March 23, 1971

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentle- , man from New York (Mr. FrsH).

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this proposed constitutional amendment.

I have support.ed the concept of extending the franchise to 18-year-olds for a number of years. I supported the Voting Rights Act of 1970, which included a provision to legalize this concept, I voted with the majority of the House Committee on the Judiciary to favorably report this amendment to the floor.

The history of America has been one of a st.eady broadening and deepening of the franchise. Over the years, more and more of our people have been given the rights and responsibilities of self-government through the ballot. I feel the good which over the years will flow from passage of this amendment will enrich our land quite as much as our society has been enriched by the energy, ability and public awareness of women which flowed from passage of the 19th amendment after which House Joint Resolution 223 was modeled.

In my view, passage of the amendment is also essential to clear up a number of problems which have arisen from last year's passage of the Voting Rights Act. The intent of that act was to give the vote to 18-year-olds in all States in all elections. The problem arose when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the voting age provisions of this act could constitutionally apply only to Federal elections while States would continue to set voting age requirements for State and local elections. Thus for the first time, a dual election system has been created in this country.

The complications arising from the creation of such a dual system are many. The cost to States and localities to create dual voting procedures is staggering. Yet, even should every State move at maximum speed to adjust their State constitutions to fit the new Federal voting age standard established by the 1970 Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court decision, some 22 States could not legally make such a change prior to the 1972 Federal elections, the first time 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds will vote and the earliest the problems caused by the creation of this dual standard will affect the 50 States.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that passage of House Joint Resolution 223 is the correct method to do two things: First, clear up the problems arising from the present dual voting system; and, second, properly and legally enfranchise all 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds in our country. If this amendment is passed by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress, and is then passed by three-quarters of the State legislatures, every American in any State when he or she reaches 18 will have a voice in his government, not only on the Federal level as provided by the Voting Rights Act of 1970, but on the im­ to 18. portant State and local levels also.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. TIERNAN).

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. JAMES V. STANTON).

Mr. JAMES v. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, the time has come for this Congress and the States to grant to 18-yearolds the right to vote in all Federal, State, and local elections. Enactment of the proposed constitutional amendment now before the House will complete the job begun by the 9 lst Congress when it established, through the Voting Rights Act of 1970, the 18-year-old vote in Federal elections.

To grant 18-year-olds the right to vote in State and local elections is a matter of simple justice. In our country today young people have adult responsibilities in almost all aspects of life. Many of them are married and raising families, working for a living, paying taxes, and serving in the Armed Forces. In fact, over 3 million people of age 18 to 21 are full time employees and taxpayers. Because they are so active and involved in the affairs of our society, the decisions of Government have a great impact upon their lives. They ought logically to have a role in the making of these decisions.

There is not, I believe, any question about the maturity or competence of these young people. Surely they could not shoulder all of the responsibilities I have mentioned if they did not possess sound judgment. Those of age 18 to 21 are also better educated now than they have ever been before. Nearly 80 percent of them have high school diplomas, and more than half are receiving some form of higher education. And so it is clear that young people deserve the vote, and are able to exercise this right with judgment and intelligence.

Another major reason for adopting this amendment is a very practical one. If the States are forced to establish dual registration and voting systems, the costs both in :financial terms and in terms of added confusion and paperwork will be tremendous. Under present law, separate procedures for those 18 to 21 would be needed, as they are eligible to vote only for President, U.S. Senator, and Congressman. It has been estimated that the extra cost to the States will be $20 million per year, and Governor Gilligan has stated that Ohio will have to spend $750,000 to comply with the new law. But more important than the extra cost is the fact that such complications in the voting process will inevitably discourage from voting many who otherwise would have cast a ballot. We in Congress ought to now rectify this situation before any harmful effects are felt.

For the above reasons, I urge my col .. leagues to join with me in voting for the amendment to lower the voting age

Mr. CULVER. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my support to the joint resolution which will submit to the States a constitutional amendment extending the right to vote in all elections to citizens 18 years of age or older.

A constitutional amendment ought to be neither frivolous nor marginal in its scope and consequences. An amendment ought, moreover, to be neither impulsive nor fadish. In this instance we are considering an amendment which is broad in its reach, integral to the very conceptions of citizenship and the public interest, and deeply pondered and thoroughly debated over a number of years. And it comes at a moment of history when the extension of the vote to age 18 is fully commensurate with the responsibilities and obligations undertaken by those aged 18 to 21. By every measure an 18-year-old is entitled to the right to vote. I support it unreservedly.

Apart from the powerful arguments inherently favoring this constitutional updating, there are strong practical reasons for action now. The 18-year-old vote in Federal elections is an established fact, reinforced by the recent decision of the Supreme Court. To have now dual systems of voting whereby there are different voting lists for national and local elections makes no sense. Such a system is expensive, cumbersome, and disruptive. In the next Federal election alone, the additional cost in Iowa would run as much as $150,000 in addition to much higher registration costs. Nor could action by the State alone remedy the two-track system earlier than the 1976 election.

In these circumstances, we owe over 130,000 Iowa citizens newly eligible to vote in Federal elections an equal opportunity to vote in State and local contests. All of us know that 21 is not a magical formula. Its origins as a cutoff point are obsolescent. No one today seriously believes that we should continue to adhere to an 11th century standard that a young man cannot become a participating member of society until he is strong enough to wear a suit of armor, a strength generally not attained until the age of 21. Today, the large majority of 18-year-olds are high school graduates, more than half are in or soon to enter college, and all are potentially eligible for military service. Of the 11 million 18- to 21-year-olds, almost 1 % million are serving in the Armed Forces, more than 3 million hold full-time jobs, more than 8 million pay taxes. Practically all are considered adult in the eyes of the law; the vast majority are contributing to and participating actively in our society. And no one who visits our schools and colleges can doubt the depth and breadth of interest which an unprecedently large number of students have in public affairs and the issue which elections help to decide. I have no question in my mind that the vote beginning at 18 will add vitality to the political process and stimulate those of us in public office to higher and wider standards of accountability and performance.

We know from some of our States and from some countries abroad that a lowered voting age fully accords with the realities of our contemporary society. We know too that the energies and idealism of young people find new channels of constructive expression and participation and that the common interest is enlarged. We know finally the reservoir of ability and public vision which is ready for release. We have this opportunity today. Let us act upon it.

Mr. BROOKS, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment giving 18-year-olds the right to vote in State and local elections. I support it, because I believe it is right. It is a goal that I have worked for over a great number of years. We need the energy, vision, dedication, and commitment of young people if we are to continue to build a viable democratic society in America. There is ample justification for allowing the nearly 11.5 million young Americans to vote in State and local elections, particularly since Congress gave them the right to vote for Federal officials under terms of the Voting Rights Act of 1970.

The great majority of our young people are mature and responsible citizens. They are the most highly educated of any generation in our Nation's history. Nearly 1 million young men and women from 18 through 20 are serving with honor in the Armed Forces of our Nation. More than 3 million work at full-time jobs, and countless others serve as part-time employees. They are considered adults by State penal oodes.

While we do not have voting with us today our distinguished Speaker John McCormack, I am sure that he would be a strong advocate of this legislation. He was one of the most outspoken leaders for voting reform during his years here in Congress. I remember well his articulate support of a similar measure last year. I know that he still maintains this conviction. The gentleman from Massachusetts may have retired but he is young at heart and in spirit and is concerned for those young in years.

