March 23, 1971

In 1950, I felt that the 18 year old was ready to vote. In 1971, I feel that she or he is more ready than ever. Eighteen- to 20-year-olds can drive cars, own property, marry in any State, pay taxes, be tried in adult courts and serve in the Armed-Forces. It is time we acknowledged that these citizens have a vital social and economic interest in the policies of their local, State and Federal governments. While these citizens have a real interest we must also recognize that they are fully qualified to make the judgments upon which they will base their vote. Eighty-one percent of the 18- to 20-year-olds have graduated from high school, and nearly 50 percent have gone on to college.

Young people have greater access than ever to information on public affairs. Thorough reporting of state and national affairs pervades the Nation through television and radio, syndicated columnists, news services, national publications, a.nd appearances in highly publicized forums by knowledgeable speakers. The awareness of young men and women about the issues is reflected by their growing participation within the political process. In an fairness, we must admit that this political process has not always been responsive to their participation. Lacking a voice at the polls, some of these young citizens have raised their voices in other places and in other ways. The many reports on unrest among young people indicate that a main cause of these disturbances is the frustration that our young people experience in trying to influence the governmental institutions that guide their lives. The vote will provide them with the fullest means of legitimate political expression.

Both our new voters and our Government will benefit from the extension of the right to vote. Our young people will have an opportunity to voice their opinions on the public policies that affect their lives, public policies that in many cases have too long been determined without the contributions of those most concerned. On the other hand, Government will be enriched by the freshness, vitality, and insight of youth.

For these reasons, I will vote today for House Joint Resolution 223. My only regret is that this vote occurs today and not two decades ago.

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I support House Joint Resolution 223, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution extending the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older. Last June, in my opinion, we followed an unwise course because we had exactly 1 hour of debate to consider the voting rights extension, and also attached to that was the voting age amendment, which fa my opinion precluded the rights of the States to fix their own voting age limits. I explained my position at that time in my remarks as they appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 116, part 15, page 20194, I tried to demonstrate the lack of wisdom of our action at that time. i.

Now, of course, it is a matter of history that the Supreme Court on December 21, 1970 held that the 18-year-old voting age as prescribed in Public Law 91-28? was valid in the case of election to a national office, but could not be applied to the election of State and local office seeker&, or to local referenda.

Last summer, shortly after the June decision on 18-year-old voting had been completed in the House, a group of very fine young people who were members of the 4-H organization in our congressional district came to Washington on their annual trip. We all assembled on the Capitol steps for a picture as is so frequently the case with visiting constituents, and I so clearly recall how disappointed some of the young people were in my opposition to the effort of the Congress to fix the voting age without any State action. When these fine young people told me · that they were disappointed, I said:

Let me tell you that I am very much afraid that you a.re going to be the ones who Will be disappointed.

I went further and hazarded the prediction that before all was-said and done on the right of 18-year-olds to vote, they would not only be disappointed but perhaps even embittered.

Just a week or two after our vote on Public Law 91-285, I predicted that even if it should happen that the Court would say that the Congress can prescribe voting rights as to Federal elections, it is most doubtful if any court, even the U.S. Supreme Court, would go so far as to say that the Congress has the constitutional power to order the States to permit all of those electors 18 years of age or older to vote in State, county, city, and school elections.

Well, it · is always a big gamble to ever predict what the U.S. Supreme Court will do, but if I had laid a wager last summer when I discussed this matter with our young constituents, I would have won the wager and my prediction would have come true. In essence the Supreme Court did exactly what I predicted. The Court ruled the act of Congress was valid as to the vote for President, Vice President, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative. Period. The decision of the Court means almost exactly what I explained to my young friends would happen. They can walk into the polling place and cast their vote for two or three offices, and must turn right around and walk out, being denied the right to vote on those offices closest to home.

There have not been many elections since the decision of the Supreme Court, but I remain convinced that my prediction wa.s accurate in that these young people will be disappointed and embittered, because they have not really been given a right, but only a small part of a right. They will ask again and again, "Why am I denied the right to vote for the members of our legislature, our judges, even our city councilmen and members of our local school boards, if I have the right to vote for President, Vice President, Senator, and Congressman?” things stand now only three States have enfranchised 18-year-olds: Alaska, Georgia, and Kentucky. With the Supreme Court decision of December 21, 1970, in the cMe of Oregon against Mitchell, all of our States and the local subdivisions thereof have staring them in the face the requirement for double sets of ballots, or in the case of voting machines, double voting machines. In all duplicate voting records and voting registration must be maintained. Confusion is one thing. Cost is another. It will not .take much imagination to immediately envision the confusion which will arise, of one group coming in to the polling place to vote one kind of ballot while another group will have a different kind of ballot. Then, too, the cost could add up to a very staggering expense for the already hard-pressed subdivisions of government, who are imploring us in this new Congress to find some way to approve revenue sharing in order that they can have some more Federal money with no or not. strings attached.

