March 23, 1971

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution ( H.J . Res. 223 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, extending the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New York.

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. SCHMITZ. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

A call of the House was ordered.

The Clerk called the roll, and the foll o wing Member s failed to answer to their n a mes:

[Roll No. 26]

Ashley Ed.wards , La . Martin Blan t on Foley Metcalfe Brown , Mich. Ford , Mink Chisholm William , D . O'Hara Cl a rk Fraser Pelly C l ay Galla g her Price, Ill . Collier Goldwater Rangel C o llins, Ill. Green, Pa. Rees C o rbett Hanna Roberts Co rman Hawk.ins Roone y , N.Y .

Hebert Rosenthal

Dellums Ho g an Scheuer Dent Howard Scott Diggs Jarman Steele Din g ell Jones, Tenn . Stephens Dowdy Keating Teague, Calif. Drinan Landgrebe Tiernan Dwyer Leggett E d wards, Calif. McCulloch

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 378 Members have answered to their names, a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.

LOWERING THE VOTING AGE

TO 18

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New York.

The motion was agreed to.

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution CH.J. Res. 223) with Mr. BOLLING in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

By unanimous consent, the first reading of the joint resolution was dispensed The CHAffiMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman . from New York (Mr. CELLER.) will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PoFF) will be recognized for 1 hour.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER).

Mr. CELLER. Mr . Chairman, I yield myself 1 O min _ utes.

Mr. Chairman, this is a rather happy occasion for me to sponsor and cosponsor the so-called 26th amendment to the Constitution. It has been my privilege heretofore to cosponsor the 23d--extending the right to vote in presidential elections to residents of the District of Columbia-24th-abolishing the poll tax in Federal elections-and the 25thdealing with Presidential inability and succession-amendments , three constitutional amendments , and if this 26th amendment is ratified I will lay claim to sponsoring and cosponsoring four constitutional amendments. I say with all due modesty this is rather an achievement , and an achievement that I · am extremely proud of.

Mr. Chairman, a government of, by, and for the people should be deeply interested in the right to vote. This right is the most basic of all.

The ballot box is the mechanism by which the will of the people shapes government. Democracy draws its strength and assures its survival through the exercise of the vote.

Throughout our history a continuing question has occupied the attention of Americans: Who, among our citizens, shall be eligible to participate as voters? On at least four occasions our Constitution has been amended to enlarge or protect political participation. The 15th amendmen~removing the test of color from the ballot box; the 19th amendmen~woman ' s suffrage; the 23d amendmen~District of Columbia vote for President and Vice President; and the 24th amendmen~abolition of the poll tax. In recent years the Congress has vigorously acted to assure the free exercise of the right to vote. The proposed 26th amendment to the Constitution embodied in House Joint Resolution 223 represents another step in the American tradition of enlarging the franchise. Members will recall that provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 lowered the minimum voting age to 18 in Federal, State, and local primary and general elections. The measure was overwhelmingly approved in both Houses of Congress. Some of us expressed reservations about the constitutional authority of the Congress to modify voting age qualifications by statute. Nevertheless, w e confidently expected a prompt re s olution of the question by the Supreme Court. Six months after its enactment, the Supreme Cou r t rendered i ts d e cision on the constitutionality of various provisions of the act. It upheld all provisions of the act save those reducing the minimum voting age in all elections. By a 5 to 4 decision the Court upheld the lower voting age for national elections but invalidated the statute insofar as it attempted to lower the minimum voting age in State and local elections. As a result of the Court's decision two sets of electoral machinery must be established in 47 States which to da.te have not lowered the voting age to 18 for State and local elections. This dual voting age system is estimated by the Bureau of the Census t o affect well over 10 million potential voters, or approximately 8.5 percent of the resident population 18 or over.

Although nine States today permit persons under 21 to vote in all elections, only three, Alaska, Georgia, and Kentucky, permit 18-year-olds to voteMassachusetts. Minnesota, and Montana require at least 19 years of age; Hawaii, Maine, and Nebraska require at least 20 years of age. A dual-age voting system will be expensive and administratively burdensome to operate. A recent nationwide survey among election officials indicates that separate electoral facilities and procedures will have to be developed; separate Federal ballots would have to be prepared for each congressional district. Separate registration, separate voting and separate counting of the newly enfranchised present serious threats of uncertainty and delay in the tabulation of the election results in 1972. Additional voting machines may have to be purchased in order to accommodate the 18-to-20-year-old voter who at :)resent is only permitted to vote in national elections. Alternatively, mechanisms to lock levers in voting machines under State and local offices may have t-0 be installed, or separate paper ballots listing only Federal candidates may have to be used. Resort to one or more of these procedures would involve additional personnel, additional training, and additional expenses.

To suggest that these problems were "caused" by the enactment of the Federal statute or by the decision of the Supreme Court doe"l not offer a constructive remedy to the problems States and localities now confront.

Whatever new separate procedures and facilities ultimately are established, election officials estimate that the added costs to State and local governments will be substantial. Estimates of these expenses suggest a nationwide cost of approximately $20 million.

Although recent referendums in several States indicate popular disapproval of the 18-year-old vote, these decisions were made before the Supreme Court upheld the 18-year-old vote in Federal elections. Now confronted with dual-age voting and the substantial administrative C.ifficulties and exnenses that such a system involves, it is - inconceivable that the citizens across the Nation would now opt for a dual voting system. - Indeed, many State legislatures today are attempting to bring their voting age qualifications into line with the Federal standards in time for the 1972 elections. In Ne:w York State, for example. a proposal to lower the voting age is scheduled to be voted on in a popular referendum later this year. I am advised that similar referendums appear also to be scheduled later this year in the States of Kansas , Maine, and New Mexico. In other States. however, such efforts may fail t<> produce the desired voting age uniformity in time.

A revision of the State voting age qualification apparently requires an amendment to the State constitution in every State. Processing such a constitutional amendment differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In at least 16 States the adoption of an amendment requires approval by two separate sessions of the State legislature to be followed by a referendum. Because not all State legislatures meet annually and a number of States require approval by two sessions of the legislature and because every State except Delaware requires a referendum to be held on a proposed amendment, it appears that more than 20 States will be unable to lower the voting age prior to November 1972.

Only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution of the type embodied in House Joint Resolution 223 can guarantee the uniformity of State and Federal voting age requirements by the next national election.

