nesty itself and would not be an instrument of healing, but would be a cause for a further continuation of divisiveness. Real appreciation was also expressed during that debate for the lifting of conscience that persons resisting the war performed for the total American society and the feeling that we would be saying to those who had acted on our behalf, who had acted to uplift our consciences, that you are not to be punished for that act. Punishment certainly would be very unsettling to those who have serious questions about the morality of the Vietnam war in the first place. Mr. KASTEN MEIER. Hypothetically, and I raise this question not for my own personal point of view but rather to establish a dialog on some of these questions, if we heard from a number of exiles who said "we would be willing to return to the country and participate in some constructive service such as those proposals entail," then would you still oppose that. Dr. CARY. What we are arguing is that they be given an opportunity to return to the country as full citizens of the country. And I am convinced that many of them would personally choose to exercise some vocation or some life calling that would be in the interest of the country. But to make this a condition for their return is the point that would be violated if we granted conditional as opposed to general amnesty. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you. I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Cary and Mr. Kilmer. I was very interested in the fact that a distinguished group of churchmen have been trying for 90 days to see President Nixon. Would you describe the group and also give us the date, if you would, of the letter when he said he was very busy? Dr. CARY. Well, it has been 90 days. Mr. DRINAN. Ninety days, almost 90 days? Dr. CARY. Yes, it began back prior to Christmas in December. We had a very large representative group which sent a telegram to the President expressing the desire of a cross section of American leadership to Mr. DRINAN. Dr. Cary, was it leaders only from the National Council of Churches or was it Catholics and Jews too? Dr. CARY. Yes, it was an interfaith leadership group. Mr. DRINAN. Well if you would, Dr. Cary, today or as soon as possible please give us the names of everybody associated with that. I would like to have it in the record and also, if I might have the letter that came from the White House to you? What was the date of that? Dr. CARY. Well, we received the letter in January in response to a December request. Mr. DRINAN. Well, it may be listed somewhere. Reverend KILMER. Sir, it was sent the week before Christmas around December 13th. If you would like the names of the persons who were in that delegation right now, we can give you that list now. Mr. DRINAN. All right. I do not want to read the list here, but I assume it is a distinguished group and we ought to have that in the record. Reverend KILMER. Fine, I will submit this material for the record. [Subsequently documents:] Reverend Kilmer submitted the following [Western Union Mailgram] This Mailgram is a confirmation copy of the following message: President RICHARD NIXON, White House, Washington, D.C. NEW YORK, N.Y., December 13, 1973. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: AS private citizens and as people who share in the leadership of some of the religious communities in the United States, we seek an opportunity to discuss with you a matter of serious importance to us and to the country, we hope to share with you our concern for the postwar healing of the Nation and the consideration of an amnesty. It has been almost a year since an agreement was reached leading to the withdrawal of U.S. combat troups from the hostilities in Vietnam. We have rejoiced as a Nation in the return of the American prisoners of war. For many families this will be their first Christmas reunion in years. We believe it is now the time to consider the matter of amnesty for those opposed the war and for those who served in the Armed Forces but are stigmatized for life by the less than honorable discharges. Historically the Christmas season is the traditional time for the announcement of amnesty, when mankind yearns for peace and good will. Just as we have always tempered justice with mercy in the administration of the law, so there are times when a forgetting of the law, and amnesty are desirable. The occasion of offenses is now passed, and there is a growing public confidence to sustain an amnesty, and a readiness to focus on the future that will maintain an amnesty. We pray that you will share with us in discussion as to whether this will be an appropriate time to announce such an act of grace. Our pastoral concern for the thousands of Americans and their families who are estranged from one another impels us to seek a meeting with you on so important a matter for the happiness of the people. Would it be possible to have this meeting during the coming week before Christmas? We consider this request to be confidential while we await your response, and until such time as arrangements can be made for you to receive a delegation representing the inter-religious task force on amnesty. We