March 23, 1971

Another leftist organization-the Weatherman-is given an overwhelmingly negative rating by students. No comparisons are available with views of the adult population as a whole.

Analysis of the ratings by background characteristics shows that the radical left groups tested are most likely to be favorably regarded by college seniors and graduate students, who are attending private institutions in the East and who come from upper-income homes.

To obtain the findings reported today a total of 1,063 students, representing 61 colleges and universities, were interviewed in a survey completed in late December. The views of the adult population as a whole were .recorded in a national survey conducted last summer, in which a total of 1,513 adults 21 and older were reached in person.

The following tables compare the ratings given by students with those of the adult population as a whole:

JOHN BmCH SOCIETY

Highly favorable

Percent Students General public ------------------------------ _________________________ 2 4

Hjghly un/Q.1JOTa.ble

Students --------------------------- 48 Genera.I public----------------------- 38

Highly favorable

Percent Students ---------------------- · -------- 2 General pu.bliC-----------------·-------- 3

Highly unfavorable students ---------------------------- 80 General public------------------------ 76

Highly favorable

Percent Students ------------------------------ 6 General publlC-------------------------- 7

Highly unfavorable

Students ---------------------------- 37 General . public--.------.--------------- 42

BLACK PANTHERS

Highly favorable

Percent Students ------------------------------ 8 General public 2

Highly unfavorable students ---------------------------- 42 General public----------------------- 75

WEATHERMEN

.Highly favorable

Percent Students ------------------------------ 8

Highly unfavorable

Students ----------------------------- 47 One of the interesting findings in the sur· vey is that among college radicals of the left and right, there is an apparent appeal in extremism for its own sake, among other factors.

For example, a significant proportion of students who describe their political philosophy as "far left" give a highly favorable rating to the John Birch Society and the K.K.K. Similarly, a sizeable percentage of students who classify themselves as “far right" give a highly favorable rating to the S.D.S., the Weathermen and the Black Panthers.

~ IF 18, 19, 20 YEAR OLDS COULD VOTE ... A PUBLIC OPINION ANALYSIS

(By George Gallup, Jr., Paul K. Perry)

If the 10.5 million Americans who are 18, J.9, and 20-years old obtain the right to vote in all 50 states they could easily change the result of close elections such as the 1968 Presidential election, when Richard Nixon and Hu1'ert Humphrey were separated by only 514,155 ‘votes, (1 per cent of the total V'ote) and the 1960 election when John Kennedy and Richard Nixon were separated by the bare margin of 118,650 votes (0.2 of 1 per cent of the total vote) .

MuCh attention lately has been focused on the 18, 19, and 20-year olds in our population, many of whom are in the process of making crucial decisions in their lives regarding their occupation, marriage, the draft, religion, and politics. This raises the question as to :what are the available facts about them.

About one in three civilians 18, 19, and 20 years old are currently enrolled in colleges and universities. Two persons in three (7 million or 66 per cent) have completed four years of high school; about 2.9 million (28 per cent) have completed one to three years of high school while 600,000 have had less education.

Data. in a January, 1970 Bureau of Labor Statistics report indicated that about 5.9 million 18, 19, and 20-years olds were in the civilian labor force. Of this number about 5.2 million were employed and 600,000 un• employed. Another 800,000 were in the armed forces. Two million five hundred thou.sand were going to school, 1.1 million were young women keeping house; some 800,000 were otherwise classified. Males and females in this age group are appro-ximately equal in

CXVII--476-Part 6 number: 5.3 million men and 5.2 million women. Whites outnumber nonwhites, but the ratio is somewha.t smaller than. for adults in the population 21 years of age and older. Whites number 9.1 million in this group, while blacks and other non-whites number 1.4 million.

Survey evidence suggests that lowering the voting age to 18 acr:oss the nation would have a negligible effect in any but a very close election. While this age group comprises 8 per cent of the total population 18 and older, they would unquestionably make up a smaller percentage of the vote in a national election.

Gallup survey data indicates that about half of the 21 to 24 year olds vote in a Presidential election as compared with the 70 per cent among those 25 and older. Assuming the proportion of 18, 19, and 20-year olds likely to vote is the same as among 21-24-year olds, then about 6 per cent of the popular vote in a Presidential election would be by 18, 19, and 20-year olds and 94 per cent would be those 21 and older.

A recent release of the Bureau of the Census reported voting participation based upon 18, 19, and 20-yea.r olds in Georgia and Kentucky, 19 and 20-year olds in Alaska and 20- year olds in Hawaii, where they are already enfranchised. In this age group 33 per cent of those interviewed reported voting in the 1968 Presidential election. This compares with a 43 per cent voting rate among all those of voting age in these states in 1968.

The relatively poor voting record of young adults can be explained to _ some extent by their relatively high mobility and restrictive residence requirements for voting. In some 35 of the 50 states one year of residence 1s required before a person can register to vote. Yet survey data have indicated that more than one-third (ST . per cent) of young adults have changed their place of residence during the last year.

While little survey evidence exists to show how 18, 19, and 20-yea.r olds as a group would vote, some clue can be obtained by noting patterns of voting preferences by age groups among those 21 and older.

In the last five Presidential elections young voters voted in larger proportion for the Democratic candidate than. did older voters. For example, in 1968 among those under 30 who voted, 47 per cent chose Mr. Humphrey as against 38 per cent · who chose Mr. Nixon. Among persons 50 and older the pattern was reversed, with 41 per cent choosing Mr. Humphrey and 47 per cent choosing Mr. Nixon.

This Democratic pattern has also been observed in the vote for candidates in the House of Representatives in non-P.residenttal years. Starting with the election of 1952 and considering both Presidential and Congressional elections, nine elections in all, the 21 to 29 age group has oted on the average about 7 percentage points more Democratic than has the 60 and older age group. If one were to make the assumption that this pattern would extend into the 18, 19, and 20- year old group then their inclusion in the electorate would tend to help the Democratic candidates in national elections.

Surveys show that voting participation increases With education so it is reasonable to assume that college students among the 18, 19. and 20-yea.r olds will have a disproportionate effect on the vote in this age group. In view of this it is important to examine briefly some of the goals, interests, and ha.bits of the important college group who comprise roughly a third of the civilians in the 18-20 age groups.

What ts likely to be the impact of college students on society in the years a.head? The answer may be involved in the uncertainty of Vietnam. Gallup surveys have shown that most students a.re eager for change. They a.re unable to make plans for the future. It is the war to a great degree that has made youth realize that they should be doing something about society and government, that they should have a say about what happens to them.