Although individual State efforts to achieve national voting age uniformity by 1972 by State constitutional amendment seem futile, there is a realistic possibility that by the next national election the proposed new article of amendment now before the House may be ratified. More than 45 State legislatures are meeting this year. Approximately half that number are scheduled to meet in 1972, and it is likely that special sessions in the fall of 1971 and the spring of 1972 will be held to deal with the issue of reapportionment. A · reasonable period, therefore, exists within which the State legislatures may ratify the proposed new article.

ACTION BY THE OTHER BODY

The Senate Judiciary Committee conformed a Senate resolution to House Joint Resolution 223 as reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary. The Senate resolution, which is identical to House Joint Resolution 223, was approved unanimously by the other body- 94 to 0-on Wednesday, March 10. Final action on the Senate resolution in this Chamber will permit prompt transmittal of the proposed 26th amendment to the States for ratification.

ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution contains the customary provision that the proposed new article to the Constitution shall be valid as part of the Constitution only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States within 7 years after it has been submitted to them by the Congress.

Section 1 of the proposed new article would prohibit the United States or any State from denying or abridging the right of citizens of the United States to vote on account of age if such citizens are 18 years of age or older. This provision is modeled after similar provisions in the 15th amendment, which outlawed racial discrimination at the polls, and the 19th amendment, which enfranchised women. The reference to "State" - encompasses other governmental bodies within the State such as municipalities, sanitary districts, and school boards. The section contemplates that the term "vote" includes all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special or general election including, but not limited to, registration or other action required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, or having such ballot counted properly and included in the totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election.

Section 2 confers on Congress the power to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. Any exercise of power under this section nihst not only be "appropriate" to the effectuation of the article, but also must be consistent with the Constitution. This section does not preclude States from enacting legislation implementing the amendment so long as it is not inconsistent with congressional legislation. The power conferred upon Congress by this section parallels the reserve power granted to the Congress by numerous amendments to the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed 26th amendment is part of a constitutional tradition of enlarging participation in our political processes. Its approval will eliminate substantial administrative burdens and costs which would otherwise be incurred by the States in the operation of a dual voting system. It will avoid the dangers of uncertainty, delay and confusion inherent in such a system. For these reasons, I w·ge adoption of the resolution, now. I am confident that the States will ratify before the presidential elections of 1972.

I am informed that a number of the States, as it were, are waiting in the wings to make their bow by way of ratification of this so-called 26th amendment.

Finally, I wish to point out that there is a great ground swell for the 18-year­ ' old voting amendment. This movement for voting by youths cannot be squashed. iilly effort to stop the wave - for the 18- year-old vote would be as useless as a telescope to a blind man. As I said before, even the august body called the Senate approved the proposed amendment unanimously. Our - Judiciary Committee approved the resolution 32 to 2.

Nor is it anomalous that I, the eldest in this body in service, should pump for voting for ' our yoµth. Youth · will be served. That is an old, ancient saying, which is quite true today:

You know, youth wanes by increasing ~-ears, but the increase usually brings wisdom. Of course, I cannot be young again bv any manner of means any more save in spirit. But maybe be offering this amendment I can at least wear, shall I say, the rose of youth.

The youth of America is our oldest tradition. That tradition has been in existence for over three centuries. Let us offer it . our respect by a favorable vote.

I do not believe that youth will fail us i ' f we offer our youth the privilege and responsibility of the ballot. It has been said that in the lexicon of youth there is no such word as "fail." They will not "fail" us. Some of our youth have disappointed us, but the preponderant majority are as sound of mind as they are strong in body. In the long run our voting yout;h will not betray their elders.

Indeed, eventually we all must resign ourselves to their care as we grow older. Thus, let us prepare them early by giving them the ballot.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog'nizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. POFF).

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Last year when this issue came into focus I announced my support of a constitutional amendment. I reaffirm my position. It is too bad the Congress ' did not proceed initially on that course, because the result of the course that was chosen has been near disastrous. The Congress erred in failing to take the constitutional amendment route, and then in the drafting of the statute itself, the Congress erred in at least two particulars. The first error was in the language of the clause addressed to the 18- year-old franchise. That language limits its thrust and effect to primaries and • elections. In doing so, it excludes from its impact other anterior steps in the voting process, including nomination, either by petition or by convention.

Finally the Congress erred in confining the impact of its statute to the denial of the right to vote, when, in fact, if the House intended to be thorough, it should have also proscriJ:>ed the abridgement of that right. · _

Now, in the shadow of the Court's · de­ -Cision, we are confronted with what is called, in shorthand terminology, dual age voting. As the chairman has indicated, we do face next year, unless this problem is promptly and effectively corrected, Confusion, chaos, and , possibly other difficulties at the polls.

We have three options as we choose a solution. We have only three. One would be to repeal th~ faulty statute we passed last year and thereby restandardize within each State the voting age in both State and Federal elections. The second would be to allow the individual States .individually to decide whether they could live with th.e duality problem or should · adjust their own laws to standardize the _ voting age at 18. And, finally, we can standardize the voting age at 18 by approving this constitutional amendment. Tiie first of those alternatives, let us face it, is absolutely unrealistic. The second is altogether unlikely. The third is the only reasonable, feasible, functional choice. . As responsible legislators we must make that decision today. We must pro­ ~e this constitutional amendment ' pr,omptly · and allow the individual States, . asi the, Constitution eX'Plicitly provides, to make their own decisions whether the Nation should attempt to live with this problem of dual voting or solve it by this change in our Federal Constitution. . ~ Let me suggest that that change in no way offends our federalism. On the contrary. it accords with it, because the States are given the opportunity in the amending process to make their own judgments. I repeat, it is the only mechanism by which the States can effectively resolve the dual age voting problem.

It is possible for them to do so seasonably. It will' not be long before the primaries are upon us and the State legislature$ must act, if they are to do so effectively • .sometime before early spring 'of 1972 . ..,

The time frame seems to be very abbreviated, but let me suggest that of the 15 constitutional amendments after the Bill of Rights, 10 were ratified in a time frame of less than 14 months. So if we move promptly, it is reasonable to expect that we can conclude this job in a timely fashion.