I have no way to estimate what the cost would be in the State of Missouri. In New York State it has been estimated it would range from $8 to $10 million. In our own State of Missouri it is my own estimate that it could run as much as $3 to $5 million. The report which accompanies House Joint Resolution 223 points out that the cost in the city of St. Louis alone would be $2.5 million.

But our action today, meaning the Committee on the Judiciary bringing to the floor a means by which the Constitution of the United States may be amended, is somewhat of a departure from the custom of this Congress in recent years. Our action today indicates that we want to submit this issue of 18- year-old voting to the States. By House Joint Resolution 223 we say, in effect, we want to uphold States rights. Certainly the trend in former years has been in the other direction.

So I suppose it could be said that House Joint Resolution 223 is in fact a States rights measure. While it does not let the voters of each State pass upon 18-year-old voting, it does enable the members of the legislature of each State to respond in an orderly fashion to the judgment of the citizens whom they represent, as to whether or not the young people in their midst are mature and qualified enough to help select the men and women who run their government. Mr. Chairman, I am not certain whether this constitutional amendment, even if it is ratified by a sufficient number of States to become valid, will cure all the problems which respect to 18- year-old voting. There may be some State laws which restrict voting on the basis of age, where candidates are nominated by petition, or where there are certain referendum procedures that involve issues rather than candidates. It is quite possible there may be other laws governing non-Federal elections in the various States, which will ha.ve to · be changed to prevent conflict with the proposed intent of this amendment. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I said long ago that the best way to accord the 18-year-olds the right to vote is to have a carefully worded proposition placed on the ballot in each State, which would be tailored to the needs in each State, and let everyone in that State have a voice in determining this important issue.

I have never opposed the concept of the right of 18-year-olds to vote, although the results of an opinion poll circulated a year or two ago in our congressional district revealed that our constituents were overwhelmingly opposed to the concept of 18-year-old voting. I suppose that was because of student unrest on our campuses, and a growing impatience with the militant attitude of youth who were more interested in demonstra.tions than in getting an education. But even at that time I said I thought the issue of 18-year-old voting should be settled by th~ electorate of each State, that they should have a right to determine by a clear choice on the ballot whether these young people should vote I am sure we all hope and expect this resolution to be approved by the necessary two-thirds vote of this body, but there is a need for prompt action. Many of our State legislatures are now in session. There remains some question as to whether there ca.n be a vote by enough of our legislatures in a sufficient number of States, in time to make this amendment operative in the 1972 elections. Of course there will be some who will say that to avoid confusion and the expense of a dual age voting system is only a superficial appeal, and that there need be no confusion and expense if each State proceeds to change its own law. The procedure that we are about to employ will, however, foreclose uPOn some States who may wish to endure these admitted problems of confusion and cost as a price of adhering to their own State's policy concerning voting age. That could very well be a policy contrary to the intent of this amendment, and of course if this amendment is approved by a sufficient number of States then it will apply to those who disapprove it as well as those who approve it. I suppose there may be those who will vote "no" on this effort to amend the Constitution, largely upon the basis that the sovereignty of our States should not be further eroded by denying to every one of them the right to set qualifications for voting in their own elections. But, Mr. Chairman, there comes a time that every one of us cannot be indulged in his own preferences and for his own convenience. Someone has said that just a slight mistake on the part of the polling officials by permitting an 18-year-old to vote, just one or two or three in a bond election, could invalidate the entire election. If the bond council ever found out there had been just one error, they would never approve the bonds, and then think of the expense to have to hold the election again.

A while ago I said there would be confusion. Once again let us think of the expense. There will be separate Federal ballots for each congressional district. There will have to be separate registration, separate voting, and separate counting of these newly enfranchised youth. When voting is complete, there will be an uncertainty and delay in tabulation of the election results in 1972. In order to implement a dual voting age system where machines are used, there will have to be separate machines, one with a complete ballot, another listing only Federal candidates. It will be hard to calculate a way to lock the levers under State and local offices when a young voter uses a machine that contains a full list of candidates. In those areas using paper ballots, there will have to be two sets, one listing only Federal candidates, and the other listing all candidates.

For the foregoing reasons I hope and trust that we may have a two-thirds vote today to submit this amendment at a very early date, which will certainly be a step toward dispelling the confusion that would exist without this change. It would be my judgment that most Members will approve this resolution, and those who do not, of course must accept the tre· mendous extra cost of a dual election system in the belief that this is a price worth paying for preserving the rights of the States to set the age of suffrage in their own areas.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I support today's effort to lower the voting age in elections in the United States to age 18. I -' The joint resolution before us today, which must be passed by a two-thirds vote and ratified by three-fourths of the States, lowers the voting age to 18 in State, local and Federal elections. The week before last the Senate passed an identical resolution by a vote of 94 to O. It is my hope that today's vote in the House will be a similar demonstration of our faith and confidence in the ability of our Nation's youth to participate in their government. ·