A growing tendency exists on campus to avoid identification with either major party. The proportion of college students who describe themselves as independent in politics has grown steadily since 1966 when 39 per cent put themselves into the category to 52 per cent today, the high point to date. Among the remaining 48 per cent who indicate a party preference, the weight of opinion slightly favors the Democrats.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 7, 1971)

McGILL SEES A NEW TIME OF F'BBMll:NT

(By Peter Kihss)

Columbia University's president declared la.st night that "Western society stands on the threshold of a new era filled with ferment, simplistic philosophy and rejections." But he held that many of the outbreaks on campuses had been "artificially contrived" and were "phenomena of mass communication."

Much of the student unrest over the last five yea.rs, Dr. William J. McGill, the Columbia leader, and a psychologist, asserted 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."

"That is why," he contended, "the effects of periodic excitement on campus build '\J.P and dissipate rapidly. Beneath it all there 1s unrest with a society grown too complex for understanding, but there is no commitment to violence."

The Columbia president offered his analysis in an address prepared for the 67th annual banquet of the New York chapter <of the American Institute of Banking, held by the nonprofit educational institution for bank ezpployes at the Americana Hotel.

The social forces now operating, he said, may ca.use future historians to describe these times "in terms similar to those we now use for the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution."

The growth of "a technological superstate" since World War II, Dr. McGill said, has required longer and more complex training for ever-narrower careers. The stretching out of the educational process, he said, has been equivalent to extending the period of adolescence.

Students "have tried to find some meaning for their own lives," with no assurance that the future world will be worth living in, he said. Many, he added, "have formed themselves into an isolated youth culture that is clearly hostile to science and technology." Many "construct simplistic ideologies" to remove themselves from a life-style of complexity, he said. He reported, "among other things, we are witnessing a remarkable growth of religious mysticism o.a. university campuses."

Nevertheless, Dr. McGill said, he believes that the breaking out of campus strikes throughout the country, as occurred la.st May, could be a.scribed to "clever manipulation of mass opinion by young people conditioned to think in terms of mass movements." He offered this view as a counter to a concept of the sta.rt of revolution with sustained violence.

"If we a.re dealing with manipulation of opinion through mass communication," Dr. McGill contended, "then violence used by society to put down campus disorders is not only unnecessary, it gives special advantages to campus revolutionaries who seek to foster violence."

Since last May's campus bids for marches on Washington to protest President Nixon's move into Cambodia. and to denounce shooting of students at Kent State University, he said, "political action has diminished and a cynical, almost somber mood" has developed. Dr. McGill noted a.n "inconsistency implied in the ready use of techniques of public relations by students seeking to attack the hypocrisy of a. social order based on public relations."

(From the New York Times, Feb. 6, 1971]

18- YEAR-OLD NATIONAL VOTE STALLED

(By David A. Andelman)

The 18-year-old vote, resolved for national elections by Federal legislation and a supreme Court decision, is still a controversial and unresolved Issue at the state level across the country.

The factors in"?olved range across the entire field of American political fears and aspirations-the black vote in the South, violence on college campuses and the tax squeeze in the cities and suburbs.

The Supreme Court last Dec. 22 cleared the way for 11.5 million young Americans to vote for President and members of Congress when it upheld legislation providing for voting by persons 18 years old an up in Federal elections.

At the same time the Court said that Congress had acted unconstitutionally when J.t lowered the voting age to 18 for state and local elections. This left it up to each state to decide whether to permit voting at 18 in the state as well as Federal elections or to accept a system with different age groups voting in two separate election procedures.

Only Ala.ska, Georgia and Kentucky now allow 18-year-olds to vote and in only five other states does approval by the legislature appear certain to enfranchise these voters .this year. In tl;le remainder, the question is bottled up by complex procedures for state constitutional amendments and statewide referendums.

DELAYS BEYOND 1972

In at least 20 other states, the necessity of approval by two successive state legislative sessions and a subsequent statewide referendum make it virtually impossible for young voters to ca.st their ballots in 1972 for any local offices.

The question of the youth vote goes beyond mere partisan boundaries, although in no state do politicians believe that the Republican party will benefit from the votes cast by 18, 19, and 20-year-old voters. But in only a few states do these politicians believe that the vote will substantially benefit the Democrats.

"I don't know whether there will be any substantive change," commented State Representative Andrew Varley of Iowa, a Republican. "They are not going to vote a.s a bloc-. They'll split ioyalties like everyone else." In the deep south, the concerns are racial. ':Jimmy Swan, who has never stopped running for Mississippi Governor since he finished a surprising third 1n the 1967 contest, opposes the lower voting age because it would add black voters. .

"For the young whites, I don't think it would make much difference," he said. "l think they'd vote about like their mammies ,and pappies. They're not too concerned a.bout the vote. But-and I'm talking to you as an ol' Mississippi reelneck now-you know our problem is with the young militant blacks. That's where we'd have the troubles."

QUIET DEATH FORESEEN

It is Mr. Swan and scores of legislators in Mississippi who believe as he does tha.t make the 18-year-old vote appear doomed to a. quiet death in the state's House Constitution .Committee.

In most states, legislators appear most anxious to leave the decision on voting at 18 up . to the voters at large in referendum. - ‘Where these voters have rejected lower - voting age proposals in the pa.st, the overriding reason seemed to be a reaction against violence on the campus.

In Wisconsin, the State Assembly floor leader, Representative Norman C. Anderson, a Democrat, said of the 18-year-old vote: "My guess is that it w111 win statewide approval if there are no student riots just before the voting."

Last November, Washington state voters rejected a referendum lowering the voting age from 21 to 19. The vote followed months of severe radical student outbreaks in Seattle and other cities.

Most politicians blamed these outbreaks for the outcome of the youth vote referendum last year and forecast continued difficulty in passage in the coming years, despite strong support by Gov. Daniel J. Evans, a Republican.

Politicians also fear large blocs of student voters in states where the election statutes provide for students to vote not in their own towns but where they attend college.

Madison, Wis., seat of the University of Wisconsin, with 35,000 students out of a total population of 172,000, is particularly concerned about students ta.king over the City Council.

Paul J. Sherwin, New Jersey's Secretary of State and a. top political adviser to Gov. William T. Cahill, said, "They could be a real factor, especially if the courts uphold the rights of kids attending college to vote in the states where they are attending school. They could have a fantastic impact on the vote in Princeton (Princeton University) or New Brunswick (Rutgers University).