I am honored to be able to aline myself with this great American on this issue of such importance to so many of our young people.

Mr- SCHEUER. Mr. Chairman, our Nation teaches in its schools and professes to believe that Americans are a people who know freedom, opportunity, equality, and jus · justice under the law. To deny to 11.5 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 21 the full right to vote is to be inconsistent with these cherished beliefs.

I stand in support of the amendment to lower the voting age.

The distinction our society makes between its citizens before and after their 21st birthday is at best an arbitrary one. based on irrational medieval practices. It has no true place in a modern society. The retention of 21 as the standard voting age without contemporary justification of any sort, serves only to underscore the lack of faith in our institutions so prevalent among the young.

To those of you who ask "WhY 18?" we say that 18 is the year that many Americans truly come of age. It is the year in which 4.1 million Americans enter the full-time labor force. being taxed regularly without representation. At 18, 800,- 000 Americans become eligible for conscription into the armed services. without a voice representing them in every avenue of government. The 18-year-olds are subject to the full criminal law of 49 States. without an opportunity to shape that law.

Recognized as adults by the military, the Federal Civil Service. and insurance companies, among others, 11.5 million Americans between 18 and 21 can no longer be told that they are ineligible for what the Constitution mandates for those with whom they share equal social, economic, and legal status.

We are concerned here with a unique generation. Today 18-year-olds are far better prepared for the tasks and responsibilities of citizenship than any past generation of any nation. They are better equipped physically and intellectually. They are politically aware to a remark.able degree. It is the young of this Nation who are challenging the practices and the empty rhetoric of Government; our young people who have manned the Peace Corps and VISTA programs; who have galvanized the civil rights movement; who have brought the disaster of Vietnam to the forefront of national debate; who, last April 22, dramatically warned us that there is precious little time remaining to save our environment.

Their ideas and actions, their maturity and compassion have represented the best in us. Their desire to influence the system is deeply held and utterly sincere. We must not. through an inability to relate to the urgent needs and demands of the times, force them to seek alternative means to this legitimate influence on institutions and events. They must not be denied the most equi • equitable, rational way for their voice and commitments to be heard, at the polls. While their interests, ideals, and energies are at their very peak, they must be allowed to express their views, at the Polls, in local, State. and national Political contests and debate.

We recognize that there exists, as evidenced by the actions of the 91st Congress. -a broad-based consensus of support for the extension of voting rights to 18-year-olds. In the last session, by amendment to the 1970 Voting Rights Act, the franchise was granted to all citizens of 18 years of age in all elections. On December 10, 1970, the Supreme Court, in Oregon against Mitchell, sustained the act, insofar as it applied to national elections, but ruled that Congress could not legislate the voting standards for State and local elections.

The Court's ruling left this Nation with a choice between two distinct courses of action: Separate measures by the individual States to lower the voting age, or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To leave this issue to the hands of the individual States is to invite chaos, confusion, delay, and added expense, which few States, confronted by fiscal crisis, can afford. A significant segment of the 18- to 21-year-old citizens might not be granted the franchise for some time to come. More than 20 States could not amend their constitutions prior to November 1972. Separate absentee ballots, registration list, and voting rolls would be required. Additional staff personnel, new voting machines, separate voting booths or polling places for 18-year-olds would also have to be provided. This wasteful and confusing duplication would be expensive as well. It is estimated that the procedures would cost Connecticut $1.3 million, New Jersey $1.5 million. St. Louis $2.5 million, New York City $5 million. Similar costs would be incurred across the Nation. For at least these States and probably more, 1972 election procedures would be chaotic as well as expensive.

Moreover, if some States lowered the voting age to 18 while others did not, the basic democratic right to vote in all elections would be determined by where the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds lived. A young person in one State would be able to vote in all elections, while his counterpart of equal age in a neighboring State could participate only in national elections, fully qualified to elect a President and a Vice President, but not a mayor or a city councilman. The cost, the chaos, and the confusion of this course of action, coupled with its inequities make it clearly unacceptable. For this to take place in America would be a clear mockery of our democratic principles. ·

A constitutional amendment is the only viable solution. It would apply the 18-year-old voting standard to every State. Passage now, while there is still time for three-fourths of the State legislatures to insure ratification before the 1972 elections is the simplest procedure for establishing uniform voting rights throughout this Nation, and for signaling to all of America that indeed we in the Congress are beginning to listen. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment.

Mr. COTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 223, the constitutional amendment to allow 18-year-olds to vote in State and local elections. ·

I know that some Members have and will focus on the additional costs of not allowing 18-year-olds to vote in State and local elections. The costs of separate voting booths or paper ballots for 18-yearolds permitted to vote in Federal, but not State and local elections is admittedly high; but the issue for me goes beyond these costly mechanical problems. I believe that our Nation will be strengthened by the extension of the 18-year-old vote. It is this belief that convinced me that my first legislative act in Congress would be to introduce a bill to extend the vote for 18-year-olds in State and local elections. At this point in my statement, I include my speech made when I introduced my bill:

A JOINT RESOLUTION .ALLOWING 18-YEAR-OLD CrrIZENS To VoTE IN LOCAL AND STATE ELECTIONS

Mr. CoTrER. Mr. Speaker, today with a number of my colleagues, I am introducing a joint resolution that will enfranchise our 18-year-old citizens for local and State elections.

I am aware that reasonable men have honest differences over the advisability of allowing our younger citizens to vote. The Congress in the last session passed a bill which was upheld by the Supreme Court that enfrancised our young citizens for Federal and State elections.

The Supreme Court taking a narrow view of the Constitution limitations struck down the provision of that part of the act that enfrancised. the young voters for State and local elections. I do not question the authority of the High Court to strike down this section of the Voting Rights Act, but I do feel that the Congress has the obligation to place this crucial subject before the American people again. This time, the means will be a constitutional amendment.

The State and local governmental units are the most readily accessible to our citizens. It seems to be contradictory to allow these young citizens to vote for national elections and deny them the ballot for Sta.te and local elections. A responsible Government must have the participation of all the citizens.

By 1972, it is estimated that 11.5 million citizens will be between 18 and 21. This is 8 percent of the voting population. The influx of young voters has been treated by some people as a plague that must be stopped. I disagree.

The concept of participatory democracywhich has served us so well for almost 200 yea.rs-will be strengthened by the addition of young voters. My contact with young people has convinced me that on balance their idealism and concern will be beneficial to the myriad of problems that now confront our local governmental institutions.

Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, this body has officially gone on record in support of the right of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds to vote in Federal elections. That right now must be extended to all elections through the constitutional amendment procedure.

There is little doubt that this group of young people today are quite. capable of handling the obligations of citizenship. They have fought honorably and well in a difficult war in Southeast Asia. The vast majority have worked for responsible change in our society within the framework provided by law.

Now we must extend their ability to contribute to building a better America by permitting them to participate in State and local elections.

The passage of the 18-year-old voting law last year and its subsequent approval by the Supreme Court for Federal elections caused tremendous havoc for State election officials. Most States are faced with setting up dual election rolls-one for Federal elections and one for State elections. Also separate polling booths will probably be needed in many locations.