Last year the Congress provided for a lower voting age in all elections through an amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. In December of last year the Supreme Court passed on the constitutionality of that act in its decision, Oregon against Mitchell. The Court ruled that the act was constitutional insofar as it lowered the voting age for Federal elections. The Court ruled however, that Congress could not by simple statute lower the voting age for State and local elections. The decision of the Court i~ a remarkable one for the number of Justices who dissented or wrote concurring opinions. The Court was badly split on each of the questions it was asked decide. It is proper, therefore, that we provide clearer constitutional guidance and support in this area through a constitutional amendment rather than a simple statute. There is logic to the argument that if it took a constitutional amendment to allow all citizens to vote regardless of color, to allow women to vote, and to abolish the poll tax, then we should provide for a lower voting age through a constitutional amendment. '

The Court's decision in Oregon against Mitchell means that in the 47 States which have a higher-than-18 voting age requirement, the group of citizens between 18 and 21 will only be able to vote in Federal elections. This means that those States will need to maintain separate voter registration lists and balloting procedures. This will result in a fantastic amount of extra administrative burden and expense. It is estimated that the lack of uniformity would cost New York City an additional $5 million alone. In my State of Ohio, the Hamilton County Board of Elections-which includes Cincinnati-has predicted that it will have to spend approximately $50,- 000 extra to take care of the separate sets of registration cards and other records. In Cuyahoga county, which includes Cleveland and its many suburbs, the board of elections h.as estimated that the dual registration of 90,000 new voters would cost between $40,000 and $50,000. As the .secretary of state of Ohio has predicted, there will be confusion to the voter and confusion at the polling place for the precinct elections officials. . If this additional cost and confusion is to be avoided, the States must act individually to lower the voting age or Congress must pass a constitutional amendment. But because of State requirements for amending State constitutions, it is apparent that 22 States-many of whom are interested in acting in this area-- cannot act to lower their voting age before the November 1972 elections. A National constitutional amendment would avoid this dilemma and enable the entire Nation to move to a lower voting age in time for the presidential elections. But I would not, Mr. Chairman, be arguing for a measure of this importance on the grounds of convenience alone. I am for this amendment because I believe it is right.

Today there are some 3 million American taxpayers and full-time employees, about 983,000 members of the armed services, and more than 5 million Americans pursuing higher education that are denied their right to vote. Altogether, some 10.5 million young Americans, for the most part sharing the same civic and personal responsibilities as voting citizens are disenfranchised merely by reason of age. In many States young people under 21 are permitted to carry and in most 18- to 21-year-olds are liable in criminal and civil actions. The States themselves have thus recognized this age group as responsible. The famous social scientist, Margaret Mead has said that this age group is: "Better educated than any other group and more mature than young people in the past.

On the whole 81 percent of all Americans graduated from high school before the age of 18 and more than half of all 18- to 21-year-olds have gone on t.o higher education. It is clear that this age group does have the capacity for intelligent and rational civic choice.

Furthermore, the enfranchisement of these young Americans would greatly benefit local government-especially in light of the widespread interest of today's youth for public service, education reform, and improvement of the environment.

It is time to extend the vote to 18- year-olds in all elections; it is time to establish the principle in the supreme law of the land. The maturity and willingness of today's youth to bear the responsibilities of citizenship is certainly and without question deserving of the right of franchise.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the proposed constitutional amendment to give 18-year-olds the right to vote in State and local elections as well as Federal elections.

Our young are better educated and better informed than any previous generation. They have taken a deep interest in the policies of our Government. They have fought our war. We can no longer deny them the privilege of participating in the democratic process; we can no longer deny ourselves the promise of new ideas and fresh approaches.

The Supreme Court recognized these facts in sanctioning the 18-year-old vote for Federal elections. They held, however, that a constitutional amendment would be required to extend the franchise to State and local elections. Consequently, under the present ruling 18- year-olds will be able to vote for President and for Congress, but not for their Governors, mayors, or State legislators. This leaves us with an almost · unworkable set of voting laws-at least, as they relate to 18-year olds. Most States will be forced to set up · dual balloting and registration procedures at substantial costs to themselves. We cannot begin to estimate the confusion a system like this will cause among the voters.

Even more important is the fact that, if 18-year-olds are felt by the Congress and the Court to be responsible enough to vote for Federal offices, then certainly they are responsible enough to vote at the State and local levels. A dual system would be as unjust as it was unworkable. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we must be aware that ratification of the amendment by the States is going to take some time. If 18-year-olds are to vote in the 1972 elections this amendment must be approved immediately by the Congress. It has my full support.

Mr. PODELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the proposed constitutional amendment which would lower the voting age to 18 in State, local, and Federal elections. It is gratifying to see the Senate approve an identical resolution by a vote of 94-0.

As most of my colleagues know, I have long been a vociferous and enthusiastic supporter of lowering the voting age and on February 4, 1969, when I introduced my resolution proposing such a change I said then it was a matter of gravest urgency.