Taxes are another problem, particularly in the more urbanized states with heavy property · taxes supporting local school boards and other municipal services. Assemblyman John Stull of California, chairman of the Assembly Republican Caucus, said he expected a. number of fellow Republican legislators to join him in opposing the 18-yea.r-old vote because ' of property taxes. _

"A lot of people would be making decisions on property owners that shouldn't be," he asserted.

In some states, the state political apparatus is already gearing up for the expected influx · of the 18-year-old voter, if it may be as much as two to three years away.

Keith Whitely, chairman of the Oklahoma. Young Democrats, said that new voters could "walk away" with local precinct elections if enough young people attended. Attendance a.t party precinct meetings is usually small. "It is not outside the realm of possibility that an 18-year-old could become chairman of the state party," he added.

In fact, four days after the Federal legislation went into effect last month, the Nassau County, L.I., Democratic party named its first 19-year-old, a Hofstra University student, Patrick W. Doherty, to the County Democratic Commitee.

Regardless of what happens when the young voters first go to the polls in 1972 or later, the dual Federal-state standards expected to persist in many states for some years will cost the older voter a. large sum of money.

"We're not worrying about it yet here in New York," said a spokesman for the New York City Board of Elections. "We're hoping 18-yea.r-olds will be able to vote in the state by 1972. But if we do need two sets of voter lists, it will be expensive."

Most voting ma.chines a.re not capable of handling two different sets of voters, and duplicate paper ballots for the two age brackets, as well as duplicate registration books will cost anywhere from $50,000 in smaller states to hundreds of thousands of dollars ln larger ones.

In an effort to get around this, Kansas is considering a. special election to enfranchise the young voters. And that special election will cost $500,000. -

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, a variety of excellent reasons have been advanced for lowering the voting age to 18 in all elections by means of a constitutional amendment. The most telling of these are, in my opinion: the unreasonable state of affairs stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon against Mitchell, in which 18- to 20-year-olds can vote for Senator but not sheriff, magistrate, or mayor; the burdens of citizenship, including taxation, criminal liability, and the draft, imposed on our young people without the redeeming privilege of the ballot; and the unappropriated and inappropriate expense of maintaining a dual system of voter registration and participation.

Since I believe that the points which have been made for the 18-year-old vote have been made well, I will not belabor the usual ones here. Instead, I would like to consider the view that 21 is a fit and proper, meet and just age for franchise. It has been held that no tampering should be done with the voting age, no matter what the election, because 21 is the age at which most young adults graduate from college, assume financial responsibility, and "fly from the nest" of their parents. Although Congress indicated by passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1970 that it collectively thought this view less than compelling, opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment may well be based in this attitude.

The idea that most young people graduate from college at the age of 21 is exceedingly optimistic. In fact, although America has the highest percentage of college graduates of any country in the world, "most young Am.ericansmore than 55 percent-still do not go to college. Many of them enter the labor force or the Armed Forces upon graduation from high school, only to endure a legal and electoral limbo lasting upward o.f 3 years. Of those who do go to college, some leave before graduation and others continue their education far beyond their 21st year. Lowering the voting age to 18 would be much more consistent with present education patterns, for compulsory education has made high school graduates of 80 percent of our young, most of them being graduated at or near age 18.

As to financial responsibility, almost half of the young people between 18 and 21 are in the labor force, not including the 1 million women whose occupation is housewife. For many, the burden of selfsupport is carried well in advance of their 21st birthday, while for others :financial dependency is a lifelong condition.

Testimonials abound to the influence that young Americans have had in bringing this Nation to believe that it has a conscience. Urged on by the abundant idealism of their off spring, it has often been parents who have left the nest for a first flight in citizen participation. There can be little question that 18- year-olds today are better informed and more openly committed to a compassionate and just future for our country than at any previous time. They have become hooked on the American dream. I think we should welcome these people, our children, into the electorate, and I urge passage of Congressman CELLER's House Joint Resolution 223.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform my colleagues that the State of Michigan eagerly awaits our approval of this Joint resolution. We desire to be the first State in the Union to ratify this · very important constitutional amendment and - our State legislature is readY at this very moment to suspend all business in order to do so. The resolution of ratification introduced by Representative Jackie Vaughn III, has already gone through the appropriate committee and now lays on the speaker's desk for our word of approval. I wish to • commend Michigan's secretary of State / Mr. Richard Austin, who, as our chief election official, issued a call to the State · legislature urging that it be the first to ratify. I would hope that the several States will follow the lead of Michigan so that this constitutional amendment lowering the voting age to 18 years may go into effect before November of 1972.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act . of 1970, Congress announced loud and clear its conviction that young Americans between the ages of 18 and 21 possess the capabilities for making informed and intelligent decisions concerning the qualifications of candidates for the highest positions in the land. That these young · Americans should be entrusted with the vote in elections of national and international consequence but be denied the opportunity to participate in State and local elections exceeds the bounds of commonsense. And yet, that is the situation which exists today.

Both reason and fairmindedness argue for the enfranchisement of 18-year-olds in local and State elections. The 18-yearold bears the responsibility of citizens, and in all but one of the States, 18-yearolds are considered to be legally capable of distinguishing right from wrong and are held responsible for their criminal acts. Then there are taxes. The circumstance of their youth does not exempt 1-8- to 21-year-olds from State taxation. Granted that the pursuit of democratic ideals strongly speaks toward lowering the voting age to 18, the question that arises is what is the most expeditious way for this to be done. While in many States there are plans underway to implement the 18-year-old vote, in only 25 of the 47 States which do not grant suffrage to 18-year-olds could the voting age be lowered in time for the next general election. For those States which cannot meet the deadline the outlook is clouded by potential cost and confusion arising from the necessity of maintaining and administering a dual system for voting in Federal and State elections. The Wisconsin constitution, for example, requires any proposed amendment to be voted on by the electorate at the next general election which is scheduled for November 1972. Therefore, Wisconsin will be forced to deal separately with the 208,000 voters under 21 in the 1972 general election in the absence of congressional passage and ratification by the States of an amendment to the Federal Constitution. Estimates of the additional cost for just the 1972 elections run from $10 to $20 million, these costs coming at a time when many States are being forced to decide between the curtailment of some essential services or bankruptcy.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that at this point the only practical way to effect the 18-year-old vote is by means of a constitutional amendment which I have proposed. I urge my fellow Congressmen to support our distinguished chairman of our House Judiciary Committee, -the gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER), in voting for his proposed constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 223. Although the time is growing short, the chances are still good that the States could ratify an amendment lowering the voting age to 18, were the amendment acted upon now. Let us restore the faith of our young people in our political system by granting them full representation in it.

Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of two House joint resolutions, Nos. 91 and 195, to amend the Constitution in order to extend the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older. Today, I wish to indicate my enthusiastic support of House Joint Resolution 223, which would accomplish the same thing and is the resolution under consideration by the House today. If action is accomplished today, then the proposed 26th amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be before the various State legislatures for ratification well before the Easter recess. The concept of extending the vote to the 18-year-olds is not something which needs extensive debate and discussion today. A few years back, this might have been the case, but suddenly the strong opposition seems to have disappeared and today hardly a voice of opposition can be heard. Today's favorable action by this House will complete the work begun last session. In fact, today's vote is more in the nature of unfinished business than anything else. As a result of last year's action, we are confronted with an intolerable situation on the State-level where millions of potential voters will be permitted to vote for Federal officials, but not local officials. The chaos, confusion, and cost which looms over - the next election as a result is something which requires immediate attention and solution. Those of us who have labored over the years on behalf of this concept are entitled to feel justifiably proud today as we witness the culmination of all our efforts.

Looking beyond today's vote, it only remains to say that hopefully all those that will be completely enfranchised as a result of today's actions will take advantage of this opportunity and register and then vote. It is only then that this great body of our citizenry will really cease to be second-class citizens.

Congress will have done its part today. What _ happens tomorrow is in the hands of the citizens themselves.

Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, today, I am rising in support of Senate Joint Resolution 7, a constitutional amendment which would lower the voting age in all States and in all elections to 18. This amendment has become necessary for two main reasons, both resulting from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the section of the Voting Rights Amendments of 1970 lowering the voting age in all elections to 18 was constitutional only insofar as it applied to Federal elections, but not State and local elections.

The first reason for my support of this amendment is that it is the only positive and efficacious manner by which we may -enact into law the express judgment and will of Congress--that citizens 18 years of age and older should be allowed to vote in all elections, Federal, State, and local. The second reason is that a Federal constitutional amendment is the only method for extending the lower voting age to State and local elections which has a chance of being enacted across the United States by the 1972 elections, in time to avert the administrative confusion and fiscal nightmare of double registration and dual ballots. Estimates rendered by the States of the possible costs of such procedures have run into the millions of dollars across the country.

I would like to discuss each of these reasons in greater detail.

First, the will of Congress has been expressed that all citizens of age 18 should be allowed to vote in all elections not just Federal elections. Reasons foi allowing 18-year-olds to vote are many. For example, the freshness, enthusiasm, and idealism of youth would greatly enhance the overall quality of the electorate of our great Nation. How sorrowful it would be if we allowed these fine qualities, best exemplified by the Peace Corps and VISTA, to atrophy from disuse, or explode from the frustration of having no constructive outlet.

Next, young people receive far better education than our grandparents. Seventy-nine percent of our population graduates from high school at this time, as compared with 17 percent 50 years ago; 47 percent of these high school graduates go on to college, as opposed to only 8 percent 50 years ago. Radio, television, and newspaper coverage of every significant event in the world has improved so greatly in recent years that everyone, and especially the young, is much better informed than a &en era ti on ago, and the excuse that youth are not sufficiently informed to cast a responsible vote is no longer applicable.

Finally, young men between the ages of 18 and 21 are.largely responsible for fighting this Nation's wars; they must pay income taxes; they lose the protection of child labor laws; and they may be tried as adults for felonies. These are sufficient indicia of maturity to warrant granting them the right to vote. Therefore, if these reasons provide ample justification for allowing 18-year-olds to vote for Federal officers--President, Vice President, Representative, and Senator-how little sense it makes to deny them the right to vote for State and local officers.

But, the Supreme Court has said that Congress does not have the power to enact a lower voting age for State and local elections, except bi constitutional amendment, This was my position when the House of Representatives was considering the Voting Rights Amendments of- 1970, and the Supreme Court has now sustained it. Now we must get about the business of passing the amendment, and introducing it to the Senate for ratification.

My second main reason in support of this amendment is that Congress must act quickly to a void the tremendous cost and confusion which will develop in the 47 States where the voting age is above 18 for State and local elections. These States will have to provide two separate types of registration, and two separate types of ballots, to accommodate both those who may vote in all elections and those who may vote only in Federal elections. This will affect more than 10 million voters across the Nation; it will necessitate the ordering of thousands of extra voting machines . es and altering existing voting machines, or providing special paper ballots; it will cause problems in counting, tallying, and canvassing the ation. votes; it will cause delays in voting and in tabulating the results; it will introduce the Possibility of fraud; and it will cost an estimated $10 to $20 million throughout the country. It has been speculated that the expected delays and confusion could discourage some potential voters from bothering to go to the polls. This is diametrically counterproductive to the orderly workings of a democracy.

The best way to avoid this dilemma is to provide a uniform voting age for all elections, and the constitutional amendment is not the only method which might be employed. Congress could allow the individual States to change their own vot­ . ing age. But I would like to demonstrate that the constitutional amendment is the vastly superior procedure.

Individual action by each State is far too slow and unpredictable to guarantee that the problems caused by two voting ages will be solved by the 1972 elections. First, nearly every State has its voting age set in its Constitution. To change a State constitution is a ponderous process. Every State but Delaware requires a referendum after passage of the proposed amendment in the legislature. It is sig­ . nificant to note here, that out of the 30 referendums held since 1943 to lower the voting age in . the States, only eight have passed. Sixteen States require pa.ssage of a proposed constitutional amendment in two separate sessions of the legislature. Many of these have only biennial sessions, and could not pass the proposal twice and conduct a referendum before 1972, or by a reasonable time before the 1972 elections so as to provide for registration of newly eligible voters.

On the other hand, a Federal constitutional amendment can proceed swiftly, and provide uniformity once ratified. For example, four out of the seven most recent amendments to the Constitution of the United States have been ratified by three-fourths of the States within 1 year after introduction. An amendment lowering the voting age in all elections to 18 has an excellent chance of ratification before the 1972 elections, in time to avert a :financial and administrative crisis in the States.