Forty- three of the State legislatures are in session this year, and about half that number will be in session early next year. In addition to that, largely because of the problems connected with the decennial census and redistricting and reapportionment of the State legislatures, there are likely to be a number of special sessions of the legislatures in many of our States this fall, and early next year, so it is realistic t;o expect that we can, if we act now favorably, accomplish this goal in time to permit proper functioning of the voting process next year. Last year, I believed that the Congress was taking an unwise and unconstitutional approach in attempting to lower age qualifications for voting in 48 States by Federal statute. It was argued on the floor in th l s body and in the other body that the legislation was supported by the 14th amendment.

When the Supreme Court was confronted with this vexing question, a majority agreed that Congress could not lower age qualifications for voting by statute under the 14th amendment. However, although a majority of five Justices found the Congress in error regarding its legal theory, four Justices · agreed with the Congress. Mr. Justice Black, one of the five Justices who said that the 14th amendment did not uphold the statute, found that the statute was valid-but only for Federal elections-- under section 4) article I of the Constitution. And thus, ironically, a view espoused by only one Justice was combined with the views of four dissenting Justices. to produce the result that the statute · was in part con s­ t i tut~on~l and in part unconstitutional. In a sense eight Justices dissented from the holding in the case.

The result is the problem of dual-age voting. The 18-year-old citizen may vote for candidates for the House, the Senate, and the . presidency, but he may not--rmless he resides in Alaska, Kentucky, or Georgia--vote for candidates for any other office. · · "

Congress now has the opportunity to correct this problem. I believe that the age qualifications for voting in any and all elections should be lowered to 18 because that portion of our citizenry between 18 and 21 years of age has a vital stake · in the decisions which guide this Nation, has demonstrated an increasing awareness of the problems before us, and is more knowledgeable than any such previous g:roup in our history. Moreover, the right to vote an anterior to all other rights. It is so important that it should be placed beyond the power of any legislature either to deny or to abridge it. The vice of the statutory approach is that the Supreme Court or the Congress is free t~ change its mind and each is capable of doing so quickly, , and what was easily given might easil:Y be taken away.

Today, we have tb ' e _ opportunity to correct the mistake of last year. On March . 10, each Member of the other body-all 100-went on record in support of a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age. And the administration has indicated its unqualified support for such a constitutional amendment.

What does the proposed constitutional amendment accomplish? It does not grant the right t;o vote to all citizens 18 years of age or older. Rather, it guarantees that citizens who are 18 years of age or older shall not be discriminated against on account of age. Just as the 15th amendment prohibits racial discrimination in voting and just as the 19th amendment prohibits sex discrimination in voting, the proposed amendment would prohibit. age discrimination in voting, but only against those citizens who are 18 years of age or older. In this regard, the proposed amendment would protect not only an 18-year-old, but also the 88-year-old. A citizen of the United States may still be denied the right to vote for valid reasons, but such reasons may not be race, sex, or age--if he is 18 years of age or older. For example, a State law that prohibits convicted felons from voting would not be affected by the proposed amendment. Just as black felons and female felons are not guaranteed the right to vote by the 15th and 19th amendments, felons who are 18 years of age or older would not be guaranteed the right to vote by the proposed. amendment.

The proposed amendment in fulfilling its purpose would produce a considerable overlap with State laws which may appear purely redundant, but which makes clear the true nature of the proposal. Today. the citizen who is 21 years of age may vote in any State. Yet, the proposed amendment would best.ow an additional constitutional right upon such citizen-the right not to be discriminated · against on account of his age. However, in doing so, I believe that it is fair to say that there is no intent to change that citizen's status in any way. If State law today requires that such citizen register in order to vote, the - proposed amendment - would not grant a constitutional right to ignore the Stateimposed precondition. If State law today requires that such citizen have registered for the last election in order to have the right to initiate legislation by signing a petition, the proposed amendment would not grant a constitutional right to ignore the State-imposed precondition. There is no intention to change the status of that 21-year-old citizen by means of the proposed amendment. If such citizen's right to vote is being denied or abridged; it is obviously riot on account of his age. If he claims that his right to vote is being denied or a.bridged by the State-imposed preconditions, that claim must be resolved by other principles and provisions of law.

What the proposed amendment will do is to place the 18-year-old citizen in the shoes of the 21-year-old citizen in the above instances. The status . tus of the 18- year-old citizen is changed. He is to be treated under the State voting laws as the 21-year-old citizen was prior to the ratification of the proposed amendment. Hence, the overlap of the proposed amendment serves to make clear its central purpose-to bestow on those · 18 years of age and older the voting rights enjoyed under State law by those who today meet the State age qualifications for voting. No more is intended; and no less. Thus, the proposed amendment, rather than establishing an absolute right to vote, prohibits only a certain kind of discrimination. ··

Moreover, the proposed amendment does not establish that age qualifications for voting must be set at 18. It does ban age qualifications above the age of 18. It does not ban age qualifications below the age of 18. - Thus, a state legislature could lower the voting age for elections held within the State to an age below 18. And so long as the Supreme Court ' s decision in Oregon against · Mitchell stands, the Congress could lower the ypting age for so-called Federal elections to an age below 18.

The proposed amendment would protect citizens who are 18 years of age or older against age discrimination. I have not found any attempt in the reports of the J Judiciary Committee in either this body or the other body to define what is meant by a "citizen." The reason for the silence in these reports is that the proposed amendment rests on prior law, including section 1 of the 14th amendment, for the meaning of citizenship. Let me say that there is absolutely no intention to tamper with such law. That is true in spite of what is to me the inartful form of the operative clause of the proposed amendment, which reads:

The right of citizens <>1. the United States, who a.re eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or , by any State on account of age. 1

Although the use of commas in that clause might lead one to infer that one must be 18 years of age or older to be a citizen, the members of the committee reporting this legislation had no intentention to establish any such standard I believe that our, purpose would have been better reflected by reporting House Joint Resolution 401, which I cosponsored. Its operative clause reads as follows:

The right to vote of citizens of the United states who rare. eighteen years <>f age- or older shall not be denied , pr abridged by the United States or by any State on · account of age. I -find that language truer to our purpose. I hope that it.will remain clear to all that House Joint Resolution 401 and House Joint Resolution 223 are identical in scope and meaning.

If House Joint Resolution 223 becomes ratified in law; it will do . more . than simply co:o.stitutionalize title Ill of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970; it will do more than simply correct last year's mistake, To illustrate the distinction between the statute and the . proposed constitutional amendment, let me underscore the following points.