Now a little more than 2 years later we are showing those who do not have the franchise in all elections, that the House of Representatives believes they are worthy and capable of voting for their elected officials.

As a matter of fact, just yesterday I had the opportunity to greet the first young person under 21 to register in my congressional district. There were more than 800 registrants who patiently awaited the opportunity to sign up during that first day. I want to now share with my colleagues the sentiments of one youthful voter in my district who expresses disillusionment to the way our country has proceeded with its foreign Policy and how he has determined t,o make his voice heard. This college student said:

After reading your views ( 01 the necessity for 18-21 year olds to be permitted to vote) I then went down to the Board of Elections and registered to vote. You have renewed my faith in trying . t.o help correct our mistakes we have made in the past so that this country can once again take its place as the greatest country in the world.

There is no question but the majority wants to work within the system to affect the necessary changes for us to remain the greatest country in the world. Mr. Speaker, this is an old battle for me a . and legislatively at least it ends in victory with our approval of the constitutional amendment which I cosponsored.

As far back as 1966 the New York State Assembly, of which I was a member, approved my bill which would reduce the voting age to 18 in the State. Unfortunately, the Republican-dominated senate judiciary committee refused to report out the bill.

But the goal permitting 18-year-olds the right to vote in all elections will not be an easy one to obtain. A constitutional amendment following approval by the Congress must now be ratified by three- fourths of the State legislatures. And if past experience in New York State is an indication, then it will be extremely difficult to achieve final ratification. Yet, I feel certain following last year's approval by the Congress of the bill permitting to 18- to 21-year-olds the right to vote in Federal elections that now threefourths of the legislatures will eventually grant this age group the franchise.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our positive action today is a manifestation of our desire to welcome into the democratic process today's young people.

Mr. LENT. Mr. Chairman, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1970 Voting Rights Act provision extending the franchise to 18- year-olds, it ruled that the law was binding only upon elections for Federal office. We were thus confronted by an ironic situation: that the Government of the United States considered persons between the ages of 18 and 20 sufficiently mature to participate in the election of a man to the highest office in Government· but most States, unless they acted promptly to revise their voting laws, would not consider them discerning enough to discriminate between candidates for State, county, or local offices.

I believe we have an obligation to the States and to these newly enfranchised citizens to amend the Constitution of the United States to extend the right to vote in every election to citizens 18 years of age and older. By adopting House Joint Resolution 223, we have confirmed this Nation's voting policies and cleared up any questions or confusion that would have arisen as a result of the Supreme Court's decision.

When the original States set 21 as the voting age almost 200 years ago, we were a small, agrarian Nation, with low levels of education and poor means of communication. Today, our Nation's young people are better educated, better informed, and better able to grapple with the sophisticated concept& of government than those of even a generation ago. They are entering the armed services undertaking family obligations, and ac- cepting responsibility for their own support. They have already entered the mainstream of political life by giving of their time and talent working for those issue? and candidates they support. By denying them the full franchise we are denying them expression of commitments they have voluntarily undertaken. Thus we serve only to . frustrate their energies enthusiasm; and sense of purpose. Th~ time is therefore ripe to permit their inclusion in the total electoral process.

For that reason I voted "yea" on House Joint Resolution 223. I hope that the States will . act swiftly, as several already · have, to ratify-this proposed amendment so that we will have, by the. time of the 1972 elections, · extended the fu11 rights and obligations of the franchise to Americans who have reached the age of 18.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time.

The CHAffiMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concu r ring therein) .. That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States Within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

“ARTICLE -

"SECTION 1. The right of citizens of th~ United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

"SEC. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation . "

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HOWARD

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. HOWARD: Page 2, strike out lines 3 and 4, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SEC. 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall make or enforce any law which shall have the effect of treating as other than a person who has attained the age of legal majority and citizen of the United States who is eighteen years of age or older

"SEC. 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

~r. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. However, Mr. Chairman, I will withhold my point of order and reserve it until the gentleman from New Jersey has explained his proposed amendment.

The CHAmMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is . recognized for , 5 minutes m support of his amendment.

M:. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER) reserving his point of order m order to provide nie with time to explain this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I feel, is .the only opportunity we will have in this country this year to provide the 18- 19-, and 20-year-olds in America with the opportunity to vote in all elections I believe it is necessary for this amend- IIJ.ent _ W pass, 'Y , which merely states that not only will .we give the 18-, 19-, and ~O-year-olds m the Nation the privileges of adults and the responsibilities far .asyqting is concerned but that we :v111 give ~~ them the privileges and responsibilities of everything under the law which is deemed necessary for people who have attained the age of majority. It has been mentioned here before that 14 States recently voted down refer'enda concerning the lowering of the voting age to 18 and 5 others turned down referenda which - would have lowered the voting age to 19. This is a total of 19 States, which leaves only 31 State legislatures that will be faced with this proposition, where they have not had an opportunity for the people to vote against the referendum either for an 18- or a 19- year-old vote.