Several States are now seeking approval of 18-year-old voting rights under State law. However, in numerous cases the procedure is too cumbersome to assure action in time for the 1972 elections. The constitutional amendment route would still permit adequate protection of the rights of the States while at the same time speeding up the changeover process.

I have personally met with numerous young people in my district and have found them to be fully ready to handle the responsibilities of participatory democracy. In fact by extending this right to the local level, I would venture to say that the youth of America will see this avenue as a far more successful means to change our society for the better.

The resulting challenge by our young people and their ideas might even increase the participation in the political process by our more apathetic adults. In the final analysis, I am convinced that this amendment will result in an improvement in the quality of government and politics in America.

Mr. LEGGErI'. Mr. Chairman, in the United States the right to determine who shall represent the people and thus who shall make the policy decisions which effect the people is the keystone of our democracy. Since we do not have a direct democracy, the closest each citizen may come to shaping policy decisions is to vote for those candidates who most closely share his philosophy of government, his approach to solving problems, or his stated position on selected issues. The issue before us today will not change our principles, only our application of those principles. What we seek is to establish a uniform, constructive, and just standard to determine who shall and shall not vote in relation to the age of the individual.

House Joint Resolution 223 would establish the age level at which all qualified citizens may vote at 18 years of age. By statute this has been established as the age requirement in all Federal elections. However, in the 50 States there is no uniform standard for age. Ratification of this constitutional amendment by the States would bring about a uniformity in this respect.

This constitutional amendment would also bring about another significant change in that it would bring into balance the age at which our citizens may responsibily participate in determining those laws. In recent years this argument has been put forward by those who have reasoned "If a young man is old enough to die for his country, he is old enough to vote." · 1 do not reject this argument, but I feel that it does not lend itself to uniform application. It is similar to treating a symptom of disease and ignoring both . the disease and its cause.

At 18 years of age each citizen is held to be responsible for his actions before the law and is treated as an adult. It is unimportant whether this is a draft law which affects only the male population, or the income tax which pays for the system of priorities established by the people's elected representatives, or the criminal law which regulates the relation of the individual to society. What is important is that not just one, but every facet of the individual's life is regulated by his elected representatives and he is accountable for his observance of these standards at age 18.

To bring the age of responsibility into alinement with the age of accountability would go a long way in making our present system more just and more productive. We must give those individuals who are affected by a governmental decision a chance to participate in the making of that decision. We must do this not simply because it is just, although it is, but because it provides those who must make the decision with the most comprehensive view of the ramifications of their decision.

An example where this has proven to be a workable approach to decisionmaking may be seen on the college campuses of the Nation. It is ironical that this is also the place where the opponents of the 18-year-old vote choose to point. However, both sides look at different results of the same overall picture. In those universities where students have little or no say in the policy development of the university there has been a significantly greater incidence of violence than in those universities where the students have an effective means to communicate their viewpoints to those who make policy.

There is a great similarity between · a college where the student does not make the decision but knows his viewpoint has been fully considered and a State or Federal Government where an elected representative makes the decision on the basis of the views expressed by his constituents at the ballot box. The ratification of this constitutional amendment has the potential to greatly lessen the tension of the younger members of our society which has resulted from the practice of holding them accountable without allowing them responsible participation. At present there is no effective way for those individuals between the age of 18 and 21 to directly relate to the Government officers who make the decisions which affect them. In the past this has led to indifference, alienation, and rebellion. It has led to demonstrations as a means of communication, because it was the only means available.

The desire to be heard, the desire to participate in a meaningful way, and the desire to share responsibilities are not something new that has come from those seeking the vote at age 18. It is a phenomenon that has occurred repeatedly throughout - our history each time a minority of citizens has been excluded from participation in their government. It has appeared in the past in terms of religion, race, and sex. It appears now as a matter of justice and good sound government in the form of age. I urge all my colleagues to join me in setting aside this unjust barrier to participation in our Government as we turned aside other barriers in the past.

Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, the House this week has the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment of major importance--the enfranchisement of 18-year-olds for all elections.

On January 14, 1971, I joined with three other House colleagues in asking for cosponsors to this amendment. More than 90 House Members put their names on the amendment during the first few weeks of the year. The Congress has acted quickly, and, if the amendment passes the House, the States will be able to ratify it in time for the 1972 elections. As we all know, the Senate voted unanimously last week to pass this measure. I am confident that the House will demonstrate its overwhelming approval this week.

There should be no argument against the 18-year-old vote. The 18-year-olds are mature enough to vote. Our choice of age 21 is the result of an 11th century edict that 21 was the age at which most males were capable of carrying armor. We are sending men far younger to fight an unconscionable war in Southeast Asia. Their armor is more modern, but the principle is the same.

There are more than 11 million 18- to 21-year-olds in this country today. About half of these are married and more than 1 million are raising families. An additional 1,400,000 are in the Armed Forces and thousands have died so far in Indochina.

Today, more than 3 million people ages 18 to 21 are full-time employees and taxpayers. As former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has stated:

We subject 10-12 million young citizens between 17 and 21 years of age to taxation without representation. This is four times the population of the Colonies the night the t.ea was dumped in Boston harbor . It exceeds the population of all but several of the States of the Union.

If we believe that we have the right to ask those between 18 and 21 to pay taxes, support the Government, and die in an undeclared war, then we owe them the right to a direct , constructive, and democratic channel for making their views felt and for giving them a stake in the future of the country.

The fight for the 18-year-old vote is not a recent phenomenon. In my State of Massachusetts a constitutional amendment was introduced in the general court in 1943 to lower the age to 18. It died in committee. Similar proposals were rePorted favorably, but did not come to the floor vote in 1951, failed in committee in 1952, and were again favorably reported, but did not come to the floor in 1953.

In his annual message of January 6, 1954, Gov. Christian Herter endorsed the move to extend the vote to 18-year-olds. In the same year, the proposal reached the :floor of the State senate, but was defeated. In 1955, a similar measure was taken as far as the joint session of the general court only to fail. Similar attempts were made in years following, but . with no success until 1970.

In 1970, the general court acted favorably for the required second time on a proposed amendment for 19-year-olds and the citizens of the State ratified the amendment at the polls. Thus, Massachusetts has a 19-year-old vote in all elections, and an 18-year-old vote in national elections. The general court also last year gave first approval to the 18- year-old vote. They must approve it again, and again set it before the voters. Such a procedure is expensive, unnecessary and complicated. Even if it succeeds, 18-year-olds will not be allowed to vote until January 1, 1973. We can solve part of the problem today by passing the constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court decision declaring that 18-year-olds have the right to vote in national, but not State elections has created a chaotic and expensive problem. For instance, it has been estimated that it will cost New York City an additional $5 million to print, distribute, and count the separate ballots which will be needed in the 1972 election if the constitutional amendment before us today is not passed and ratified by the necessary number of States.

Even with its 19-year-old voting age, Massachusetts still has almost 100,000 voters who are 18 and would thus be precluded from voting on the State level. It has been estimated that new ballots for younger voters should not cost more than $40,000. But Massachusetts is one of the luckier States. Nevertheless, unless we pass the amendment before us today, Massachusetts 18-year-olds will have no chance of voting on the State level in 1972.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the time has come now to extend the franchise to 18-year-olds in all elections. They are mature enough. They have earned the right to vote by the fact that they are responsible citizens. Our society has much to gain by bringing the force of the idealism and concern and energy of the 18-year-olds into the constructive mechanism of elective government. I look forward to voting for this amendment. Mrs. GRASSO. Mr. Chairman, I whole heartedly support the proposal before us today for a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age nationwide to 18 for all elections.