However, Congress must act swiftly to pass the proposal and introduce it to the States for ratification. There is little time to lose. Most State legislatures are in session right now and could vote on the question of ratification. By the end of March, however, at least 10 States, by law, must have completed their legislative sessions. Another three might have wound up their 1971 session by that time. It only takes a rejection by 13 States to doom a constitutional amendment. Further, another 11 States are likely to have completed their sessions by the end of August. Therefore, at least 24 States have early deadlines for closing out their legislative sessions, and about half of these might not reconvene, barring a special session, until 1973. Congress precipitated an unfortunate and unexpected situation in the States by attempting to lower the voting age by statute. Now Congress should recognize an obligation to act with speed to help the States avoid this situation, have thus explained why I support early congressional action on this amendment, because of what it will do to alleviate the potential confusion and cost to the States. Now I would like to express my disappointment over what the amendment will not do; namely, extend all forms of social and legal responsibility to 18-year-olds besides just the privilege of voting. I would propose not only lowering the voting age to 18, but also lowering to 18 the age of contractual capacity, the age at which a person may make a valid will, the age at which a male may get married without parental consent, and the age at which there is any remaining disability, restriction, or contractual protection, so that the right to vote is accompanied with each and every vestige of social and legal responsibility which characterizes full adulthood.

If we deem it proper that an 18-yearold contribute to the management of public affairs, we should also make sure that he has the same · responsibility in handling his own private affairs. Further, I would be willing to bet that the youth of America agrees with me on this point. Young people have worked feverishly in the States to win the right to vote, so that they may demonstate their concern and responsibility in the affairs of their country, their State, and their locality. I am sure that they would equally desire to have full responsibility in all their dealings, and we should bend every effort to grant them that desire.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the pending legislation, House Joint Resolution 223, to lower to 18 the voting age for citizens in State, local, and Federal elections. As an original sponsor of similar legislation, and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee which . 8-'E.:- proved it, I believe it is essential that we act immediately to finish the haJf-completed task we accomplished with the enactment il. the last Congress of this measure in the form of an amendment to the Voting Rights Act.

Late last year the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of our action in the last Congress. It upheld the granting of the 18-year-old vote by statute in presidential and congressional elections, but denied those provisions lowering the age to 18 for voting in State and local elections.

The majority of Congress considered it wise and right to give the full right to vote to our young people at the age of 18, so I do not think it necessary to again detail all the meritorious reasons for doing so. They are as valid today as before-, and even more so. We should approve this bill for rational and equitable reasons, and also because of the chaotic situation and the administrative and financial] burdens that lack of such a constitutional amendment would create if the States have to maintain separate voter registration lists and establish separate election procedures.

I most strongly urge the House to act, as the Senate already has, to give the full right of franchise to our 18-year-old citizens.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, meaningful citizen participation in the political affairs of a society is a hallmark of a society that is democratic, dynamic-­ culturally, socially, politically, economically-and relatively stable, and that simultaneously promotes the growth of fundamental rights and social progress.

By passing the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, Congress reflected the consensus in our country that the participation of 18-, 19-, and 20-yearolds in our electoral process should include the right to vote. As we know, the Supreme Court subsequently ruled invalid the provisions of that law lowering the minimum voting age to 18 in State and local elections. Passage of House Joint Resolution 223 and ratification of it by three-fourths of the States will mean that all citizens who are 18 years of age or older will be able to vote in Fed· eral, State, and local elections.

The administrative nightmare that has been forced upon State and local governments by the 1970 law and the Supreme Court's ruling is a strong argument for this constitutional amendment. Nationwide, "dual-age -voting" will cost local governments an additional $10 to $20 million. Many States cannot revise their constitutions-even if they desire to-in time to eliminate "dual-age vot· ing" in the 1972 elections. But, as wasteful as this age-qualification morass would be of our scarce national resources, it is not my primary reason for supporting this amendment.

Our action today will be primarily of symbolic importance. It will offer to our concerned youth the hope that they may make a difference in local and State policies.

There is grave danger in this action as well. We have already held out a similar hope concerning national policies by providing for 18-year-old voting in Federal elections. The young people have witnessed and participated in peaceful assemblies and other aspects of our democratic process. But they have seen this protest, these activities and polls showing overwhelming public sentiment for withdrawal from Indochina produce only minor changes in our Southeast Asian policies.

The president of Stanford University, Richard W. Lyman, has written:

Eight years of war abroad have produced a marked deterioration in the political life of our own country. This deterioration is nowhere more marked than on the leading campuses, where the argument that only force counts is heard from young people whose cynicism in this regard is a deadly threat to the future of a democratic polity,

As a result, there are "ineradicable ever. wounds" to our society.

The granting of universal 18-year-old franchise and the imminent exercise of that franchise by our youth in local, State, and Federal elections must result in changes in our policies at home and in Southeast Asia. If not, an already grievous social problem-alienated youth-will be severely aggravated.

Our action today must be seen not simply as approval of the 18-year-old vote in local and State elections. It also must be an expression of congressional support for new initiatives to make of our Nation what it has the resources and desire to become.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, one of my first acts as a Member of Congress 12 years ago was to introduce legislation providing for the right to vote at 18. I have testified repeatedly on various proposals and I have introduced similar bills in each subsequent session of Congress. I have always believed that the right to vote at the age of 21 represented an outmoded and wholly arbitrary limit which failed to encompass current reality.

We now see brave young Americans on the battlefield of Vietnam, and so I think that the argument about being old enough to vote if you are old enough to fight makes special sense at this time. In addition we all agree that this generation of young people is better educated and more aware of world :problems than any previous one. I believe that by bringing the activism of youth into the mainstream of American politics we may well cut down on those who take such dreadful actions against politics . and the socalled Establishment.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I fulfill an ambition I have had since I first entered this Chamber by voting for the constitutional amendment to allow all Americans to vote in all elections at the age of 18. It may well represent a coming of age of America herself.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, last year it was a matter of great pride for me to sponsor and vote for the bill which gave our young people the privilege of voting in national elections at the age of i8 years. I have not regretted my action, but I have been .Proud to see the response w~ received.

Each month in my district young people are going to the courthouses to show their credentials and to get their names on the rolls of qualified voters.

However, we must go a little further if these young people are allowed to vote on all issues that affect them and for candidates in every election. Thus, I urge passage of the bill that is before us today to amend the Constitution of the United States in order to insure the 18-year-olds the right to vote in State and local elections as well as in national elections.

From my personal observation from day to day and from my experience as a mayor and as a Congressman working with thousands of boys and girls, I know that they are better informed than my generation was at the end of our teenage years. We have in this country today the finest generation of young people Not only are they interested in the affairs of this Nation and our world, but they are willing to work for improvements. If we will listen, we can get some great ideas from these men and women

Already we are changing our way of life under the influence of their numbers and buying power. Manufacturers have listened to these young people and continued profitably.