First, the statute was limited to the right to vote "in any primary or in any election." The proposed amendment is not so limited; it protects the "right to vote" not only in such elections but otherwise. The "right to vote" is a constitutional phrase of art whose scope embraces the entire process by which the people make their political choices. This includes not only the right to vote for a Congressman or a mayor in a general, special, or a primary election, but also the right to nominate by petition or convention or the right to participate in procedures such as initiative or recall where they have been adopted. In the words of the committee's report:

The proposal embodied in House Joint Resolution 223 confers a plenary right on citizens 18 years of age or older to participate in the political process , free of discrimination on account of age.

This plenary right, of course, refers to citizen's right to make political choices and not to the right to be a choice; that is , a candidate for office.

Second, whereas the statute protected only against the denial of the right to vote, the proposed amendment would protect against either the denial or the abridgement of the right to vote. I do not believe that the limited protection of the statute was the result of a conscious rational judgment. The proposed amendment would also correct this error. Since so - much of our constitutional law and our statu t ory law heretofore distinguished denials and abridgements of the right to vote, the oversight in the statute might have proved to be a source of mischief.

Since at every turn we find that the · proposed amendment is an improvement over present law, one might reach the conclusion that support for this measure would be unanimous. However, there are some who oppose this measure on the grounds of the States rights doctrine. The argument cannot be predicated on a legal basis because the Constitution itself allocates rights between the Federal and State Governments and whatever becomes p a rt of the Constitution also shares in allocating rights. The argument must rather rest on policy g r ounds. It is argued that it would be better to allow e a ch State to decide this issue f-Or itself. But, in the other body , w here States are i epr e sented as such, that argument was unanimously rej e cted. Why? Because Oregon against Mitchell has created an emergency in the administration of elections so that the States are no long e r free to contempl a te these , noble questions at their leisure. If something is not done before the 1972 elections, chaos and confusion w ill grip the polling booths across the -c onntr y . And the overwhelm i ng majority of the States find it impossible to help t hemselves i:r: this emergency. We have more than a suspicion that they want h e lp, If we are wrong, it will take only the silence, inaction, or rejection on the part of 13 legislative bodies in separate States to tell us. And remember that there are 99 legislative bodies that will be presented with the question of what is best for the States. It will only take 13 to block ratification. I believe that the States should decide what is best for them. But without the submission of the proposed constitutional amendment, the States are not able to choose effectively. I do not find it persuasive to argue the right of the State to choose where, in fact, the law in most States makes a choice impossible.

For these reasons I urge the adoption of House Joint Resolution 223. · Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the gentleman .from Virginia yield some time, because one or two of the gentlemen to whom I propose to yield time are not present.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan ( Mr. HUTCHINSON).

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I labor under no illusion that this proposition is in the least part in jeopardy before this House. I anticipate that it will be adopted by the requisite two-thirds vote of this House this afternoon and before the afternoon is very much older. I may say that personally I have no fear of the 18-ye _ ar-old franchise. I believe that in the two States which have had reasonably long experience with it, it has been demonstrated that the younger voters-the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old voteTs-are absorbed into the general pattern and there is no disruption that should cause anybody any trouble.

But, Mr. Chairman , I have decided in my best conscience that I must -vote against this proposal this afternoon, because the people of Michigan so decisively in the last election voted it down . - .. In 1970, only 39 percent of the people of the State of Michigan. voted in favor of amending _ qing our State constitution. to extend , the voting franchi.se to those . 18 years of age and older. Only 39 percent were in favor. In my own district, only 37 percent of the people voted for it. In fact, the issue carried in only nine precincts, out of the ~~ precincts ill my district : r I

It occurs to me that if ever there was a - mandate at the ballot box on an issue certainly here is that mandate.

I know the argument is made there has been an additional ingredient added into the situation, in that last December the Supreme Court in effect wrote a law di.fferent from that which the Congress voted and extended the right to vote to 18-year-olds only in national elections. Congress never passed any such law. The co~ g ressional act was intended to cover ~JI e l elections. But the Supreme Court says what we did was. to act only in national elections.

I know that additional ingredient has been added into this situation since the 1970 · elections, but at the time the people of Michigan voted on this issue Congress had already spoken. The President had .already signed into · , _I~w the Voting Rights Act of 19'70 , which includ.ed title UI, which purported to - extend the right to vote in all elections across the board. State and local, as well as Federal.

Nevertheless, the people of my State resoundingly said "No" and the people of my district resoundingly said "No." So under the circumstances, I feel myself mandated to represent . :q t them here.

So often I have people say to me "What good does it do to vote?" I say to you that if the decision of the people made at the ballot box is to be completely ignored, indeed that question becomes awfully hard to answer.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield tb the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I appreciate the gentleman's statement that the people of Michigan have by a resounding vote turned down the vote for 18-year-olds. Would the gentleman venture a guess as to what the outcome might have been if indeed the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds had been permitted to vote on that proposition?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I dare say that the result would not have been different in Michigan nor would it have been different in my district, for the reason that it was so overwhelmingly defeated.

Mr. PUCINSKI. But the question is was it defeated by those who are not directly involved in terms of permission to do so. If we had permitted 18-, 19-, or 20-year-olds to vote on this particular question as to whether or not they should be permitted hereafter to vote in elections, do you think the outcome would have been different?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No; I think the outcome would have been the same.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. POAGE).

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any mandate. It-has been some years since the people of Texas voted on this question. They rejected it at that time. I do not know what they will do in the future. I am not trying to say what my State or any State should do within its own jurisdiction, nor am I trying to pass upon whether 18-, 19-, or 20-year-olds or 16-year-olds or 12-year-olds should vote. I am, however, of the opinion that we would do well to maintain our system of a federal union with the States having some voice in their own internal affairs, and certainly retaining the right to fix the qualifications of voters for local office.

I know that there has been a strong argument made that now the States must maintain two separate accounts to determine who may vote only for Federal officials and who may vote for State and local officials, such as for justices of the peace. True, as a result of legislation and of court decisions the State · election officials have to keep two separate sets of ballots and it is expensive. I heard the argument made that in one of the States in the Northeast it cost them $700,000 to meet this double standard and the argument is made that to avoid that expense we should pass this constitutional amendment.