. However, I believe much · of the objection of the people in the referendums throughout the country to this is that they obJect to our saying . to the young people of America that we consider you adults only on election day but we do not consider you to be adult enough to take the responsibilities of majority " This amendment would take care of that situation. ·

Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this constitutional amendment. I have introduced legislation and have been in favor of an 18-year-old vote since I arrived in Congress in the 89th Congress. · I was the State cochairman for a campaign for an 18-year-old vote in my own State of New Jersey 2 years ago, but I am concerned that we do not drop the ball after it leaves the House of Representatives and merely say that we took care of it here in Congress. The real issue and the in- tent that we should have is to have an 18-year-old vote.

Our young people are serving in the Armed Forces and certainly they are doing · adult work there. They have shown and demonstrated over the past years that they are concerned with others and with America. As we talk with young people, they are concerned with what we are going to do about educating people in the future; they are concerned about peace and concerned about helping and working with the poor; they are concerned about narcotics control. Truly, I do not know how we did it, but this generation of American adults, of American young adults, which we have raised is the best generation that has ever been raised in any country at · any time . . Truly we have given them a lot of things such as clothing and automobiles.

Sometimes we get upset with them and we say how can they be so ungrateful, because we have given them everything. We heard the voices coming back to us, "Yes, but it was the wrong kind of everything. Yfe need the intangiples; we need improvement for the future; improvement for the young and the poor." I believe that they should have a . voice in making these decisions. It can only be done through the acceptance of this amendment.

And, so, if we truly want an 18-yearold vote in this country, I urge the consideration of this amendment. Let the House work its will. Let us accept this amendment. The only way . we can..fto that is through the kindness and generosity and foresight of the chairman of- the Committee on the Judiciary whom I humbly appeal to to please withdraw his. point of order against this amendment. The CHAmMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from ?:-Tew York (Mr. CELLER) on his point of order.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, regardless of the merits or demerits of the proposal, , the proposal is not ge:r;mane to the resolution at hand, for the following reasons: ·

The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. How ARD) does more than extend the right • to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older. By its terms it - prohibits the United States or any State from making or enforcing:

· Any law Which shall have the effect of treating as other than a person ' who has 9.t­ tained the ~ age of legal maJority any citizen of the United State& who is 18 years or age or older. , ·

‘Apparently this would · entail a farranging revision of all State and Federal laws in which age distinctions play a role. For example, the proposed amendment would prohibit age distinctions in laws dealing with criminal resPonsibility such as youthful offender statutes; it would alter State restrictions on liquor consumption. It would affect adoption and guardianship laws and laws relating to the management of estates and the right to contract and the age to marry. lt would probably affect a variety of State and Federal licensing statutes and support laws. I suspect that the proposed amendment would affect regulations and statute:; in a. number of fields which the proponent of the amendment himself may be unaware.

The House Joint Resolution, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, embodies a new article of amendment to standardize the minimum voting age for Federal as well as State and local elections. It deals only with access to the franchise. It does not touch on the wide variety of subjects affected by the proposed amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOWARD).

Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order on the grounds that the proposed amendment is · nongermane to the new article of amendment to the Constitution now under · consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOWARD) to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, ~ ! have already spoken on the factual aspects of this amendment as to why I feel it should be adopted. So, I shall speak now as to the germaneness of'the amendment.

I feel quite presumptuous in doing this, as a former elementary schoolteacher, to debate this issue with one of the most renowned attorneys in the United States of Amerioo on what may be a point of law here. But 1 would point out the fact that the matter which we are debating on the floor this afternoon has to do with American citizens who are age 20, 19 or 18, and what privileges and responsibilities we feel that they should obtain.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals only yith American citizens who are 20, 19, and 18 years of age and what privileges and responsibilities they. , shouUl be given. r : • · r it is exactly the same idea. I cannot think Of anything more germane. The gentleman from - New York stated that this would · have implications’ · concerning court actions in this country. Well, for 6 years while 1: traveled around my own State and other States urging 18- year-old voting in America, I said that one of the things that was wrong was that people could not vote below the age of 21. But yet the criminal courts themselves consider them to be adult;s at 18. In other words, if a person is arrested at age 18 and if he is indicted and tried and if he is found · ;guilty he can be _ sentenced as an adult. This amendment would.nqt change-that at all.

The gentleman from New York mentioned liquor consumption. Whether we have a voting age at 21 or 18, I do not know of , many people J.8 years of age or older ' who desire to have a beer in this country will be changed as long as they have the funds to pay for it.

The chairman also mentioned guardianship and support. This is another area that has already been determined, that 18-year-olds are adults.

When a person receives help as a young child, whether it be under welfare programs or alimony, or anything else, any other kind of support, that support stops at age 18 unless someone is mentally or physically handicapped.

The Government it.self has said they get no more help after 18. Why would that be? It must be because the Government has decided that at 18 they are ready to fend for themselves, they are adults.

So my amendment would merely extend this subject, just exactly the same as what we have before the House today. And I submit it is germane, and I hope it will be so decided.