Without doubt the oncoming generations are changing the scope of our population so that an ever-rising percentage of our citizens are under 25 years. These men and women are very knowledgeable and their ideas are vital. One of the best ways for us to gather their opinions and to give them an active voice is to offer them the chance to vote in all elections.

I would like to point out that I am aware of the fact that a few make a lot of noise, but they do not speak for the majority. The downgraders of America try to say there is a serious moral gap between the young and their parents, but it is not so. There is, and always will be, the normal age gap, but this is no serious problem. In general, parents and the young people value and respect the o p inions of each other.

I have great confidence in the 18- year-olds of this Nation. We trust them to carry out great responsibilities, even fighting our wars and protecting freedom around the world.

This measure to extend the privilege of voting to about 10 million citizens between 18 and 25 years of age has my wholehearted support, and once again I will count it an honor to cast a vote of confidence in America's youth by voting for this constitutional amendment.

Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Chairman, as the sponsor during the last session of Congress of a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18, I am pleased to support the resolution before the House' today.

Campus unrest and student violence have upset and disturbed all of us and because of the irresponsible actions of the radical and militant few, we tend to lose sight of the high caliber of the majority of our young people. Better educated than most of us at their age, they are vitally concerned about the future of our Nation and desire to have a say in determining its course. I feel they deserve this privilege and trust and will use it responsibly.

The Supreme Court decision clarifying the 'legislation Congress approved last year to lower the voting age has served only to make the situation much more complex. It is important that we approve this constitutional amendment today and send the matter to the State legislatures for final determination. I urge the House to vote favorably on this matter.

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, as a sponsor and advocator of similar legislation, as well as being a member of the House Judiciary Committee that thoroughly reviewed and favorably reported this bill, I most earnestly urge and hope that the House will overwhelmingly approve this pending resolution, House Joint Resolution 392, designed to prohibit the United States or any State from denying or abridging the right of citizens of the United States to vote because of age if such citizens are 18 years of age or older.

Legislative action in this manner and through this resolution is required 1n order to remove intolerable finance costs and administrative burdens that would otherwise be imposed upon the several States in trying to operate a dual voting system which would result because of the invalidation, by the Supreme Court, of those provisions of the Federal statute we adopted, in the last Congress, that lowered the minimum voting age in State and local elections to 18; at the same time, the court upheld the provisions lowering the minimum voting age to 18 in Federal elections. Certainly and obviously if our American youth .. is learned enough and sensible enough, from the age of 18 up, to vote in national · elections they should be entitled to vote, at the same age, in State and local elections.

I personally and earnestly believe that the great preponderance of authoritative testimony and evidence, as well as my own observations, demonstrate that the average American youth of 18 yea.rs to 21, in this country today, is better educated and more mature and possesses a higher sense of personal responsibility, sound judgment and concerned involvement than ever before.

Through our ever-expanding educational institutions, libraries, public forums, news media and other information avenues, knowledge, with the opportunity to gain it, is increasing at an un.Paralleled rate.

Because of these factors American youth, today, is extraordinarily knowledgeable about national issues, exceptionally articulate in their convictions and predominantly committed t6 the betterment of our society.

From the age of 18 up they have been and are being called upon, in these times, to help to shoulder the tremendous burdens that plague our society; in the greatest majority, they have responded with sound judgment; they also are required to pay income and property tax and to bear arms. Certainly, then, under these changing circumstances our youth should be extended every consideration in their right to participate in the decisions of Government that establish local, state, and National policy.

One of the most basic premises of our democracy is the assumption that all those who help to bear the burdens of our society have the inherent right to take part in the decisi · decisionmaking process of Government at all levels. In order to insure that our modern and exceptionally learned and dedicated youth are granted their rightful share in the decisionmaking of American government at all levels I again urge this House to resoundingly approve this resolu,tion.

Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for this proposed constitutional amendment. The need for it is plain-indeed, so strikingly obvious that it hardly warrants mention here. The Supreme Court, as you know, has upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act provision granting the vote to 18-year-olds. But the Court, in a judicial decision that was not wholly unexpected, ruled that the 18-year-old vote is valid only for Federal elections. So America's young people now face this almost ludicrous irony: they can vote in elections for the highest Federal offices, but not in elections for State and local offices ranging from Governor to dogcatcher.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, this situation is eminently worthy of redress. And the constitutional amendment now before us-legislation that plainly and explicitly spells out any 18-year-old's right to vote in - any election-provides just such redress . .. -

If passed promptly today, House _ Joint Resolution 223 stands a remarkably good chance of being enacted into law in time for the 1972 elections.

It seems clear-almost beyond dispute, in fact-that today's 18-year-olds are far better educated and far more sophisticated than those of even a generation ago. It can be argued convincingly, I think, that contemporary American young people are more keenly aware of the problems confronting American society and more ardently committed to solving those problems than many of their elders. At the age of 18, young men and women have completed their secondary education. They are entering college, joining the Armed Forces, taking jobs. They are more intellectually mature and more politically responsible than any generation in this country's history. It was nearly two centuries ago--in a small, rural, agrarian society-that most States set the voting age at 21. It made sense then. It no longer makes sense today.

The overwhelming majority of American youth want to work within what is called "the system,” . em," seeking their political goals through the traditional institutions of our democracy. They are frustrated, however, merely because they are denied the right to vote. American young people are a powerful force for good in our society. Granted, a minority so small that it can be accurately termed "trival" has embraced radicalism and revolution. But-I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough-most young people border on exemplary citizens. They are bright. They are responsible. They are conscientious.

They deserve the right to vote.

Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, the recent Supreme Court ruling permitting 18-year-olds to vote in national elections was an important and necessary step. But it did not go far enough . It left the decision on State and local elections to the individual States. This structure creates the necessity for dual voting and registration procedures and will inevitably be costly and chaotic for most of the States.

There is no need to reiterate the reasons for the 18-year-old vote. The Supreme Court has recognized the maturity and intelligence of today's 18- to 20- year-olds by its decision. What we must look at now is the financial predicament that the States will find themselves in at a time when State governments are doing all they · can to · prevent bankruptcy. In Ohio, it is estimated that it could cost up to $750,000 to register 18- to 20-yearolds. Washington State anticipates a cost of $357,000 - to implement separate ballots for 18- to 20-year-old voters. New York City alone estimates an additional expense of $5 million. In Connecticut, $1,­ new voting machines and in California, new voting machines and in California not including the cost of new equipment, $5 · million must be spent.