It is vital that the House favorably pass on this measure in hopes that States will have sufficient time to ratify the proposed amendment in time for the 1972 elections. As we all know, the last Congress extended the franchise to citizens 18 years of age and older in both Federal and State elections with passage of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970. However, the Supreme Court held this legislation to be unconstitutional as 1t applied to State elections, necessitating a constitutional change to fulfill Congress' original intent.

In the meantime, the Court decision has presented most of the State with a dilemma. The constitutional amendment proposal is essential for my State of Connecticut, even though the State's electorate turned down by a small margin a State referendum on the issue this past November, as we must now consider the utter confusion and substantial cost of maintaining dual balloting procedures resulting from the Court decision. The Connecticut General Assembly substautiated its concern for passage of this amendment proposal on March 3 by becoming the first legislature in the Nation to approve a resolution memorializing the Congress to amend the Constitution to lower the voting age to 18.

I have watched with great pride the development of the 18-year-old vote issue through the continuing efforts of many young people in my State as well as throughout the country. The cogent arguments which to me have long established the validity and justice of enfranchising 18- to 20-year-olds still apply. However, at this time the crucial need for successful passage of this amendment proposal must go beyond the ideal to the reality of unnecessary additional State government spending and impending confusion at the polls if the Constitution is not amended on the 18- year-old vote issue before the 1972 elections.

The young people of America are looking with hope to the House of Representatives today to register a vote of confidence in the ability of our Nation's youth tion. to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process in our democracy which affects all our lives. I am sure they will not be disappointed.

Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18 in State, local, and Federal elections.

I have long favored granting the vote to 18-year-olds across the country, and in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, the action we are taking today, in amending the Constitution, is clearly necessary and germane.

There is a lot to be said for extending the vote to 18-year-olds. Their qualifications, in my view, are as strong as 21- year-olds; they are knowledgeable, they are deeply concerned, they are just as interested in, and more willing to directly participate in, the political processes, than many of their elders.

Above all, 18-year-olds are just as closely affected by the policies of their Government as are their parents and their grandparents. "Old Enough to Fight: Old Enough to Vote" still holdsperhaps poignantly, when viewed in relation to many of the 50,000 Americans who have died in Southeast Asia but who have never cast a ballot for the country they gave their life for.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to pass this amendment, and to grant 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds the rights that have been too long denied them.

The 18-year-old vote can start to make our system of Government truly responsive and it will help dissolve the distrust many hold.

Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision affirming the right of 18-year-olds to vote in Federal, but not State or local elections, it is imperative that Congress act quickly to pass a constitutional amendment granting them suffrage in all elections. President Johnson proposed such an amendment in 1968. I was proud to give it my strong support then, and I am happy to be the sponsor of House Joint Resolution 195, identical to the bill now before the House.

There are basically two crucially important reasons behind the urgent need for granting the vote to our 18-year-old citizens. One is philosophical or moral; the other practical.

First, our democratic society is committed to the notion that government must be as representative of, and responsive to, its citizens as PoSSible. Thus we have seen the extension of the franchise during our history to the unpropertied, to women, and to minority groups.

It is a simple fact that our young citizens today are mentally and emotionally capable of full participation in our democratic form of government. Today, more than half of the 18-to-21- year-olds are receiving some type of higher education. Nearly 80 percent of these young people are high school graduates. They are more knowledgeable and aware of the issues and processes of government than any previous generaFurthermore, today's 18-to-21-yearolds already bear all or most of an adult citizen's responsibilities. About half are married, and more than a million of them have children. Another 1,400,000 are serving their country-serving all of us-in the Armed Forces.

More than 3,000,000 are full-time employees and taxpayers, subjected to taxation without representation. In 26 States persons of 18 years can make wills. In every State except California, they are treated as adults in criminal courts. Surely, a citizen's rights in our society ought to be commensurate with his responsibilities. their By willingness to shoulder adult responsibilities, our young citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have clearly earned the right to vote in all elections. Furthermore, they have a great deal to contribute to our society. We must channel their idealism and concern for the important issues of our time into our political system and give young people real opportunities to influence our society in a peaceful and constructiVe manner.

Practically speaking, it is . absurd to maintain that young people are mature enough t.o vote in Federal elections, but not in State or local elections. All of the arguments advanced in favor of lowering the voting age apply with equal for~ to State and local elections. Indeed, many of the areas in which young people have expressed the greatest interest-for example, the quality of education and the state of the environment-are primarily matters of local concern.

Second, the administrative problems of creating and maintaining a dual system of voting raise the danger of profound confusion, delay, and added expense in the electoral process. In the 4 7 States which have not yet extended the franchise to 18-year-olds, separate systems of registration and voting must be established for nearly 1 O percent of the previous voting-age population-more than 10 million young people. Many State legislatures have already begun action to lower their voting age to 18 years, but only eight expect to complete action in time for the 1972 elections. Thus, a Federal constitutional amendment offers the only realistic hope for 18-year-olds voting in the State and local elections of 1972.

I am convinced that the time has come to lower the voting age to 18 in every election across the land-because it is right to do so. And, if the many problems of dual-age voting force us to confront the question more promptly, so much the better. I urge my colleagues to complete action on this bill at the earliest possible date, so that the amendment may soon be sent to the States for early ratification.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support House Joint Resolution 223 to lower the voting age to 18 for all elections. As the sponsor of a similar res­ older. olution, House Joint Resolution 146, I have long held the opinion that our antiquated and arbitrary 21-year-old limit should be changed.

Today, thanks to what the Supreme Court left of the Voting Rights Act of 1970, all 18-year-olds can vote in elections for Federal office. Now, in order to extend this privilege to all electionslocal and State-and in order to avoid the costly and inevitably confusing dual system of voting in 1972, we must adopt this resolution calling for a constitutional amendment.

The young people of our country certainly possess the maturity to vote. They also possess the mental and emotional capabilities to exercise their voting privilege. Presently, over half of the 18- to 21-year-olds are receiving some form of higher education. Over 75 percent of them are high school graduates. This contrasts with 1920 figures when only 20 percent were high school graduates.

Eighteen-year-olds bear most of the adult responsibilities today. Of the 11 million young citizens we are discussing today, over half are married. A million and a half are serving - in the . Armed Forces. In the majority of States, 18- year-olds can make wills. In 49 States, they are treated as adults by criminal courts. The inconsistency of the logic that a young per.son is an adult when he may commit a crime but he is not to be considered an adult in the electoral process is patently obvious.

Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, these young people can make a great contribution to our political system and society. The headlines are grabbed by some violent, troublemaking youthswho comprise such a very small percentage of the young population. The overwhelming majority of these people are engaged in peaceful, thoughtful attempts to better our society. They are striving for the ideals of peace, understanding and a perfect environment. We need these people and their ideals and we need them in our system. We must let them know that their voices can and are being heard. We cannot afford to shut them out.