The CHAIRMAN . (Mr. BOLLJNG) . The Chair is ready to rule.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER) makes the point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HOWARD) that it is not germane. Clearly the amendment is not germane. One individual proposition may not be amended by another indesire dividual proposition, even though the two may belong to the same class. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a question or two to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER).

Does the gentleman contemplate at an early date bringing forth legislation from his committee to provide all the obligations and responsibilities of citizenship for the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old voters this resolution s:eeks to enfranchise?

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think that is a matter that appropriately mll$t be left to the States rather than the Federal Government.

Mr. GROSS. Left to the States?

Mr. CELLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GROSS. In other words, the gentleman is content to make s:econdclass citizens out of the young people the gentleman would enfranchise by . this resolution?

Mr. CELLER. I do not think that is a proper conclusion.

Mr. GROSS. May I ask the gentleman another question?

Would :18-year-old Indians be able to vote?

Mr. CELLER. I think the only ones who can vote are citizens. If th:ey are citizens, and they are 18 years of age they, would be able to vote.

Mi:. GROSS. Well, would an 18-yearold Indian living on a reservation be able to vote under the terms of the resolution?

Mr. CELLER. The proposed new article of amendment simply forbids denial of suffrage on the ground of age to citizens who have attained ' the age of 18.

Mr. GROSS. Well, are they citizens, the 18-year-old Indians who are living on a reservation?

Mr. CELLER. I hope that some of my Indians in my district are citizens, but I am afraid they are not the Indians that the gentleman has referred to.

Mr. GROSS. I am afraid they are not, either.

Is there any denial under the Voting Right,s Act of the franchise for Indians of any age who are living on reservations?

Mr. CELLER. There is nothing specific in the resolution itself, no, sir.

Mr. GROSS. But there is no denial of Indians who live on a reservation who are 18 years old, or of any age, no denial of their right to vote under the Voting Rights Act; is that what the gentleman is saying?

Mr. CELLER. If he is a citizen, and he is 18 years old, and he is otherwise qualified, of course.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman, and say to the House that I am opposed to this resolution for I believe that extension of voting rights for 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old youths should be left exclusively to each of the 50 States.

I agree fully with the conclusions reached by Representatives MAYNE, of Iowa, anc: WIGGINS, of California, members of the Judiciary Committee which produced this legislation:

We are convinced this Republic will be better served in the long run if the sovereignty of our States ts not further eroded by denying them the power to fix non-discriminatory qualifications for voting in their own elections.

I · Share the doubts and misgivings of Representative EDITH GREEN, of Oregon, the residency claims of 18-year-old college student.s and their participation in all forms of local elections as well as .those for Federal and State offices.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that when 18-, 19-, and 20-yearolds are made adults in the matter of voting they should also be made to assume all the , responsibilities and obligations of full citizenship under the laws of this land.

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I had. authorized an -18 ... year-old vote proposal, · House Joint Resolution 476, similar to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey in that it would confer full citizenship on the new voter.

I was sorely disappointed that the chairman felt it necessary to raise the issue of germaneness and that now the Members of this body are denied the opportunity to vote on a measure which would grant not only the vote but also the responsibilities of citirrenship.

Last June, the media-generated "public opinion" of the hour so clouded reason that many Members ignored the constitutional questions presented, and passed the buck to the President. The President of the United States, while _ openly stating that the 18-year-old vote bill was of doubtful constitutionality, nevertheless sign~ the bill and again passed the buck to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court in turn by one vote, a 5-to-4 decision, expediently compromised the bill by holding that the act of Congress amended the Constitution as to Federal voter qualifications but was invalid as to the States.

Ever since, confusion has resulted with the States now facing the dilemma of dual voter qualifications; that is, those qualified to vote in State elections and those qualified to vote in Federal elections. And, as if to solve the problem that this body originally helped create, we are now being asked to go back and correct the situation by passing a “guideline-like constitutional amendment for the States to ratify-which could take up to 7 years or never be ratified."

I suggest - that the pressing issue at hand is not whether or not 18-year-olds are given the vote, but rather whether or not we as representatives of our people will run the Government within due bounds as provided in the Constitution and as entrusted to us, or if we will again submit to emotion and hysteria, to justify our actions merely to appease pressure groups.

And to those pious souls who can but come forward with pleasant rhetorical rationalizations to justify voting "yes" without admitting that it is because they fear the 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds-al· ready Federal voters who will be participating in the next congressional election-I would remind them that statistics are oftentimes misleading. They may well be making a mistake if they feel that all of the teenagers' vote can be captured merely because of . a "yes" vote on this amendment.

After all, it is the Government and Constitution of 13-year-olds also, and I believe teenagers understand that what Congress has given one day, Congress can take away another day. Only a constitutional amendment is intended to protect the individual from panic reaction by future legisla.;ors.