Why do we have to pass a constitutional amendment if, let us say, in Texas they want citizens to vote at 18? Congress does not have ~ to submit to any kind · of amendment. If Maine or Oklahoma wants to allow 18-year-olds to vote they can allow it without any action by this body. That can be determined by the home State as it should be. The legislators of any State can right now submit amendments to the State Constitution and if the people of the State involved want it, they can pass it. I have no quarrel with that. If Ohio wants to give the ballot to 16-year-olds that is their right but I do not want Ohio or any other State to tell Texas what we must do, nor do I want Texas to try to control the local affairs of any other State. I do not know why we should be dictated to by some other States, even though threefourths of the other States want some other age limit.

I do not know why it should be our business here to deny the people of any State the right to determine who are the voters in their States for State offices. The Supreme Court held that is the privilege of the States at the present time. Now we propose to come along and say if a three-fourths majority of the States decide that they want to make some other State give the ballot in local elections to someone 18 years of age, that this majority is justified in imposing their will on the States which may have a different view. I do not believe anything of the kind. I think if Virginia wants to give the ballot to 12-year-olds, it is perfectly all right with me, but I do not want it in Texas, and I do not think the people of Texas want it.

Nor do I think that it is any of the business of this Congress to tell the people of Texas what qualifications they shall set for local elections. That is all that you do if you adopt this constitutional amendment and if it is adopted by a vote of three-fourths of the States. That is all that you will have accomplished. You will not have given any freedom of choice to anybody, because every State in the Union today has tjla t freedom within its own boundaries. . Every State right now has the right to let 18-year-olds vote or has the right to cut this down and only give people 48 years old the right to vote if they want to. I think that is the way it ought to be. Each State should have the right to decide who is going to vote in their local elections.

Now, why do you want to do this? Is there · any good reason for doing this, other than a mean desire to interfere with your neighbor's · business? I think we have had enough of this matter of interfering with the business of everyone fusion. else. If we will go home and attend to our own business, I believe this country would get along a whole lot better. If there is a Member on this floor who can give any reason for denying each State the right to decide this matter of age of electors in local elections I would respectfully invite him to do so.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McCLORY) .

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, in urging overwhelming approval today of the proposed constitutional amendment extending voting rights to our young citizens 18, 19. and 20 years of age-I want to recall that I have sponsored and supported this measure in earlier Congresses. It had been my hope that the shortcut route of extending voting rights to these younger citizens by way of legislation-in contrast to an amendment to the Federal Constitution-might satisfy the constitutional requirements.

It now appears that the constitutional requirement was satisfied by our action at the last session insofar as Federal elections are concerned. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Oregon against Mitchell, ruled on December 1, 1970, that an amendment to the Constitution would be essential to lower the voting age for State and local elections. Our present dilemma results from the action which we took in the last Congress as construed by the Supreme Court. In other words, we will now have a dual system of voting-one applicable to State and local elections-and the other applicable to elections of Federal offices.

According to a report filed in the other body just a few weeks ago, it was shown that in my State of Illinois the Secretary of State, John - w. Lewis, estimates that there could be a 40- to 50-percent increase ]n election costs because of the need to keep two sets of registration books and two sets of ballots. The chairman of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners estimated the additional cost for the city of Chicago as ranging from $150,000 to $200,000 at each general election.

By acting speedily here today and submi tt 'ng that constitutional change to the States for ratification, the confusion, the threatened additional expense, and the. distinct possibility of voting irregularities-and fraud-can be avoided.

Mr. Chairman, I had occasion to communicate with the county clerk of Lake County, Mrs. Grace Mary Stern, who advised that the permanent registration records were .. being equipped with tabs to identify the voters who are less than 21 years of age. As the voters attain their 21st birthday, the tabs are removed in order that full voting rights can be accorded these young voters. She indicated also that the electronic voting system would require some modification in order to limit the right of younger voters to cast votes for Federal offices. She is endeavoring to reduce added expense as fully as possible but indicates that some additional expense · would be incurred, in addition to a certain amount of conMr. Chairman, the county clerk of McHenry County, Mr. Vernon Kays, indicates that unless we are able to provide uniformity of voting rights as between citizens between 18 and 21 years of ageand those above that age, McHenry County will be subjected to substantial additional expense-and much confusion.

Mr. Chairman, the Illinois General Assembly is in session a.t this time, and, according to my advice, will act promptly to ratify this constitutional change. Earlier, I indicated my feeling that speedier action by the States might occur through State conventions convened for this purpost!. However, my information is that the State legislatures, for the most part, are waiting for us to act and will undertake ratification without delay. In fact, I would expect this constitutional amendment to be ratified in record time through affirmative action of the State legislatures.

Mr. Chairman, I am for the 18-yearold vote all the way, but, more importantly, at this juncture, I am for the elimination of the discrepancy which now exists in the voting rights of those who are above and below the 21-year-age mark. The action we take today can be the most important step in eliminating this discrepancy. I urge a favorable vote of the House.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey Mr, HOWARD).

Mr. HOW ARD. Mr. Chairman, I am _ very, very happy that this legislation concerning a constitutional amendment for the 18-year-old vote is before the House of Representatives today.

In the 90th Congress I was the sponsor of House Joint Resolution 18 which would have provided for an 18-year-old vote in America.

In the 9 lst Congress I was the sponsor of House Joint Resolution 18 which, again, would have provided for an 18- year-old vote.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen the past history on this legislation. We are aware that we did pass legislation for an 18- year-old vote which the Supreme Court determined could only apply in Federal elections.

We are today going to pass I ara sure a constitutional amendment which will provide for the 18-year-old vote throughout the Nation. I believe that this is fair, that this is just, that this is something that our country should do in order to recognize that our 18-year-olds, our 19- year-olds, and 20-year-olds are adults in America.

But, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the most important thing that we should concern ourselves with today is to see that, in reality, our 20-, 19-, and 18-yearolds do actually vote in America in all elections.

As we all know, this legislation must be accepted by 38 State legislatures throughout the country. We also know that many, perhaps, two dozen States in past years have voted down on referendums the 18- or 19-year-old vote pro· posal. I feel that unless we improve this legislation, unless we make it acceptable to people throughout " ghout the country, we will never get the 38 States to agree. Therefore, we will not have a truly l8-, 19-, · and 20-year-old vote in this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I shall offer at the proper time an amendment to this legislation which involves a bill I introduced several weeks ago to provide for a moving down from 21 to 18 the age of majority in this Nation under all law.