Aside from the merits of letting 18- year-olds vote, we have the problem of establishing a dual system of voting. Pragmatically, how can we expect the States of the Union to run a dual system in 1972. Eighteen-year-olds will be able to line up for President but not for Governor. It is estimated that the costs involved may run up to $20 million. As it is now, election officials have a difficult time handling the voters during the peak hours in the morning and late afternoon. Without the adoption of this resolution, I see long lines of people waiting at the polling places all day long-confused, tired, and upset.

I trust that the 50 State legislatures will act promptly to correct this inconsistency in voting rights and by 1972, 18-year-olds will be able to vote in all elections.

Mr. CRANE . Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the constitutional amendment which will extend the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age and As you may recall, I opposed legislation in the 91st Congress which would have allowed the 18-year-old vote. I argued at that time that - the Congress lacked power to accomplish this change by statute and that it was taking a shortsighted detour by trying to lower the voting age by legislation. I opposed the legislation because it would have forced the various States to maintain dual registrations and imposed additional complications and expenses of the States in the conduct and holding of elections. A constitutional amendment is the proper legal procedure, however, under which the several States still maintain the right to ratify the change while eliminating substantial administrative burdens and costs which would otherwise be incurred by the States and avoiding the dangers of uncertainty, delay, and confusion inherent in such a system. Would that the Congress had approved this constitutional approach last year.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, last year the Congress saw fit to give the vote to those citizens between the ages of 18 and 21. The Supreme Court interpreted this right of the franchise to apply in Federal but not State and local elections because, the Court said, Congress could not establish a voting age for the States except by constitutional amendment.

That decision has posed what could become a confusing and expensive problem for many States and localities. A solution to that problem is the proposed amendment we are considering in the House today which would amend the Constitution to give the franchise to those 18 years or older in all elections. In the interest of ending the confusion and warding off the probability of separate elections for Federal, State, and local officials, it is important that this amendment be acted upon soon by the Congress, and ratified by the State legislatures. Officials have estimated that the cost of conducting separate elections would be in the neighborhood of $10-$20 million. This burden would have to be assumed by the States, with no guarantee that it could not be greater.

These enormous costs result largely from the large amount of paperwork involved. Some State officials also say that along with the added paperwork, they might have to add new voting machines, or else use other voting methods such as paper ballots.

If we do not act to correct this con· fusion, 47 of our States would require special procedures for the voters between the ages of 18 and 21, who make up 10 percent of these States' previous voting age population.

Among these procedures are the mixed use of paper ballots and voting machines for different age groups, or special "lock out" systems which would allow for the polling place to adjust the voting machine to the qualifications of the voter. Unfortunately these systems have a drawback which is inherent when standard voting systems are tampered withthe possibility of voting error and election fraud.

Even if we overlook these potential problems we cannot ignore the fact that in registering and taking ballots- from an electorate which has two different sets of qualifications, voters could face delays of a major sort, delays which in the end could reduce the number of our citizens who exercise their right to vote.

That is the exact opposite of what democracy is all about.

Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Chairman, lowering the voting age to 18 has, in recent years, gained broad, national support from all segments of the political and ideological spectrum. Responding and participating in the emerging consensus, the 9lst Congress enacted title III of the Voting Rights Act of 1970, lowering the voting age to 18 in all Federal, State, and local elections, primary and general. However, on December 21, 1970, under the constitutional interpretation that Congress lacks power to lower the voting age by Federal statute in State and local elections, the Supreme Court, in Oregon against Mitchell, ruled that the Voting Rights Act is constitutional only insofar as it applies to Federal election. Since December, the decision has been considered a grave obstacle to the reality of 18-year-old vote.

However, the Oregon against Mitchell court decision must not be misinterpreted. The decision was a block to the extension of congressional power into the States-it was not meant to be a block against the general principle of lowering the voting age to 18. Consequently, today the question of allowing 18-year-olds to vote is no longer a question of whether, but of when and how.

Very few will contend that people who may already vote for the President should not have the power to vote for county sheriff or State assemblyman. All of the arguments in favor of lowering the voting age are equally as applicable to State and local elections as to Federal elections.

If young people are mature enough to vote on Federal issues, they are no less mature in state and local issues. If young people have earned the right to vote by bearing the Federal responsibilities of citizenship, they have borne no less of State and local responsibilities. If we need the energy and idealism of the young channeled into elective politics, we need it no less at the State and local level. Many feel that the young people's concerns of environment, civil rights, and education are in fact more relevant to the local and State levels.

Thus, the problem is no longer one of philosophical preferences, but only of the mechanism needed to insure a uniform voting age by 1972. Since the Supreme Court determined the Voting Rights Act t.o be applicable only to Federal elections, a prodigious burden has been placed on State and local offi.cials due to the dual-age system of registration and voting. The system will be "confusing, expensive, and subject to other serious problems." First of all, special, separate facilities and procedures will have to be developed for younger voters who are eligible only to vote in Federal elections. This will not be a small task- 47 states will have to deal specially with at least 10 million Potential voters. This separation of voters into two classes will have t.o be done in at least two different stages-at registration and each time the voters come 1io the polls. Thus, this dual system of voting will cause much confusion for poll workers, cause deficiencies in the use of voting machines and cause an increase in the time it takes to vote.

Adding to this burden of confusion and work, put upon the States, will be the burden of increased expense. Oregon Att.orney General Lee Johnson assessed the expense to be basically of two types: Initial expenses for new physical equipment required to handle two classes of voters, and the ongoing expenses of sustaining and maintaining two sets of registration books, election supervisors, and the llke.

The cost.s will naturally vary from State to State, but election officials now suggest that the nationwide cost involved is no less than $10 to $20 million. In California alone, it is estimated that the cost to keep separate files for under-21 voters and over-21 voters will be an additional $5 million.

Obviously, this chaotic and expensive situation in the States must be alleviated. The dual-age system must be terminated before the 1972 election. Presently, such termination is being left up to the States. In almost all the States, it would take a State constitutional amendment to lower the voting age. However, very few of the 47 States consider it possible to complete such action in time for the 1972 elections. Only eight States reported that it would be possible to lower their voting age by amending the State constitution before the 1972 elections. Only eight States reported that it would be possible to lower their voting age by amending the State constitution before the 1972 election without resorting to some extraordinary procedure such as a specially called election.

As I see it, an amendment to the Federal Constitution remains the only realistic possibility of lowering the voting age to 18 for all elections before 1972. currently, it appears that at least 35 State legislatures are required by law to meet in 1972; and another five legislatures could easily meet without the calling of a special session. The time is latevery late--but there is still enough time to accomplish the necessary amendment procedures prior to State and Federal elections in 1972. In the past, constitutional amendments have often been ratified in a year or less. For example, the 12th amendment was ratified in 8 months and the 23d amendment was ratified in 9 months.

As a matter of constitutional law, the Supreme Court's decision may have been correct; however, the result is morally indefensible. There is no basis whatsoever in policy or in logic for denying young citizens the right to vote in State and local elections. As Theodore Sorensen so aptly stated:

The very essence of democracy requires that its electoral base be as broad as the standards of fairness and logic permit.

In all fairness and logic, the U.S. Constitution must be amended in order to assure the equality of 18-year vote in local, State, and Federal elections.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a question vital to the growth and expanded participation in our national life by a knowledgeable, thoughtful, concerned group of citizens-those 18 to 21 years old.