After all, this vote gives them nothing. The determination of giving 18-yearolds the right to vote in State and local elections still rests with the Stateswhich could have given what we purport to give at any time and even without this amendment. At most we are, but playing politics with both national parties vying to out do each other in trying to make the young people think they are receiving something. ·

In fact, to face up to our responsibility as sworn, we should first repeal the section 320 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, and then properly bring up for consideration the question of amending the constitution as provided in article V of that document.

To be conSidered in our deliberation there should be more than a simple proposal to grant the vote to the 18-yearold. Why should his new citizenship be limited exclusively to the vote? If age is to be the sole qualifying factor and he is considered intelligent enough, mature enough, and informed enough to vote, it would certainly seem that the 18-yearold should be fully emancipated from all Federal and State, civil and criminal disabilities and be awarded full equal citizenship just as any other adult under existing laws. If the 18-year-old is going to be able to help choose lawmakers, why should he be protected as a privileged class not subject to the equal protection of laws he will be helping to make through the power of his vote?

While passage of House Joint Resolution 223, limited only to granting the right to vote, offers a solution to but one of the pressing desires of youth to get involved in the action, I suggest it will but create additional problems and inequities. If the teenager is old enoUgh to vote, he should be old enough to own property, to sue or be sued in his own name, to give consent to marry or to have an abortion, to ' own an automobile, or carry a firearm, to run for Congress and be able to buy a drink of hard liquor. By limiting this amendment to merely suffrage, are we - not opening a pandora's box for “causes” and "crusades?"

Since we are limiting the vote to youth 18 and above, can it not be that we will later be accused of discriminating against those 16 or even 14 years of age? If age 18 was selected merely because it was easy to adopt an argument for, because they can be forced into military service, "QJ.d enough to fight-old enough to vote," then could we not ask, "Why not reduce the voting age to 16 or 14 years of age?" After all, I know many school children even 6 years of age who do not like being forced to attend school and who would like to be able to vote so they could vote against their school board members just as it is suggested that the 18-year-olds will be mobilized to vote against the draft in the expectation that by so doing they will end the war.

If; as responsible representatives of Anderson, our people, we are going to give the 18- year-old the right-to-vote portion of citizenship, then why should they not be given full citizenship-the responsibilities of American citizens as well as a privileged right to use the vote to protest against the Government but escape accountability? We should not leave them half . teenager and half citizen. What more equitable proposal for full citizenship could be considered by us than by amending House Joint Resolution 223 to provide an additional section that "neither ~ the United States nor any State shall make or enforce any law which shall have the effect of treating - as Bell other than .an adult-a person who has attained the age of legal majority-any citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age or older"?

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. BOLLING, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under consideration the joint resolution CH.J. Res. 223) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, extending the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older, pursuant to House Resolution 299, he rePorted the joint resolution back to · the House.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

The · question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the - third time. MOTION TO BECOMMrr OPl'BRED BY MB. ISC:ff.Mrrz

Mr. SCHMITZ _ . - Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution?

Mr. SCHMITZ. I am, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. SCHMITZ moves to recommit the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 223) to the Committee on :the J"udicia.ry.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to recommit. ,

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.

The motion to recommit was rejeeted.

The SPEAKER. The question is · on passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and ,nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 401, nays 19, not voting 12, as follows: · -

[Roll No. 27}

YEAB-401 .,

Abbitt Brotzman Dellen back Abernethy Brown, Mich. Dellums Abourezk Brown, Ohio Denholm Abzug Broyhill, N.C. Dennis Adams Broyhill, Va. Derwinski Addabbo Buchanan Devine Alexander Burke, Fla. Dickinson

Burke, Mass. Diggs

Calif. Burlison, Mo. Dingell Anderson, Ill. Burton Donohue Anderson, Byrne, Pa. Dort!

Tenn. Byrnes, Wis. Dow Andrews, Ala.. Byron Downing Andrews, Cabell Drina.n

N.Dak: ­ Caffery Dulski Annunzio ,_ Camp Duncan Archer Carey, N.Y. duPont Arends Carney Dwyer Ashbrook Carter Eckhardt Ashley Casey, Tex. Edmondson Asptn Cederberg Edwards, Ala. Aspinall Cell er Edwards, Calif. Badillo Chamberlain Eilberg Baker Chappell Erlenborn Baring Chisholm Esch Barrett Clancy Eshleman Begich Clark Evans, Colo. Belcher Clausen, Evin&, Tenn.

