March 10, 1971 (2)

The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States extending the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, amendment No. 11 would add to the 18-year-old vote amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 7, a second constitutional amendment. This amendment is identical to the text of Senate Joint Resolution 6, which would provide for full voting representation for the District of Columbia in the U.S. Congress.

Mr. President, I am one of the three principal sponsors of the measure giving the District of Columbia full voting representation, together with the distinguished Senators from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) and Maryland (Mr. MATHIAs). No one who has studied the arguments on this question, as I have in the course of hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendment, can have any doubt of the desperate need for full voting representation for the District of Columbia. Here in the Nation's Capital we have completely disenfranchised-with the exception of presidential elections--nearly 800,000 of the Nation's citizens, a population larger than that of each of the 10 least populous States.

The people who live in the District are subject to the most complete control by the Congress of the United States. The Congress imposes their taxes, conscripts them into the military service, and even regulates the most minute detail of municipal government and civil law . Yet the peop l e have no vote for any Member of the U.S. Senate, and they are entitled only to nonvoting representation in the House. This is the kind of immoral imposition, the kind of political hypocrisy, that has no place in a democratic society.

But I am deeply troubled at the prospect of achieving reform in this area by the manner proposed today.

First, I fear that this amendment, if successful, could substantially delay the prospects for passage and ratification of the 18-year-old vote amendment. It would be less than candid not to recognize the danger of a filibuster if amendment No. 11 were to carry. Although some 40 legislatures are expected to be in session sometime next year, we must recognize that securing ratification by 38 legislatures is a difficult and time-consuming process. It is currently expected that at least 47 legislatures will be in session during this calendar year. However, many of these 47 are either required by law or expected by custom to adjourn by the end of March. Indeed, by the end of April, 24 of these legislatures are expected to have concluded their sessions. Therefore, the delay of any protracted filibuster could be a very serious handicap.

Second, I have very serious doubts whether a fundamental constitutional change of any kind should be undertaken by this mechanism. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) who has shown such progressive and forceful leadership on this issue, when he condemns the committee structure which allows an issue of this magnitude and significance to be stymied without debate, to be prevented from coming to the floor of the Senate. But I believe that a different question is involved when we are discussing the mandate of the Constitution, in article V, that proposed constitutional amendments must secure a two-thirds vote in both Houses of the Congress. That requirement was written into the Constitution to provide a fundamental safeguard and to insure that basic changes are made only when they have gained the very broadest kind of national support. I do not mean to imply that this amendment is unconstitutional. I believe that is constitutional, and I recognize that in at least one other case, the 23d and 24-th amendments, the S . Senate and the House were forced to vote on proposing two constitutional amendments at the same time.

However, I think it vitally important that we recognize that procedures of this kind can be used in other cases but this one. Those of us who believe Senate Joint Resolution 6 proposes a commendable and desirable constitutional amendment may not agree that other possible constitutional amendments are commendable or desirable. The Senator from Indiana has fought for many years for passage not only of the amend.ment proposing full voting representation for the District of Columbia, but for constitutional amendments providing for the election of the President by a system of direct popular vote, and for the equal rights amendment. These are measures which this body has faced in the past. I am hopeful that we will face them again in the near future, and with somewhat more success. But I believe that the Senate has a right to face each constitutional issue on its merits, and to vote it up or down by a two- thirds vote. If we follow other procedures when it suits u.s, we weaken our moral force for the day it may not suit us.

Despite the objections, Mr. President, I will vote against a motion to table this amendment. I do so because, in my judgment, this vote will be taken as a test of strength for District of Columbia representation. I do not think such a vote is a true test, but I am not prepared to diminish the support for District of Columbia representation in any way. But I cast this vote with substantial doubt as to the effect of this procedure if we continue on this course. I hope we will have the opportunity to fight this battle on its merits in the very near future.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, for too many years the political role of young Americans, 18 to 21 years of age, has been restricted to ringing doorbells and licking postage stamps. Now for the first time these young people will be able to vote in Federal elections.

I have long been a supporter of lowering the voting age to 18 and was pleased to support this legislation in the last Congress. I believe that the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the 18-year-old vote in national elections was a sound one.

It seems logical that this right to vote should be extended to 18-year-olds in State and local elections as well. I am a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 7 which would amend the Constitution to lower the voting age to 18 in all elections.

Never before has America's youth had a better opportunity to exercise its influence. Today's young people are more highly educated and better informed than ever. I believe that they are willing to work through the system to achieve progress and they deserve the opportunity to do so.

Unfortunately, election statistics indicate that a large percentage of young people, 21 to 24, have not exercised the right to vote. The task of improving the country is too important for young people not to be involved.

Passage of this resolution will give young people who want to make our Nation a better place in which to live, an opportunity and an obligation to become participants in the political process. I believe that our political parties will benefit from increased active participation of young people and respond to their concerns in a meaningful way.

This resolution is too important to be clouded by additional amendments. I oppose any attempt to complicate the issue with consideration of voting representation for the District of Columbia. Each of these proposals merits separate and careful consideration and neither should suffer from opposition generated by the other.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it is with the greatest reluctance that I rise at this time to explain the action that I am about to take. What I intend to do is move to table the pending amendment. In my judgment, prevailing circumstances justify such action. The circumstances are as follows: There are at present two issues r. :!nding before the Senate. Each is distinct. Each stands alone on its merits.