This is the way Great Britain recently handled the 18-year-old vote. They said, yes, we will give all of the privileges of adults to people who are 20, 19, and 18, but we will also give them all the responsibilities of adults at ages 20, 19, and 18 and that means responsibility for signing contracts and many other things. There is an indication that perhaps this amendment may be out of order; that a point of order may be made against this amendment because it is not germane. I feel that it is absolutely germane. In this legislation we are talking about privileges and responsibilities being given to people who are 20, 19, and 18. My amendment reducing the age of majority from 21 to 18 will do exactly the same thing-it will deal with privileges and responsibilities of people 20, 19, and 18 years of age.

I hope that this will be considered because I feel many people in the House and perhaps many members of the Committee on the Judiciary who may not be in favor of an 18-year-old vote are well aware that we can pass this today. We can say we did it here in the House of Representatives, we got a two-thirds vote on it, and so we are in favor of reducing the voting age, knowing that many State legislatures will not bite the bullet, will not, in view of the recent referendum which they have had on this issue, agree, and in reality we will not have an across-the-board 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old vote in this country. But I feel if we add this amendment to the provision , if we say yes to the young people, we not only want to give you the vote, we not only think you can handle the vote, but we also think you are adult enough to be able to handle responsibilities of majority in this Nation, then I feel that we will be able to see in a very short time 38 States agree with what the Senate did a short while ago, and what we are about to do here today, we may then really say to the young people, we believe that you are truly adult.

So, Mr. Chairman, . I hope there will not be a point of order made against the amendment. I hope the amendment will be adopted , because I feel this is the only way we can assure that we will see an 18-year-old vote in America.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. RAILSBACK).

Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the proposed constitutional amendment, and I want to commend a group of young people that I think have demonstrated what young people can do by working within the system, and by a tremendous effort on their part, to persuade enough Members of both the House and the Senate to support this legislation. They are the members of the Youth Franchise Coalition, which is a group of young people who have really tirelessly lobbied on behalf of this proposition which they believe in very strongly.

I am hopeful and I am expectant that all of their work is today going to bear results, and I congratulate them.

I want to say this-that I think the amendment that was talked about by the earlier speaker, although I know it is very well intentioned, and well motivated, might have the effect, instead of helping, of clouding what otherwise is a very clear issue, because as the gentleman from Virginia stated so well, we are legislating today not only for our own legislative purposes, but really in response to a Supreme Court decision which had the effect of frustrating what had been our purpose when we passed the statute lowering the voting age sometime ago. I think that the issue right now is very clear that will be presented to the various State legislatures for proposed ratification.

I think to include as part of the constitutional amendment a provision that would affect contract rights and property rights might well have the unintended effect of hurting our cause.

So when the gentleman offers his amendment, I, for one, will be in opposition to it.

Mr. Chairman, last May during our consideration of the Voting Rights Act of 1970, I suggested to my colleagues that we let the Supreme Court of the United States determine whether we had the power and authority to lower the voting age to 18 by simple statute rather than by constitutional amendment.

On December 21, 1970, the Supreme Court answered that question "yes and no." In the cases of Oregon against Mitchell; Texas against Mitchell; United States against Arizona; and United States against Idaho, the Court, in its opinions decided that Congress could indeed lower the age by statute with respect only to Federal elections, but that a constitutional amendment was necessary to lower it in State and local elections-in the absence of a State statute. At the present time only three StatesAlaska, Georgia, and Kentucky have set their minimum voting age at 18. Montana and Massachusetts adopted a 19- year-old standard, and Maine and Nebraska have set the age at 20. The other States are either in the process of lowering their voting age minimums or are still at age 21.

Since only three States now have 18- year-old voting, the other 47 States must face the problem of providing separate registration and voting for persons in elections for President and for Senators and Representatives in addition to registration and voting for State and local officials. Also, there will be some people who are only qualified to vote for Federal candidates. '

At this point in my remarks I include pertinent portions of an excellent review and analysis of the situation as made by Johnny H. Killian, legislative attorney, American Law Division, Library of Con· gress:

Prospects, IMPLICATIONS, AND . RAMIFICATIONS

Any decision of the Court, but especially decisions of a constitutional nature, has myriad radia.tions, leading off into practical consequences, doctrinal implications, precedential bases for subsequent decisions, and dicta which is never developed further. Where the Court is as fragmented as it was in this . decision, it is quite difficult to separate one radiation from another. But some things can be said, some with certainty , others less assuredly.

State Election Practices-As a matter of immediate, practical effects, the decision will require the States to institute some changes in their electoral practices. Since only three States presently set the voting age at 18, 47 States must provide for separate registration and separate voting for some persons i” . elections for President and For Senators and Representatives who are not qualified to vote for state and local officials. Additionally, because of the residency provisions of the Act, there w.111 be some persons · who are only qualified to ' vote for presidential electors. 1 Since most of the States con.duct elections for federal and for state and local officials simultaneously, there will be problems related to furnishing ballots to persons not qualified to vote on every office and especially problems related to equipping voting machines.

Too, there will no doubt arise problems ot interpretation relating to Titles II and Ill. For example, the residency provisions of Title II clearly relate only to the vote for presidential electors, but Title II applies "in any primary or in any election". The Court's decision qualifies the "any" to . mean any congressional or presidential primary . election or election : Clearly, voters between the ages 18 to 21 will be able to vote for presidential electors in the November election. The wording should mean they will be able to vote in presidential preference primaries. In States in which slates of delegates compete in an election to be sent to the presidential . nominating conventions, should not voters of this age group . be allowed to vote? But what is to be the case in -States where delegates to the state conventions are elected and the st.ate conventions select the delegates - to the national conventions? Is the result to be the same if the state conventions only select delegates to the national conventions and transact no other business or, on the other hand, if the taste conventions also nominate candidates for state offices or endorse state candidates for later party primary elections and adopt party platforms? What is to be the case in States where, instead of elections, state conventions a.re the result of a progression o'f conventions or caucuses at the precinct, county, and district level? Is this age group to participate? Regardless of the number or types of functions performed by the conventions? If the conventions also select state and local party officials to serve for the next two or four years regardless of presidential politics? The practical problems may be numerous. 2

No help in solving these problems is to be expected from the legislative history because Congress intended that 18-, 19-, and 20-yearolds should participate in the entire electoral process, federal, state, and local. It did not have to face questions related to when the federal.and s.tate processes were interrelated, ' inasmuch as it was the Court's decision which permits the voters of that age group to participate in one process and not in the other.