DonH. Fascell ·•

Bennett Cle.veland Findley Bergland Collier Fish A'.) Betts Collins, Ill. Flood Bevill '1 Collins, Tex. Flowers r.. Blagg! Colmer Flynt Bi ester Conable Foley Bingham Conte Ford, Gerald R. Blackburn Conyers Ford, Blanton Corman WilliamD. Blatnik Cotter Forsythe Boggs Coughlin Fountain Boland Crane Fraser Bolling Culver Frelinghuysen Bow Daniel, Va. Frenzel Brademas Daniels, N.J. Frey Brasco Danielson Fulton, Pa. Bray Davis, Ga. Fulton, Tenn. Brinkley DaVis, Wis. Fuqua Brooks de la Garza Gall.fta.nakis Broomfield Delaney Gallagher

Garmatz McMillan Ryan Gaydos , Macdonald, St Germain Giaimo Mass. Sandman Gibbons Madden Sar banes Gonzalez Mahon Satterfield Goodling Mailliard Saylor Grasso Mann Scher le G y Martin Scheuer G~fmn Mathias, Cali!. Schneebeli Griffiths Mathis, Ga. Schwengel Grover Matsunaga Scott Gubser Ma.zzoli Sebelius Gude Meeds Seiberling Hagan Melcher Shipley Haley Metcalfe Shoup H a lpern Mikva Shriver Hamilton Miller, Call!. Silies Hammer- Miller, Ohio Sisk schnlldt Mills Skubitz

Hanley Minish Slack Hansen. Idaho Minshall Smith, Calif . Hansen, Wash. Mitchell Smith, Iowa Harrington Mizell Smith, N.Y. Harsha Mollohan Snyder Harvey Monagan Spence Hastings Montgomery Sprin g er Hathaway Moorhead Stafford Hawkins Morgan Staggers Hays Morse Stanton, Hechler, w. Va. Mosher J. William Heckler, Mass. Moss Stanton , Helstoski Murphy, Ill. JamesV . Henderson Murphy, N.Y. Steed Hicks, Mass. Myers Steele Hicks, Wash. Natcher Steiger, Wis. Hillis N edzi Stephens Hogan Nelsen • Stokes Holifield Nichols Stratton Horton Nix Stubblefield Hosmer Obey Stuckey Howard O'Hara Sullivan Hull O'Konski Symington Hungate O'Neill Talcott Hunt Passman Taylor I chord Patman Teague, Calif. Jacobs Patten Teague, Tex. Jarman Pelly Terry Johnson, Calif. Pepper Thompson, Ga. Johnson, Pa. Perkins Thompson, N.J. Jonas Pettis Thomson, Wis. Jones, Ala. Peyser Thone Jones, N.O. Pickle Tiernan Jones, Tenn. Pike Udall Karth Pirnie Ullman Kastenmeler Podell VanDeerlin Kaz en Poff VanderJagt Keating Powell Vanlk Kee , · Preyer , N . C Veysey Keith Price, Ill. Vigorito Kemp Price, Tex. Waggonner King Pryor, Ark. Waldie Kluczynskl Pucinski Wampler Koch Purcell Ware Kuykendall Quie Watts Kyl Quillen Whalen Kyros Railsback Whalley Landnnn Randall White Latta Rangel Whitehurst Leggett Rees Whitten Lennon Reid, IlL Widnall Lent Reid, N.Y . Willi a ms Link Reuss Wilson, Bob Lloyd Rhodes Wilson, Long, La. Riegle Charles H. Long, Md. Robinson , Va. Winn Lujan Robison, N.Y. WoUf McClory Rodino Wright McCloskey Roe Wydler McClure . Rogers Wylie Mc Collister Ronca.Ho Wyman McCormack Rooney, Pa. Yates McDade Rosenthal ' Yatron McDonald, Rostenkowski Young , Fla. Mich. Roush Young.Tex. McEwen Roy Zablocki McFall Roybal Zion McKay Runnels zwach McKevitt Ruppe McKinney Ruth

NAYS-19

Burleson, Tex. Hall Rousselot Clawson, Del Hebert Schmitz Fisher Hutchinson Steiger, Ariz . Gettys Mayne Wiggins Goldwater Michel Wyatt Green, Oreg. Poage Gross Ra.rick

NOT VOTING-12

Clay Edwards, La . McCulloch Corbett Green , Pa. Mink Dent Hanna Roberts Dowdy Landgrebe Rooney, N.Y.

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) , pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, the joint resolution was passed.

The Clerk announced the following pairs:

Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Landgrebe.

Mr. Dent with Mr. Corbett.

Mr. Roberts with Mr. McCulloch.

Mr. Green of Pennsylvania with Mr. Clay. Mr. Edwards of Louisiana with Mrs. Mink. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up Senate Joint Resolution 7, a measure identical to that which the House has just approved, for immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution.

The Clerk read the Senate joint resolution, as follows:

S.J. RES. 7

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in · Congress assembled (two-thi r ds oj"each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States , which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"ARTICLE -

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

"SEC . 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. BOGGS). The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore . The gentleman will state it. _ Mr. GROSS. Do I correctly understand that the joint resolution is identical to the House joint resolution just passed by the House?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chairman of the committee so stated when he called up the Senate joint resolution.

The question is on the third reading of the Senate joint resolution.

The Senate joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the Senate joint resolution.

The question was taken; and Ctwothirds having voted in favor thereof), pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, the Senate joint resolution was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ·

A similar joint resolution (H.J. Res 223) was laid on the table.