Immediate action on a constitutional amendment is the only reasonable answer to this situation. An amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures. If we can submit the amendment to the States early this year, it could be ratified before the general elections of 1972. It is our responsibility to forestall the chaos that will ensue in 1972. I urge unanimous support for the constitutional amendment.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman , I would like to say a few words concerning the passage of House Joint Resolution 223 , a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18 in State and local elections .

When the 9 lst Congress voted last year to extend the Voting Rights Act, and to enfranchise 18-year-olds, I was opposed for a number ~ of reasons. I felt that this enfranchisement was being rushed through the House without adequate debate, especially considering the seriousness of the issues involved. I also felt that, on the whole, the 18 to 21 age group was not responsible and socially aware enough to be given the vote. Studies have shown that even when enfranchised, the turnout of this age group tends to run about half of the normal voter turnout. Moreover, most of the States which had considered lowering the voting age had found that a majority of the people opposed this action in statewide referendums.

Now the Supreme Court has found that the enfranchisement is legal only for Federal elections, leaving a rather chaotic situation as regards State and local elections. In another mad rush we are attempting to remedy this situation-again without a really adequate exploration of the issues involved and debate on the floor of the House.

I am most concerned about this infringement on the expressed will of the American people, and the States' rights, at this point. The high rejection rate of the 18-year-old vote at the State level is a clear mandate for the Congress, a mandate which we are now ignoring for the second time. How much further is this erosion of the will of the people going to continue?

I would like to reiterate my opposition to this measu r e. I have the greatest respect and admiration for the youth of America. I have found them consistently aware, knowledgeable, and concerned. But this particular combination is not necessarily conduci v e to the evolution of a politically and socially aware and responsible electornte-namely , the fact that the voting turnout among 21- to 30-year-olds is still markedly lower than the national average.

It takes more than education and idealistic principles to make a responsible American and a good voter. It takes a pragmatic knowledge of the workings of our society, a knowledge that only comes through experience, maturity, and involvement. Paying taxes, raising children , seeing how the Federal Government acts upon our daily lives-I consider these more important requisites for good citizenship than an academic education. The an g er with the Government which stems from experience with its redtape is a much more valid and productive anger than one based on negativistic idealism.

Therefore, it is my sincere hope that the legislatures of the several States will be more responsive to the wishes and needs of the American people than this Congress has been, and will fail to ratify House Joint Resolution 233.

Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 223, proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right to vote in all elections to citizens 18 years of age or older.

In my judgment, the time has come when we must extend the franchise t.o the 11 million young people between the ages of 18 and 21. Nearly 80 percent of these young people are high school graduates. They keep up with the news and -are keen observers of American life; they are at least as informed and certainly as concerned as their parents about the social and political problems from which our election issues evolve.

In addition to being well prepared to exercise their voting responsibilities, our 18-year-old citizens have earned the right to vote because they bear most of an adult citizen's responsibilities. They are drafted to serve in our Armed Forces; many of them have died in battle. Nearly half of our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 are married; more than 1 million of them are responsible for raising families. More than 3 million are fulltime employees and taxpayers. In most . 1t States, 18-year-olds are treated as adults in criminal court.s of law.

Like many other public officials, I also feel that our 18-to-21-year-old citizens will contribute a great deal to our society and to the elective process if they are given the right to vote. They have already demonstrated their interest in and concern over our social and political problems. Exercise of the franchise would channel their interests and energies into our political system and give young people a constructive means for influencing public decisions.

Finally, adoption of this constitutional amendment would be practical from a financial point of view. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the granting of the 18-year-old vote by statute in presidential and congressional elections, but struck the provision for voting in State •and local elections. Since only three States presently have an 18-year-old voting age, it will be necessary for the other 47 States to maintain separate voter registration lists and separate balloting procedures for Federal, as opposed to State and local, elections. This will result in extra administrative burdens and expenses which would amount to $5 million for New York City, for example. The numerical age of an individual is not any indication of his intellectual age, and therefore the arbitrary determination of 21 as the age of reason is certainly not a valid one. In my judgment, 18 would be a valid age, in view of the fact that people reach intellectual maturity at an earlier age now than ever before. Clearly, then, we should lower the voting age to 18 for all elections, both because it is right and because it is practical. The most expeditious means of accomplishing this goal is through the constitutional amendment we have under consideration; this is the only method which will make it possible to lower the voting age in time for the 1972 elections. I urge the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the proposed constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18 in State and local elections.

When the question of lowering the voting age to 18 came before the 91st Congress in June of last year, I stated my view that the question of whether the age should be reduced for national, State and local elections should be decided by constitutional amendment rather than by mere bill. My view was grounded on the strong conviction that Congress has no authority by case law or by the U.S. Constitution to set voting laws. In fact the Constitution itself states that the States rather than the Federal Government have the primary authority to establish voting age limitations.

Despite my objections to and my vote against lowering the voting age by bill, the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 became law. Subsequently, the question of the law's constitutionality was raised in several State law suits including one in my home State of Texas, Texas against Mitchell. ·

The issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Oregon against Mitchell, and the court ruled that all of the provisions in the new law were constitutional except for title III, which lowered the minimum voting age in all elections. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, upheld provisions of the new Federal law lowering the minimum voting age for Federal elections, but invalidated the provisions which lowered the minimum age in State and local elections. What actually happened was this: Four judges, Chief Justice Burger, Justices Blackmun, Harlan, and Stewart thought title I was completely unconstitutional. Four other judges, Justices Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, and White thought title m was completely constitutional. The ninth judge, Justice Hugo Black sided on the State and local election question with the four who thought the law was unconstitutional. On the Federal elections question, Black agreed with the four Justices who thought the law was valid. This split decision by the Court created a situation wherein the 47 States which have not already lowered the voting age to 18, have to bear the costly and administratively burdensome process of setting up two sets of electoral machinery, one for Federal elections and one for State and local elections. In States such as Texas that are financially floundering for want of money, this would extend State resources beyond the breaking point.

Mr. Chairman, this unacceptable situation could be best remedied by Congress passing a constitutional amendment and giving the States an opportunity to make their own decision as to whether they want to lower the voting age to 18.