As part of my experience as a Member of Congress, I have had the pleasure of meeting, talking with, and answering the questions of hundreds of young people in this age group. These conversations have reinforced my belief that the majority of today's 18-year-olds are equally, or more, constructively aware, concerned, and serious about the state of their community, Nation, and world as the 21- year-olds of even two decades ago were. The voting age was established at 21 many years ag~for reasons that no longer exist. It is my feeling that when the reason for the rule no longer exists, then the rule should be changed. That is why I rise today in support of the proposal that the Constitution of this great Nation be amended to give the right, privilege, and responsibility of the ballot in all elections to those persons who have reached their 18th birthday.

Young people are drafted into our military services today at 18 and expected to be willing to make the final sacrifice for the freedom of our country.

Eighteen-year-olds are allowed to marry and take on the extensive responsibilities of a family. They may take independent legal actions at the age of 18. And they are held responsible in court at the age of 18.

It is to me untenable that these same 18-year-olds should be held not sufficiently mature to make their wishes known at the ballot box on the offi.cials and the policies which will represent them at all levels of government.

On January 22, I introduced a resolution calling for the amendment of the Constitution giving the right of the ballot in elections at all levels of government to citizens who have reached their 18th birthday.

Since that time I have talked with many young persons who are at this age, or who will be 18 within the next 3 years. Their interest in the course being charted through history by this Nation and their constructive attitude . e in this area: has strengthened my resolve to support this change in our Nation's Constitution.

I urge and implore those of my colleagues who have not joined me in recognizing the maturity and value of the contributions these young people can make, to do so at this time. Vote to give them the privilege of the ballot.

. Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the Senate has passed a con- . stitutional amendment to grant 18-yearolds the right to vote in any election. The need for this amendment is clear.

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided in December that 18-year-olds are eligible to vote in national elections, the Court declined to accept a lower voting age for State and local elections. This decision, while proper, has created a good amount of confusion for election officials and young people alike. The Court action has clearly demonstrated the need for Congress to approve a constitutional amendment which can be submitted to the States for ratification.

Last June when this body approved the statutory lowering of the voting age, I urged that we act not by statute of Congress but by amendment to the Constitution. This is the right way t.o achieve our goal. Constitutional integrity requires an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The merits of the proposal are also evident. Throughout our Nation's history we have enlarged the number of citizens eligible to vote.

I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 18 because young people can intelligently participate as voters. In the United States 18-year-olds are considered adults. They are accountable for their actions. Most may sue and be sued. Many of those in the age group 18 to 21 are working, raising families, paying taxes, and leading productive lives. Most are keenly aware and interested in the world around them and are anxious to participate in the formulation of governmental policy through the traditional vehicle of the ballot box.

Mr. Chairman I support the constitutional amendment, and I hope it ls promptly approved by the House of Representatives and the 38 States needed for ratification.

Mr. BADILLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support . of this resolution, which I was proud to cosponsor on the first day of the 92d Congress. Speedy enactment of this legislation represents not only a reiteration of the principle embodied in last year's voting rights legislation but also a recognition that a dual voting age system would be an unwarranted and costly administrative burden for our States to assume.

The resolution before us today is one of the last steps in what has been an unduly prolonged effort to give full voting rights to Americans 18 years and older. It was my privilege, as a delegate to New York State's constitutional convention in 1967 to support an 18-year-old vote provision to the proposed constitution which un· fortunately was defeated at the polls.

As cochairman of a newly launched registration drive aimed at promoting full electoral participation of our younger voters iJ?. New York, I am convinced that by enacting this legislation we can make great strides toward healing the wounds and closing the divisions which has appeared within our society in recent years. Only by correcting the injustice in our present electoral system can we give millions of our younger citizens the realistic hope that governmental institutions can resPond to the needs and desires of the people.

The overwhelming majorities in both House and Senate last year for the 18- year-old vote provision is sufficient evidence that at long last the Congress acknowledges the ability of these young people to exercise the franchise privilege. Our action here today will not only reaffirm that recognition but enable it to become an integral part of our political system by · the next general election.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution deserves the strong support I am confident our colleagues will give it.

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I strongly favor the passage of House Joint Resolution 223, proposing a constitutional amendment to extend voting rights to Americans 18 years of age and older. I have been a cosponsor of this proposal in this and in the previous Congress.

The House has already expressed its support for the 18-year-old vote with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1970. At the time this legislation was agreed to here last year, I felt strongly that there was inadequate time for full debate. I also believed that there was a serious constitutional question involved and that this was a matter requiring a constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court decision in which this law was tested has resulted in the approval of the 18-year-old vote for Federal elections and the retention of existing State requirements for State and local elections. This is an inequitable situation, indeed, and places a burden on the States who have not adopted the 18-year-old vote which will be both costly and confusin g .

First, the present situation presents an inequity for young voters. If 18-yearolds have been adjudged mature and responsible enough to vote in Federal elections, should not these same qualifications entitle them to vote in State and local elections? As a result, we have an absurd situation where the 18-year-old citizen now may cast his vote for presidential candidates, but is denied a vote in a local sheriff's race. He may participate in selecting who represents him in the U.S. Senate, but he may not participate in choosing a Governor of his State.

Among the elements of confusion which the States now face in conducting elections is the cost of maintaining a dual system of voting. At the present time, only three States permit 18-yearolds to vote. For the other 47 States, dual-age voting would be required as a result of the existing Federal law and the Supreme Court's decision regarding it. This would entail the establishment of broad new procedures, additional election officials and costly voting machines. Additional costs of establishing separate procedures and facilities for Federal and State and local voting have been estimated as high as $5 million in New York City, $2.5 million for St. Louis, and $1.5 million for the State of New Jersey. No State or municipality can afford such a tremendous increase in expenses.

It is this reason which imposes an urgency in enacting this change before the 1972 general election. The only realistic way in which this can be accomplished is by amending the Constitution. Most State legislatures are meeting this year and could act on this proposal without delay.

As you know, the Senate last week passed this resolution without a dissenting vote. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution just as conclusively so that its consideration by the State legislatures can begin at the earliest possible time.

Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, the Constitutional amendment which would give 18-year-olds the right to vote in State and local elections as well as in national elections for Federal offi.ceholders is an important one.

The 91st Congress, by extraordinary majorities in each Chamber, approved a Federal statute designed to lower the minimum voting age to 18 in Federal, State, and local elections. This action expressed a congressional judgment that the educational level reached by 18-yearolds, their civic and military obligations, and their readiness and capacity to participate in the political process rendered unreasonable a minimum voting age classification above 18.

Congressional action with regard to Federal elections has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, but this has not been the case with provisions concerning State and local elections.

At this time nine States permit persons under 21 years of age to vote, but only three-Alaska, Georgia, and Kentucky-permit 18-year-olds to vote. As a result, 47 States now confront a dual voting age system wherein 18-year-olds may vote in Federal elections but not in State elections.

Recently, a nationwide survey among election offi.cials indicated that a dual system would be expensive and administratively burdensome to operate. In addition, it carries with it the potential for confusion in the tabulation of election results and the possibility that separate election facilities and procedures will have to be developed.

Whatever new separate procedures and facilities are ultimately established, election offi.cials expect that substantial added costs to State and local governments will be involved. Estimates of these additional expenses are 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; Chicago, $200,000.