With respect to the 18-year-old proposition, it will be recalled that last year many of my colleagues on both sides of the Senate aisle, including the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), offered an amendment to the Voting Rights Act which by law would have granted voting rights to all citizens 18 years of age and over in all elections-Federal, State, and local. That amendment was eventually enacted into law on the basis of responsible legal authority. When the issue was reviewed by the Supreme Court, however, so much of the proposal that applied to State and local elections was struck down as not authorized by the Constitution. The States are thus confronted with a most serious dilemma. They are now required to permit--quite correctly--citizens who are 18, 19, and 20 to register to vote in all elections for Federal office. When it comes to State and local elections , however, the registration rolls-just as correctly-must be liL:ited to citizens qualified under State law and the age requirement is 21 years in all but nine States. As discussed fully by the distinguished Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) -the granddaddy, if I : nay say so of this legislation--such a dual-age voting system can result only in added cost, confusion, delay, and waste, to say nothing of the unjust and unreasonable burden it imposes upon those citizens who are 18, 19, and 20 years of age. The adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 7, as reported by the committee, provides the exclusive way out of this dilemma.

It is imperative, in my judgment, that no action be taken to jeopardize the effort to extend to 18-, 19-, and 20-yearolds the full franchise of the ballot in all elections. I have advocated such an extension ever since coming to the Senate, and before. I have advocated the extension not only to Federal elections, but to all elections. I have done so and I do so today because our young men and women 18 years of age and older should participate fully in the political processes of this Nation. They have demonstrated their capability of assuming obligations and responsibilities in keeping with this right-in school, in work and in military service. Their contribution to the electoral process is not only welcome, it will be indispensable in the years ahead.

It is not enough to say that they now enjoy the right to vote for the President of the United States. Nor is it enough to say that they are now permitted to vote for the Senators from their States and for the Representatives from their Congressional districts. This last barrier ought also to be removed. They must be fully enfranchised, and no action should be tolerated that would jeopardize this effort to give them the ballot in State and local elections. With that proposition, I believe just about every Member of this body agrees.

But there is far from unanimity on the second proposition now confronting the Senate. It is the issue of representation in Congress for the people of the District of Columbia as provided by the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), and others.

Unquestionably, the people of the District deserve full and fair representation. Unquestionably, there is a rational basis for providing such representation. It is no secret, however, that many Members of this body-not to mention the other body-would insist that such a proposal undergo exhaustive examination and have at least full benefit of committee consideration before allowing it to come to a vote. The prospect of such a filibuster can have no effect but to jeopardize the whole effort to gain full voting rights for citizens 18 years old and older in all elections all across the land. And if this measure should be brought before the Senate as an appendage to the 18-year-old voting measure, what of other constitutional proposals? What about public school prayer, electoral college reform, equal rights for women, and all the rest--all of which I favor? It is my intention to move to table all of these proposals that would serve only to endanger full access to the ballot box by all citizens 18 and older.

In closing, it should be said that I am not unsympathetic to the position in which the Senator from Massachusetts finds himself. I know how sincerely he has devoted himself to this cause, as he did, last year, to the passage of the 18- year-old amendment. He was, in reality, the initiator and father of the amendment giving to all18- to 20-year-olds the right to vote in State and local as well as national elections. I only suggest that this is not the time; nor is it the place for pressing the proposal he now advocates. Mr. President, I wish to see the full franchise of the ballot a reality for 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds next year in all elections. I move to table the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I withhold that motion for the time being, and yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Miss Nancy Camden and Mr. Carey Parker, assistants to Mr. EAGLETON and Mr. KENNEDY, respectively, the coauthors of the amendment, be permitted the privilege of the ftoor during the rollcall vote on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, before I renew my motion, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the standing order, the Sergeant at Arms will clear the Senate Chamber of all aides to Senators during the yea and nay vote.

The Chair would remind visitors in the gallery that the rules of the Senate prohibit demonstrations of any type by occupants of the gallery . Unless order is observed by our visitors, the Chair will be compelled to direct attendants in the gallery to remove those causing the disturbance, so that the Senate may conduct its business in an orderly manner. The question is on agreeing to the motion to table. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from Maine (Mr. MusKIE) , the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE), and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. JoRDAN) is absent because of illness.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS) would vote "nay."

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) would vote "yea."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the ceed. Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) is necessarily absent.

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) is absent because of illness.

If present and voting, the Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 68, nays 23, as follows:

[No. 17 Leg.]

YEAS-68

Aiken Dom inic k Pearson Allen Eastland Pell All ott Ellender Percy Anderson Ervin Prouty Baker Fannin Randolph Beall Fong Roth Be limon Fulbright Sax be Bennett Gambrell Schweiker Bentsen Goldwater Scott Bible Gurney Sm ith Boggs Hansen Sparkman Brock Holli ngs Spong Buckley Hruska Stennis Burdick Jorcian, Idaho Stevens Byrd, Va. Long Symington Byrd, W.Va. Magnuson Taft Cannon Mansfie ld Talmadge Case McCle llan Thurmond Chiles McGe e Tower Cook Mcintyre Weicker Cotton Miller Williams Curtis Moss Young Dele Packwood

NAYS-23

Bayh Humphrey Mondale Brooke Inouye Montoya Cooper Jackson Pastore Cranston Javits Proxmire Eagleton Kennedy Ribicoff Griffin Mathias Stevenson Hart McGovern Tunney Hughes Metcalf

NOT VOTING-9

Church Hartke Mundt Gravel Hatfield Muskie Harris Jordan, N . C. Nelson

So Mr. MANSFIELD'S motion to table Mr. KENNEDY's amendment was agreed

Mr. NELSON subsequently said: Mr. President, when the vote was held on the motion to table an hour ago, I was in the Senate dining room and did not hear the bell. If I had been present, I would have voted "nay."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution is open to amendment.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.