would appreciate a reply by Monday, December 17 to our staff director William Galvin 2128703143 at the Inter-Religious Task Force on Amnesty, Room 767, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, N.Y. 10027. Sincerely. Sterling Cary, President National Council of Churches; The Right Reverend Paul Moore, Jr., Episcopal Bishop of New York; William P. Thompson, Stated Clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.; Bishop John Wesley Lord, Executive Director, Bishops Call for Peace, and Self Development of People, Washington, D.C.; Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Detroit. A signed copy will be following. Mr. WILLIAM GALVIN, New York, N.Y. LOUISE RANSON. THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, December 18, 1973. DEAR MR. GALVIN: This is with reference to the telegram which Dr. Cary, Bishop Moore, Bishop Lord, Bishop Gumbleton and Dr. Thompson sent the President on December 14 asking to meet with him. The President is most appreciative of the expression of concern of these religious leaders, but, regrettably, his schedule is such that a time is not foreseen when he can meet with them. Matters relating to those cited in Dr. Cary's telegram and letter are under continuing review by the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and Selective Service and, should he and the others wish, a meeting with their representatives might be arranged. With best wishes, Sincerely, TERRENCE O'DONNELL, Staff Assistant to the President. [Western Union Mailgram] This Mailgram is a confirmation copy of the following message: President NIXON, Washington, D.C. NEW YORK, N.Y., December 23, 1973. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We join with Dr. Cary, Bishop Moore, Bishop Lord, Bishop Gumbleton, and Dr. Thompson of the Inter-Religious Task Force on Amnesty in urging you to consider a Christmas amnesty and to meet with a small group of religious leaders sometime next week to discuss this important matter. We would appreciate a reply as per our request personally delivered to Ms. Rosemary Wood on December 13 to Staff Director William Galvin 212-870-3143 at the Inter-Religious Task Force on Amnesty, Room 767, 475 Riverside Dr., New York, N.Y. 10027. Robert V. Moss, President, United Church of Christ and George W. Webber, President, New York Theological Seminary. LOUISE RANSOM. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S., New York, N.Y., February 13, 1974. The PRESIDENT, The White House, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: On December 12 representatives of the Interreligious Task Force on Amnesty communicated their desire to discuss with you the importance of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of young Americans still suffering from the effects of the Vietnam War. We regret that you were unable to see them at that time but were encouraged by Mr. Terence O'Donnell's indication that such a meeting might be arranged upon completion of the State of the Union Address. We wish to renew our request that you meet with leaders of the religious community at the earliest possible date to pursue this matter of crucial concern to the nation. Sincerely yours, W. STERLING CARY, President, National Council of Churches For: James Armstrong, Bishop of United Methodist Church, Dakotas Episcopal Diocese of Rochester; John M. Swomley, Jr., Professor of Christian Ethics, St. Paul School of Theology; Joel K. Thompson, Associate General Secretary, Church of the Brethren General Board; Margaret Ellen Traxler, Executive Board, National Coalition of American Nuns; Ann Patrick Ware, S.C., Ecumenical Committee Chairwoman, Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Cynthia Wedel, Past President, National Council of Churches: John H. Yoder, Professor of Theology, Notre Dame University and Associated Mennonite Seminaries. Hon. WILLIAM B. SAXBE, THE WASHINGTON OFFICE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A.. Washington, D.C., February 15, 1974. Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: In mid-December seven of us, writing as private citizens and as people who share in the leadership of some of the religious communities in the United States, sought a meeting with President Nixon to discuss a Christmas amnesty for hundreds of thousands of young Americans still suffering from the effects of the Vietnam war (copies of telegrams enclosed). We were informed that the President was unable to meet at that time, leading us subsequently to renew our request, following Christmas, for a meeting with the President "at the earliest possible date". We await scheduling of such a meeting. In the meantime, we were informed by Mr. Terence O'Donnell, Staff Assistant to the President, that matters related to those we cited in our first telegram are under continuing review by your Department, as well as the Department of Defense and the Selective Service System. He suggested that a meeting at these three agencies would be in order. We responded, on January 3, saying we would welcome such an opportunity, although, as we trust you will understand, we cannot consider this an alternative to meeting with the President. Would you kindly inform me of your willingness to see a small group of us representing the Inter-Religious Task Force on Amnesty, an ecumenical organization of representatives from various religious groups in the United States. We would be grateful if such a meeting could be scheduled before March 1. We appreciate your consideration and we look forward to the opportunity to communicate our views on this matter of crucial concern to the nation. Sincerely, W. STERLING CARY, President, National Council of Churches. NOTE: Same letter sent to Hon. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense and Mr. Byron V. Pepitone, Director, Selective Service System. Rev. W. STERLING CARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, President, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. DEAR DR. CARY: The Attorney General has asked me to acknowledge your letter of February 15, 1974 concerning amnesty. From time to time, the President has issued general amnesty proclamations that applied to certain groups of previously convicted individuals. One such proclamation, issued after World War II, pardoned a number of Selective Service violators who were specifically named therein. All such proclamations, however, have applied to persons who had been previously convicted and had paid the penalty imposed upon them by the courts. As far as I am aware, no consideration is presently being given to a general amnesty proclamation for persons who refused to serve in the armed forces during the Vietnam conflict. Sincerely, LAWRENCE M. TAYLOR, Rev. W. STERLING CARY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, Washington, D.C., February 26, 1974. President, National Council of Churches, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CARY: I have been asked by the Director of the Selective Service System to reply to your letter of February 15 in which you request a meeting to discuss amnesty for violators of the Military Selective Service Act. As you know, the President has already stated with respect to the fugitives (estimated to be approximately 4400) that "those who deserted must pay their price" and "the price is a criminal penalty for disobeying the laws of the United States." They are included within the 5119 violators presently under indictment and the 3080 violators presently under criminal complaint or FBI investigation as of January 1, 1974. We and the Department of Justice are at this moment preparing a position on the issue of amnesty for them as well as for the 7902 violators who have been convicted for violating the Military Selective Service Act since August 4, 1964 (date of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution). Our views will be presented in response to a request by the Senate Judiciary Committee for comments on Senate Bill 2832-The Earned Immunity Act of 1974-as well as to a House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee which will hold hearings on the question of amnesty on March 7 and 8. Because there are not "hundreds of thousands of young Americans still suffering from the effects of the Vietnam war" who would be affected by amnesty, as seems to be a popular belief, the matter does not appear to be one which is of "crucial concern to the nation" demanding immediate attention. Secondly, the President has made his position clear in the matter with respect to fugitives. Thirdly, the Administration's position on S. 2832 as well as for the scheduled hearings has not as yet been established. In view of the above, it would not appear that a meeting with the Director to discuss amnesty is warranted or appropriate at this time. Sincerely, WALTER H. MORSE, Mr. DRINAN. I wonder if this same group has "thought of going to the Attorney General, since he is in charge of the policy, I suppose, and, you know, the position of the Department of Justice in that they think we are wasting our time because we have no jurisdiction in their judgment? Dr. CARY. We had a response suggesting a number of persons within the President's family who would be open to a visitation. We indicated our willingness to do that, not in lieu of a visit with the President, but to take advantage of that, too. Mr. DRINAN. You mean his official family? Dr. CARY. Yes; but now I do not think we have heard any more. Mr. GALVIN. We received two responses. One was from the Department of Justice and one from the Selective Service System. Their responses were similar to the responses presented the other day. They emphatically let us know their position, and it was our conclusion that it would not be profitable to meet with these people, that they did not seem open to any dialog we could engage in. Mr. DRINAN. All right, thank you. Concerning your statement of some 35,000 U.S. exiles in Toronto, the thought occurred-and I have not mentioned this to the chairman-would it be helpful in your judg ment, Dr. Cary, if this subcommittee had hearings in Toronto? Dr. CARY. I think it would be a very, very helpful experience. There have been a number of statements made, which tend to interpret the response of persons who have resisted and are in exile, to proposed actions before the committee for discussion. I think it is another thing |