In conclusion, I do not believe like some that lowering the voting age to 18 will save the Republic. Neither do I share the views of those who contend that lowering the voting age will wreck the Republic. There are individuals who, by virtue of interest, concern, and knowledge, will make very competent voters at the age of 18; there are others who will make incompetent voters no matter how old they are. Thus, although drawing the line at 18 is necessarily an arbitrary dividing line, it is one I think that has a very real basis in everyday life. I believe 18 reflects a real beginning of adult responsibilities in terms of education, gainful employment, Federal income taxes, military obligations, and civic responsibilities.

I urge my colleagues · to adopt the proposed constitutional amendment.

Mr. MINISH. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives voted last June to lower the voting age in all elections by statute to the age of 18. The same vote provision was passed in the Senate as a rider to the Voting Rights Act. However, when the Supreme Court this past December ruled on the constitutionality of this enactment, the court upheld the vote granted to 18-year-olds in presidential and congressional elections, but struck down provisions for State and local elections.

The confusing effect of this decision is to bar citizens aged 18 to 21 from voting in State and local elections in almost all the states, while permitting them to vote in national elections. While the States are presently attempting to bring their voting age qualifications in line with the Federal standards in time for the 1972 elections, more than 20 States will be unable to lower the State voting age prior to November 1972. Not all State legislatures meet annually, and a number of States require that a proposed State constitutional amendment must be approved by two sessions of the legislature. Moreover, almost all the States require that a referendum be held on a proposed amendment.

Ratification of the new article of the Constitution embodied in House Joint Resolution 223 would make uniform voting qualifications for the next national election a possibility. It might also save the States the extra administrative burden and expense of maintaining separate voter registration lists and separate balloting procedures, which it Js estimated would cost an additional $1.5 million in New Jersey alone.

I therefore believe it most important that Congress move promptly and favorably on House Joint Resolution 223 to give the States the opportunity to act before the next national election.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I have long supported lowering the voting age to 18. I have also advocated that this change be effected by the states. The constitutional amendment that we propose today would extend the voting franchise to 18-year-o1ds, but would not be effective until ratified by three-quarters of the State legislatures. Thus, this measure respects the authority of the States , and I support its passage wholeheartedly. It is a states rights measure.

Mr. Chairman, it would be most confusing and expensive to maintain a dual system of voting ages, one for State elections and one for ' Federal offices. The action we propose today will a void such confusion by providing for voting at age 18 in all elections.

But the most important reason I support this proposed constitutional · amendment, Mr. Chairman, is because it is the right thing to do. When our 18-year-olds wear the military uniform of the United States they are our representatives abroad. When they risk their lives on the :field of battle they are our defenders. Surely they should be able to participate fully in the political process. Surely they should be able to vote for their local and State officials as well as for the men who write the draft laws. They should be able to pass judgment on all public officials. This proposed .amendment is also a good citizenship bill, Mr. Chairman. Many of our young people go away to college or to military service before they reach age 21, and since ' they · are then not old enough to vote, tend . to lose contact with their local amt State political process. Allowing them to vote in all elections. at age 18 would facilitate an early contact with the process of selfgovernment and might help avoid later periods of political ap~thy.

Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in support of the pending resolution, House Joint Resolution 223, to amend the Constitution of the United States to lower the voting a.ge to 18 years. During the 9 lst Congress, I cospon­ .sored such an amendment to the Constitution inasmuch as I support lowering the voting age and felt an amendment to be the proper approach to achieve this change.

At that time I was pleased to participate with 21 other House Republicans in a tour of college campuses. In our report to President Nixon, we stated that:

Active involvement in the political process can constructively focus (youthful) idealism on the most effective means of change in a free society.

This is, to me, a most important and valid justification for extension of the voting franchise to 18-year-olds, and we so recommended to President Nixon. We clamor these days that this country must channel the energies of our youth to operate within the system rather than outside it. Giving these young people an active role in our elective system will demonstrate most effectively to disbelievers and dissenters that progressive change is possible within our governmental system.

By extending the franchise to 18-yearolds, we will go a long way toward maintaining the early political interests of our youth throughout their years of young adulthood when their creativity and originality are at their peak.

It is the responsibility of the adults in our society to get our young people personally involved in helping to solve our problems. It is also the responsibility of elected officials who can influence the course of this Nation's progress. We must convince them that one of the greatest gifts passed on to us by the founders of this Nation was the mechanism for changing and improving our society in a peaceful, orderly way. That mechanism is politics. Politics is the only way to strike out against the deficiencies in our society without destroying the system it 4 self. It affords us the opportunity to correct the inadequacies within the existing structure without undermining its foundations.

So t.o those young people who cry for the destruction of the system, we must Destroy this system and you will destroy not only the hope of America, but of all mankind. Use this mechanism - within our System. to make changes, to make this a better country and to make this a better world.

We must convince our young people to accept this challenge and opportunity and thereby have a tremendous influence on the kind of world they're going to live in.

More than ever before in our history, young people are getting involved, really involved in the exercise of good citizenship through political action. This is the best possible sign of the vitalty of our system.

Furthermore; as a result of congressional approval and enactment into law last year of an extension of the vote to 18-year-olds in Federal, State and local elections by statute, and the resulting Supreme Court decision rendering it invalid so far as State and local elections a.re concerned, we have a responsibility to the people of this country to approve a constitutional amendment in this matter for State ratification.

The present State of the law, requiring a dual voting system, burdens most States with added expense and complications. The lowering of the voting age to 18 enfranchises more than 200,000 additional voters in my home State of Maryland. The maintenance of a separate registry and the printing of separate absentee ballots for those persons between the ages of 18 and 21 years presents a financial problem for the State. Since Maryland votes by machine, additional funds would also have to be provided to make the necessary mechanical adjustments to adapt the voting machines to different types of electors.

I supported the Judiciary Committee's efforts to promptly report this resolution to the House for full consideration. It is my view that Congress should act now to approve this constitutional amendment for State ratification in order that the conflict, confusion and added expenses that now exist may be put to an end as soon as possible and 18-year-olds may be given a complete extension of voting privileges encompassing all elected offices.

Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Chairman, I have always supported the proposal that citizens 18 years and older have the right to vote. In 1950, during my first year in Congress. I proposed an amendment to the Constitution for an 18-year-old vote. In 1969, I served as one of two cochairmen for the Citizens' Committee for Vote 18 in New Jersey. This January 22, I introduced House Joint Resolution 189, which proposes a constitutional amendment for the right to vote for citizens 18 years of age or older, the same proposal we are voting on today.

Mr. Chairman, I have gone on record for the past 22 years in support of 18- year-old suffrage.

And finally the time has come to pass when it appears today that Congress will say that the Constitution should be amended to give people 18 years of age and older that right.