing penalties have been assigned to individuals varying by jurisdiction. I hope these comments will allay some of your understandable concerns. As you know, I have nothing but a profound sense of respect and gratitude to the men and women who served in Vietnam, 56,244 of whom gave their lives in the service of our country. It is a lasting source of pride to me that I had the opportunity and privilege to associate with such fine Americans and their families. I have never committed any act, nor would I, which would be a "breach of faith" with these men and women. Finally, I am grateful to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and to the Ladies Auxiliary for their steadfast support of our defense effort, and especially for your steadfast support during my service as Secretary of Defense. I trust, and am sure, that you will continue to extend that support to the President and to his defense policy in the cause of strength and peace. Sincerely, MELVIN R. LAIRD, Counsellor to the President for Domestic Affairs. Mr. KASTENMEIER. You may proceed. Senator TAFT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, not only do I commend Mr. Laird's approach to this problem, but I also endorse the concept of alternative service that is suggested in his correspondence. I have thought the concept of alternative service to be the most equitable solution to this issue for some time, and on December 14, 1971, I introduced legislation in the Senate that would have established such an approach. While no legislative action was taken on my proposal during the 92d Congress, my principal objective was achieved as considerable national discussion was generated on this issue. I believe such a discussion was helpful for the country as it focused the attention of many Americans on the practical questions that are involved when a nation makes a decision to require its young men to serve in a war. I have again, in this Congress, introduced legislation that would have established the concept of alternative service for individuals who refused induction in the armed services. Joining me in the introduction of this legislation, the Earned Immunity Act of 1974. S. 2832, was Senator Pell of Rhode Island, with cosponsorship to date of Senators Packwood, Biden, Haskell, and Metcalf. I note that elements of this proposal and the one I submitted in the 92d Congress are contained in legislation pending before this subcommittee, including an almost identical approach in H.R. 13001, introduced by Congressman Robison of New York. I also note that the alternative service concept is incorporated in proposals of Congressman Koch, H.R. 674; and Congressman McCloskey, H.R. 10979 and H.R. 10980. S. 2832, similar to proposals before this committee, would authorize individuals who violated the selective service laws between August 4, 1964, the date of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and January 27, 1973, the date of the Paris Peace Agreement, to apply for immunity from prosecution and punishment up to 1 year after the effective date of the act. Such application would be submitted to an Immunity Review Board patterned after the procedure implemented by President Truman in 1946 after World War II. The Board would be composed of five members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Of the five members, four would be nominated by the President from individuals recommended by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the Speaker and minority leader of the House. The duration of the Board would be for 4 years with the President appointing the chairman. The Board would be authorized to only review violations of the Military Selective Service Act and would be empowered to grant immunity upon the completion of alternative service of up to 2 years in the Armed Forces or in public or private service contributing to the national health, safety, or welfare. Individuals serving prison sentences for crimes unrelated to selective service violations would not be eligible for such immunity, nor would individuals under indictment for any offense unrelated to the act. Examples of contemplated public service would be 2 years in the Peace Corps or VISTA with compensation at a level to provide a standard of living comparable to service in the Armed Forces at the lowest pay grade. The Board would not be permitted to deny immunity to any qualified individual and would be given discretion as to the length of alternative service, not to exceed the 2-year requirement. Each individual case would be reviewed on its own merits with the Board specifically authorized to consider mitigating circumstances with regard to the length of service required. First, the Board could consider inaccurate interpretation of the act by an individual at the time he committed the violation. Second, the Board could consider circumstances where the applicant could have qualified for classification as a conscientious objector under the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court prevailing on January 27, 1973. To illustrate, the Supreme Court during the Indochina period gradually broadened its definition of conscientious objections with the case of Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, decided on June 15, 1970, introducing a significant change in the law. Before that decision, individuals seeking conscientious objector status had to raise their objection in relation to their belief in a Supreme Being. The Supreme Court in the Welsh case ruled that a belief in a Supreme Being was no longer required, and that other deep-felt personal views could suffice. |