FOOTNOTES .

This ‘comment , of course, assumes that state residency laws, currently under extended attack, infr.a, pp. 42-47, a.re not shorten~ either 1lS a result of court decisions or merely as a , result of purely voluntary state action. The foregoing comments assume also that age minimums above 18 are not struck down or changed by state · or federal constitutional amendment.

2 The complexities of the processes by which w.e nominate our presidential ca.ndidates Is .set out in detail in Paul David, et al., The Politics of National Party Conventions (Washington: 1960), and Nelson Polsby & Aaron Wlldavsky, Presidential Elections: Strategies of American Electoral Politics (New York; 2d ed. 1968). Suffice it to say that in very few States are national conven· tion delegates selected in primary elections associated with presidential candidates; in the other States, the selection is a. blend of elections, caucuses, and conventions, in which both national and state political issues a.re inextricably scrambled. If the States a.re re· quired to permit the 18 to 21 age group to participate partially in this system, the problems of separating the strands will dwarf the du!)-1 registration and voting problems of the general election. Further complications are possible because the nominating process is regulated only partly by state laws; parts of the process are subject only to party rules, giving rise to possible •·state action" limitations under the Fourteenth Amendment. But inasmuch as the nominating process is a.i:i integral part of the election process, the parties might be held affected by sta.te action, under the "white primary" rationale. So far as the Act under consideration is concerned, lion. Congress may in any event as an exercise of its necessary and proper powers have author• ity to reach private action in order to regulate adequately the state-directed processes. In recognition of the many and serious problems created by the act of Congress and the decision and opinion of the Supreme Court, I joined with several colleagues in urging that a constitutional amendment be offered to the States for ratification which would permit them to avoid most of the problems created by the Congress and the Supreme Court with respect to the 18-year-old vote matSeveral joint resolutions were introduced to accomplish this result, including House Joint Resolution 223, sponsored by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Honorable EMANUEL CELL'ER. It was this resolution that the Judiciary Committee has reported-House Report 92-37-under date of March 9, 1971, and it is this resolution which was passed by the Senate March 10 by a vote of 94 to 0.

As with other recent offerings, it permits the ratification within 7 years by three-fourths of the several States, of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that--

The right of citizens of the United States, wl:lo are eighteen y ears of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of As stated in the committee report-­ page 6-substantial added costs to State and local governments are involved in maintaining separate procedures for those between 18 to 21 and those over 21. ReportS and estimates submitted to the committee were as follows: Connecticut , $1.3 million; New York City, $5 million; St. Louis, $2 : 5 million; New Jersey, $1.5 million; ~- Dade County, Fla., $400,000; Washington. State, . $200,000; and Chicago, $-200,000.

No doubt - similar reports would be obtainable from jurisdictions across the country. The secretary of state of Illinois, John W. Lewis, has estimated that it would cau ::;e an increase of from 40 to 50 percent in election costs for our State. I~ House Join~ Resolution 22;3, sponsored by Representative CELLER, we have a proposal · that would lower the voting age; to 18 in all elections. It is the product of hours. of testimony before the Judiciary Committee and careful consideration of , the ev . evidence by !:l](j?pibers of that committee. It deserves early consideration in this session and, in my opinion, strong support.

'J'h~ alternati '%-f ailure . · by Con g ress to make vot~ng standards unif o rm in all elections--is grim to co.ntemplate. Sizable new ex ne nditures, confusion, and electoral delays are all highly probable if States and lo c alities are forced to create a dual-age sy s tem of voting. The costs of adapting existing procedures to two different standards for voting, one for State and local elections, the other . f or Federal elections in the 47 States which do not permit 18-year-olds to vote is expected to rwi between $10 and $20 milThe States have shown themselves as favoring an 18-year-old vote. Governors have strongly encouraged such action. At least 34 States either have or will shortly have ' proposals in their legislatures to lower the voting age to 18. But only 25 of the 47 States which do not allow 18-year-olds to vote could lower their voting age before the 1972 elec ::­ tions without resorting to some extraordinary procedure, such as a special statewide election. Twenty-two States face proce.dural delays in their amendment process. that would \· prevent final action to lower the voting age by 1972. A Federal amendment to the Constitution is the only realistic hope ::n most States for 18-year-old voting before the 1972 elections. It took the States an average of 15 months to ratify each of the last three amendments to the Constitution. An amendment to lower the voting age would stand an excellent chance of ratification within a .similar period.

Adoption of House · Joint Resolution 223 is a reasonable-and highly practical-means of . eliminating the wasteful and unjustifiable costs of a dual-age voting system.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAILSBACK. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

My principal concern with this .particular measure is one that has to do with permitting 18-year-olds to vote, for instance, in local and municipal elections in college towns. For example what would haP.pen in a ,community like Urbana, Ill., with an influx of 20,000 or 25,000 students from outside the State coming into that community) and being given the opportunity to vote at 18 years of age? For goodness sakes, we could have these transients actually controlling the elections, voting city councils and mayors in or out of office in a town in r which they have a dominant voice. Personally, I feel that this is bad. We have seen evidenee of this in , Madison, Wis., where in one local election the students of the University . of Wisconsin were able to band together and elect sev , ~ ~ · eral officials who could care less how the city was run and who have no responsibility whatsoever about taxes which have to be raised to fwid certain municipal functions in the city.

What should my position be if I am op.wsed to that kind of thing · coming about and am opposed to encouraging this result in any one of the college towns around the conn try?

Mr. RAILSBACK. Let me just tell you my feelings about that. I hope some of the other Members will feel free to participate :

My belief is that the - general laws relating to residence should apply. This involves certain criteria which . includes among other things the intention of the person; that is, where the person intends to reside, and where he does his banking, pays his taxes and whether he is in effect a transient, which would mean his residence would be his permanent home or where he intends to return and all of these things. There are a number of criteria.