At this time many State legislatures are currently attempting to bring their voting age qualifications into line with the Federal standards in time for the 1972 elections. In my own State of New

York, for example, a proposal to lower the voting age has already been passed by the State legislature and is scheduled to be voted on in a popular referendum later this year. Similar referendums on the question 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 to produce the desired voting age uniformity in time. Revision of the State voting age qualifications seems to require an amendment to the State constitution in every State. Processing such an amendment differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but at least 16 States make provision for the submission of a proposed amendment to two separate sessions of the legislature, to be followed by a referendum. Because not all State legislatures meet annually, and for related reasons of procedure, it appears that more than 20 States will be unable to lower the State voting age prior to November 1972.

Although individual State efforts to achieve national voting age uniformity by 1972 by State constitutional amendment seem futile, ratification of the proposed new article embodied in House Joint Resolution 223 seems to be a realistic possibility by the next national election.

Since more than 45 State legislatures are meeting this year-and approximately half that number are scheduled to meet in 1972 and special sessions in the fall of 1971 and in the spring o: 1972—and Will probably deal with the issue of reapportionment, a reasonable period exists within which the State legislatures may act to ratify the proposed new article of amendment.

This proposed amendment seeks to accomplish a very important national purpose; namely, the extension of the franchise in all elections to millions of American citizens fully qualified to participate in the political processes of the Nation and the States.

It is my belief that young Americans between the ages of 18 and 21 have proven their own ability to participate in our political processes. To some it may appear a fairly new trend, but in my own district, in the city of Buffalo, the idea of involving young people in politics began more than 16 years ago when school superintendent Joseph Manch was an assistant superintendent for pupil personnel services.

It was Dr. Manch's belief then and now that young people should be provided with a forum where they could exchange ideas, develop stud;ent-initia ted codes, and encourage active participation in school affairs.

This belief gave birth to the interhigh school student council in 1954 which gained nationwide attention almost overnight with its "Dress Right" code. The code, initiated and approved by students, was initiated throughout the country.

Student involvement has grown steadily over these · e 16 years in Buffalo. In 1967, Dr. Manch first proposed student involvement in curriculum planning. It began work in the summer of 1968 and by last July more than 50 students were working with the facultystudent curriculum committees at Fillmore Middle School. Thirty-three separate committees worked on different areas of the curriculum, one of them on a reference guide dealing with the problems of drug abuse, alcohol, and tobacco. Today there are six distinct programs that involve Buffalo public school students in the operation of their schools. In addition to the student council and faculty-student curriculum committees, students participate in interracial clubs, the school-community advisory committee, student-teacher career guidance committees, and student-teacher textbook and supply review committees.

Writing about this program, Paul Price said the following in a recent article in der 21. the Buffalo Evening ;News:

Whatever the program, it re:flects a basic philosophy held by Dr. Manch: Give students a chance to make decisions that affect them and they will act responsibly.

- Dr. Ma.nch himself stated that-- we have witnessed a responsible--though increasingly vocal-demand for a more active role in school affairs. The easy and da.ngerous solution to these dema.nds is to promise everything and deliver nothing, a pattern sometimes followed. with disastrous results. Once you recognize that students will be inventive, responsible members of the school community, you begin to dee.1 with problems effectively, drawing youngsters into the mainstream of education.

I believe in the young people of this Nation. They have shown themselves to be brave soldiers in Vietnam and idealistic crusaders for a better society here at home. AB with those in all other age groups, there are responsible young people and irresponsible ones. It is unfair to criticize the majority of the young people for the sins of a few, and as long as our society makes demands upon those within the 18- to 21-year-age group, it has some obligation to give them a role in choosing their government. Anything else sounds dangerously like taxation without representation or, in the case of military service, of involuntary servitude. Only when all of us, young and old together, join hands in working for a better, more equitable society can our goals be achieved. This amendment will see to it that all Americans have an equal stake in our society and will eliminate the possibility of dual voting lists, in which a citizen is deemed competent to elect his Congressman and Senator, but not his city councilman.

I am confident that young people will meet their responsibilities just as others in our society have done. For these reasons, I believe it essential that this amendment be passed.

Mr. RUNNELS. Mr. Chairman, I offer today a few thoughts on the proposed constitutional amendment which would allow 18-year-olds the right to vote in all elections. This is a matter on which I have had strong feelings for a long time.

I sincerely believe that the majority of young people between 18 and 21 years of age is mature enough and responsible enough to vote as wisely as their elders. In fact, in many instances they are probably more qualified.

We, as a society, demand much of our young people today, with the vast majority of those over 18 being highly productive citizens. Besides their contributions through the various trades and professions, these young people are also called upon to serve in many other ways. A case in point is their contribution to the defense of our country through their service in the Armed Forces. According to Defense Department statistics of June 1968, persons under 21 years of age accounted for 983,000 members of our total defense force of 3,510,000.

Just for the record it should also be pointed out that of those who have given their lives in service to their country, again a sizable percentage were Another point to consider as we act upon the amendment before us is that the Voting Rights Act of 1970 did in fact permit those 18 or older to vote in national elections. This right has been confined to the national elections because the Supreme Court last December ruled that the States would have to make their own lowered age requirements for State and local elections.

Because of this Supreme Court ruling, it has been recently discovered that it could cost between $10 and $20 million if the various States were forced to conduct the 1972 elections under a system of dual-age voting; that is, 18-year-olds voting for Federal but not State offices. The complications and confusion that could come about from such a dual system of voting would in all probability contribute to much havoc and many irregularities in next year's elections. We have had enough voting irregularities in my own State of New Mexico, in years past, and I shudder to think what could happen if the voting process were further complicated.

There are many arguments for extending the right to vote to 18-year-olds, but the most compelling one, as I see it, is that the majority of this age group works, pays taxes, raises families, and is subject to military service. They are most deserving of a voice in the affairs of government, whether it be National, State, or local.

I was cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 256, which also provided for an amendment to the Constitution extending the right to vote to 18-year-olds. Therefore, I must cast my vote in support of the measure-House Joint Resolution 223-which is before us today.

The earlier this matter is passed by the Congress, and submitted to the States for ratification, the earlier the right to vote for 18-year-olds will become a reality. It is a deserved right and privilege which is long overdue. ·

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling we in the legislative branch are, in effect, forced to adopt this constitutional amendment. In turn, three-fourths of the State legislatures will be forced to ratify it. I have consistently favored 18- year-old voting, but regret that we are achieving a good end through clearly improper means.

Believing very strongly in legitimate States' rights, I feel the decision to lower the voting age should have been reserved to each of the 50 State legislatures. Over a period of time, I am convinced there would have been a constant trend of lowering the voting age.

In my opinion, the voting pattern of the 18- through 21-year-old group will be comparable to that of the public as a whole. Contrary to the fears or visions of many political officials, I do not believe it will produce dramatic changes in election results.

However, Mr. Chairman, I reemphasize my view that the Supreme Court decision forces us to take this action and that the State legislatures will, under duress, process it and 18-year-olds will have the right to vote in the 1972 elections.

I believe they will make a positive contribution to political decisions and, hopefully, along with the responsibility of voting, their contributions will also reflect appreciation and knowledge of our governmental system.

Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman the 91st Congress showed its clear intent to lower the voting age to 18 when it passed H.R. 4249 last June. Section III established the voting age at 18 in Federal, State, and local elections, except as required by the Cons ti tu ti on.

The Supreme Court ruled the constitutional requirements prohibited lowering the voting age for State and local elections.

We are, therefore, faced with the prospect of every State, except Georgia, Hawaii, and Kentucky, having to establish separate ballots, records, and voting procedures for the 18- to 20-year-old voters. Few States are in a position to pa.ss constitutional amendments of their own prior to the general election of 1972. My own State of Minnesota is one in which the costs of a bilevel election would be prohibitive, and, without a special election, also costly, no referendum is possible until 1972.

The need is obvious. The responsibility lies with the Congress. By passing House Joint Resolution 223 we can do properly what was intended last June. We can help deliver the equity of the 18-year-old franchise, and we can give the States a way to choose economy, - a way to avoid the costs of a two-level voting system.

We are taking nothing away from the States. On the contrary, we are giving them the opportunity to ratify, if they will, the lowered voting age.

As the proud author of a successful State constitutional amendment lowering the voting age in Minnesota, I urge an affirmative vote on this constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, the proposed constitutional amendment which we are considering today is intended to make uniform the voting age requirements. These were altered by the provisions of the Voting Rights Act which lowered the voting age to 18.

I sponsored and supported that legislation, and I believe · it was the intention of _ those who voted for the provision that the lowering of the voting age would apply to all elections.

As we a.re well aware, the Supreme Court has interpreted the law to apply only to Federal elections. While this decision is undoubtedly sound legally, its practical effect is to create a dual system of elections and a different constituency for Federal as opposed to State and local elections.

The course of action which most of our colleagues would have preferred is the one we are considering todayamending the Constitution of the United States. I sponsored legislation for that purpose in the last two Congresses.

In our desire to respond more directly to the need to enfranchise our young citizens, we chose the more expedient route of amending the extension of the Voting Rights Act.

Now that we have the benefit of the decision by the Supreme Court, the necessary action should be apparent. Besides being logically questionable, the maintenance of a dual system of elections would be costly and burdensome to administer.

Mr. Chairman, the Congre.ss of the United States has made its position clear in the matter of enfranchising 18-yearolds in all elections. The merits of the issue are equally persuasive today.

Our early action on this proposed amendment would mean that our original intent would be legally realized as soon as possible. It is my hope that we can avoid the experience of a national election under the dual system which presently exists.

Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, with the passage of House Joint Resolution 223 in this body today, the Congress has completed its half of the constitutional amendment process to enfranchise 18-year-olds in all elections. It is now up to three-fourths of the State legislatures to ratify this resolution before it can become an amendment to our Constitution.

I am hopeful that the States will act favorably on this though I am aware that this proposition has not fared well at the State level in recent times. In my own State of Illinois last December voters rejected an 18-year-old vote amendment to the new State constitution by a 6-to-5 margin. Washington and Oregon have had similar experiences. These setbacks to the youth vote run contrary to the Gallup :findings in December of 1969 that 63 percent of the American people favor granting the vote to 18- to 20-yearolds while only 34 percent oppose it.

Many observers have suggested that these referendum defeats are in reaction to campus riots and war protest demonstrations. Judging from some of the mail I have received on this issue, I would have to agree that there is an element of truth in that observation. In fact, the mistaken notion that the vast majority of our young people are radicals, revolu· tionaries or hippies may be the major obstacle to overcome in the ensuing cam· paign to sell the 18-year-old vote at the State level. And I would suggest to my colleagues that while our constitutional responsibilities in this amendment process have been fulfilled by our action today, our leadership responsibilities have just begun if we are truly committed to the youth franchise. I think we can off er a great assist to our counterparts in the State legislatures by continuing to run with the ball rather than dropping it like a hot Potato.

I think it is incumbent upon us to educate the people on this issue and to dispel some of the myths which have contributed to the youth backlash. I like to begin by reminding my own constituents that of the 11 million young people, 18 to 20, over half are already part of the civilian labor force, another 800,000 are in the military, 1.1 million are housewives, and about one-fourth are enrolled in various schools. I am amazed at how many people think that most young adults between ages of 18 and 20 are college students, and of the radical variety at that.

The second myth which we must explode is that college students are committed to extremist causes. A recent Gallup poll compared student and adult attitudes toward various extremist groups and concluded that with both students and adults extremist groups on the right and left have very little appeal. In the case of the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan, less than 5 percent of both the students and adults polled gave "highly favorable" ratings; and in the case of the SDS, Black Panthers, and Weathermen, less than 10 percent of both groups gave favorable ratings. I think it is fair to conclude that the overwhelming majority of Americans both students and their elders, reject extremism on both the left and the right. I call the attention of my colleagues to the published report of the Gallup survey which will appear at the conclusion of my remarks in the RECORD.

One must ask how it is such a small band of extremists can give their entire peer group a bad image in the public mind. One possible and plausible answer has been suggested by Dr. William J. McGill, president of Columbia University, who maintains that outbreaks on campuses were "artificially contrived" and were "phenomena of mass communication.” Student unrest, according to Dr. McGill, is "a shimmering image conjured up by very able and astute student leaders who seek to capitalize on techniques of mass communication to generate the appearance of a mass movement."

Mr. Chairman, there was a time when the common expression was, "I only know what I read in the newspapers." Now it is more common to hear, "I only know what I see on the television," and I think Dr. McGill does make a valid point of distinguishing between mass movements and techniques of mass communication designed to generate the "appearance" of a mass movement. When campus demonstrations are the only campus happenings carried by the television networks, it is not long before people begin to think that college life is nothing more than a series of demonstrations and college students are all full-time demonstrators. I am not saying this in criticism of the networks; they have to make the decision as to what is newsworthy, and the sensational will always attract the cameras and the ratings. What I am saying is that it is not difficult to understand why so many of the general public have become antiyouth and antistudent, and, therefore, why there has been a reluctance to grant young people the vote.

The point I am trying to make is that we will have to explode some of the popular myths about young people if we are · to succeed in amending the Constitution to lower the voting age. And I would urge my colleagues to assist their counterparts at the State level in dispelling these myths and selling the youth vote. At this point in the RECORD I include several items relating to my remarks including the Gallup survey on extremists, a Gallup analysis of the 18 to 20 age group, a New York Times report on Dr. McGill's speech, and a Times article on the youth vote and the States. The material follows: rFrom the New York Times, Feb. 7, 1971]

COLLEGE STUDENTS SHUN Ex'raEMISTS: GALLUP SURVEY FINDS MOST AVOID THE RIGHT AND

LEFT

Extremist groups in America, on the far right and the far left, have almost as little appeal among the nation's college students as they do among the adult population as a whole, according to the Gallup Poll. Students, however, lean slightly more to the left in their ratings of these groups than do the rest of the nation.

Less than 5 per cent of both students and adults give two rightist organizations-the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan— "highly favorable" rating. At the same time, less than 10 per cent of both students and adults give a "highly favorable" rating to two leftist organizations--Students for a Democratic Society and the Black Panthers. Some slight divergence in views is found in the case of the Black Panthers. Fewer students proportionately give this organization a "highly unfavorable" rating than is true among the rest of the general public. However. strongly negative views outweigh strongly favorable Views among both groups surveyed. ·