I would say before a person or before a student should be permitted to register to vote in a community where he is attending college, that he would have to express to the satisfaction of the registrar there that this was indeed going to be his permanent residence. This should be under oath. I think the laws have been frustrated in some instances. In other words, I think there are students right now trying to register and vote in certain communities who should definitely not be permitted to vote in that area. What you have to do is to look at all of the criteria--where they do their banking and where they pay their taxes, and if they would still be living with their parents where their parents live and all of these different criteria.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, you know in the taking of the census this past year our two boys who were away at school were considered to be residents for census purposes of New Haven, Conn., rather than Peoria, Ill. I thought that was wrong. I thought that their residence ought to be the residence of their taxpaying parents. All our local and State programs that are dependent on these population factors are hurt by the fact that they are considered to be residents of some place other than their hometown.

Mr. RAILSBACK. As I mentioned, I think that the laws of residence are very, world. very clear. They have been established by a whole series of precedents. My own belief is that these precedents have been frustrated in certain instances where students have been permitted apparently in large numbers to register in their college community. In my opinion, this is wrong because the chances are that they are going to return to their own communities.

Mr. MICHEL. Of course, that is a very easy thing to do because youngsters normally stay in school for 4 years. It would be very easy to register in the first year in college, and then there are 3 or 4 years when it would be no problem at all for them to meet the requirements as to residency.

The same thing is true in coming home during the summer montb.S--a student could register there as well and so for all practical purposes be eligible to vote twice.

I, too, feel that this is wrong, but the fact that · we both feel this way is not going to provide much comfort to the residents of some of our small college towns around the country when they are confronted with this kind of situation. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might require to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. CARNEY).

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly on the joint resolution proposing a constitutional . amendment to lower the voting age to 18. There are several .compelling D arguments in favor of the constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18 in all elections.

The first and most obvious argument for the right of 18- to 21-year-olds to vote is that if they are old enough to serve- in the Armed Forces of their country, they are old enough to vote. It seems basic to me, Mr. Chairman, that if a man c a n be sent to a far-off land to fight and die for his country, under a democratic s y stem of government he should have a voice in selecting the officials who make these vital decisions.

Second, I believe that 18- to 21-yearold citizens are, on the whole, as informed and as concerned as their elders about the problems facing our country. Moreover, America's youth are better educated than at any time in our history and perhaps better educated than the youth of any nation in the history of mankind: According to a recent report by the Bureau of the Census, only one out of every 100 Americans over the age of 14 c1nnot read and write.

Third, if we permit our young people to participate in the political process, the overwhelming majority of them will respond by working constructively within the system rather than going outside the system and resorting to acts of violence t:> ::i . achieve their goals. In this way, the politic 9 .l alienation of our youth will be significantly reduced.

Fourth, our young people will bring fresh ideas and high ideals into the politic al system about how we can create a more decent America and a more decent Fin ally, there is an important practi(!J l reason why Congress should pass the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right to vote to 18-ye a r-olds. The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Federal law extending the right to vote to 18-yearold5 upheld the application of this law in national elections, but declared it uncon titutional in State and local elec- 1iio ns. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, any State which fails to lower the voting age to 18 in State and local elections before 1972 will have to in­ '"' stitute dual voting and registration proce dures. It has been estimated that these dmil procedures will cost an additional $75::1,000 L.1 my own State of Ohio; $1.3 million in Connecticut; $5 million in New York: City; $2.5 million in St. Louis; $1.5 million in New Jersey; $400,000 in Dade County, Fla.; $200,000 in Washington State; and, $200,000 in Chicago.

Mr. Chairman, immediate, favorable action by Congress on the constitutional amendment extending the right to vote in all elections to citizens 18 years of age or older , and ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States as so on as possible, is the only reasonable alternative to a costly and chaotic situation. I, therefore, recommend the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. PEPPER).

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to join with my colleagues in support of this proposed constitutional amendment. I voted for the legislation authorizing those 18 through 20 yea:rs old a vote in local and State as well as Federal elections last year. Now, with the action of the Supreme Court, it is necessary for us to give the non-Federal voting right to these citizens by constitutional amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we, I am sure, are hardly aware of what seems to me to be the unfairness of men 18, 19, and 20 years of age being sent to war, many of them to die, many of them · to be grievously wounded, by Presidents and Congresses for which they have never had an opportunity to vote. That is still because neither the President nor Members of the Congress have been - voted Upon under the legislation on this subject adopted last year.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is properly a matter of Federal action and responsibility. The voting privilege for those 18 to 20 should be uniform throughout the Nation. I believe this is one of the best generations - of young people we have ever had. · Some of them have been misguided, but many of them have had the very sincere feeling of frustration that the establishment was against them; that they had no voice in the decisions of their country; and the . only way they could make themselves heard . rd was by dissent that erupted in forms of violence.

When this amendment which we propose today becomes effective by the ratification of the States, every person 18, 19, and 20 years of age, as well as everyone over - 21, shall have the same voice in the election of the Congress and in the election of the President, and in determining the policies of our country. I think that is a sharing with these ' young citizens of privilege and responsibility that they deserve and should enjoy.

One other thing, Mr. Chairman. What we propose to do in the Federal enfranchisement of those 18, 19, and 20 years of age is exactly what we did in enfranchising the black slaves with the 15th . amendment and exactly what we did in enfranchising women in the country with the , 19th amendment. Therefore, it seems to me that this proposed amendment is perfectly in consonance with those precedents.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say that I think we are today moving toward giving the privilege and the responsibility for the carrying on of this great Republic into the glories of the future to one of the most deserving of all of our groups of citizens, those who have borne the burdens of its wars, and in whose hearts . are the hopes . and promises of our long years ahead.

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PEPPER. I yield to my colleague from Florida.

Mr. HALEY. I might say to my colleague that giving the Stat-e.s the right to enfranchise young people is what should have been done by us prior to putting through in a hurry, hurry, hurry a little over a year ago something that now will put more or less pressure on the States. Now we are following the processes of the Constitution.

Mr. PEPPER. At least we are now achieving our objective by proceeding through constitutional amendment.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Calif ornia ( Mr. WIGGINS).

Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. It contains few, if any, ambiguities. But I think for purposes of legislative history, we should discuss at least a few matters. One thing we should discuss is age as a standard of voting. It is proposed in the amendment, if ratified by the States, to establish a national age standard for voting at 18 years of age or over.