March 10, 1971 (3)

To me, the proposal for giving full voting privileges to our young Americans is right. It should be enacted sometime in this year. But let us do it right. Let us build a strong legislative history and work on shaping a means of judicial review that can produce a court ruling without throwing an election in doubt.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend from Kentucky in this effort and I hope that most of our colleagues will see fit to pursue this goal in the manner we suggest .

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President , the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sco'IT) intended to be here at this time in order to . compliment the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. CooK) on his presentation. However, he was called away for a speech he had to give and is not in the Chamber now. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the statement he intended to deliver in person be printed in the RECORD.

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR SCOTT

Mr. President , I rise to compliment the distinguished Senator from Kentucky on his presentation on lowering the voting age to 18. I cosponsored this legislation with nine other distinguished Sena.tors.

The time has come to lower the voting age in the U.S. and to bring our young people into the main stream of our political process. We can do no less than to give the legislation introduced today by Senator Cook , my colleagues, and me, the fullest attention and consideration. I think it is possible, constitutionally, for the Congress to adopt a statute permitting the lowering of the voting age. As I have stated before, I tend to feel that 19 may perhaps be a better age than 18. However, I have cosponsored this legislation in order to stress my particularly strong feelings that the legislation now before this body-the Voting Rights legislation-not be encumbered With what, in essence , is a very complex and complicated matter. The legislation which the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has proposed would permit voting at the age of 18 in all elections, but would not be operative until January 1 , 1971. There are, of course, many alternatives to be considered including a constitutional amendment .

I believe it possible and essential for this body to act favorably on the issue of lowering the voting age this session. But I do not feel that an amendment to the present legislation is the proper way to proceed. Hearings g s on this subject are progr e ssing well Wi t hin the Judiciary Committee and I would think the members of this body would want to avail themselves of the opportunity to study the alternative which Senator Cook my colleagues, and I have proposed today in

However, I do not want to delay the consideration of an 18 or 19 year old vote beyond a reasonable time.

I am suggesting, however, that we should not risk embroiling the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with the subject of an 18 or 19 year old voting age.

Federal action on lowering the voting age is both necessary and appropriate this year. I believe that Congress has the authority to act in this area by statute, by establishing a uniform minimum voting age applicable to all states and to all elections.

RESUMPTION OF PROCEEDINGS

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I too, should like to commend the distinguished Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Cook) on his presentation this morning. He has answered the questions thoroughly and completely which I had in my own mind as to whether we could, by statute, provide for 18 year olds to vote. I am content that his arguments are complete and thorough in that regard.

Second, I think that we are blessed b y the fact that four States have had tested the 18- year-old vote. As the Senator from Kentucky has indicated, it has been a successful experience in Kentucky, and in other areas. We see that England itself has gone to the 18-year-old vote so it is not a radical proposal. It has been tested here and in other countries.

The Senator has pointed out, and the research I have done myself has proved, that the young vote is not a radical vote; it follows pretty much the patterns of the established vote in the various regions.

We need to acknowledge that there is presently, an anti-youth feeling in the country. Two States have tried to lower the voting age, and the effort was rejected at the polls. But I believe that those voters 'Who feel antagonistic toward youths are penalizing the majority of the young today · ay for the excesses of some of them.

In studying the violence on campus in the Committee on Government Operations, we determined that less than one-half of 1 percent of college and university students in the United States were engaged in any kind of disruptions that involved violence.

I look upon the college and university student as an intelligent, concerned, and deeply involved individual. I think he is worthy of support, and the privilege to vote.

Mr. President, I think the proposal of the Senator from Kentucky is an excellent one and ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of the bill he has just introduced.

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

Mr. CooPER. Mr . President, I join in congratulating and commending my colleague from Kentucky on his very able presentation. I recall that I made five stateWide races in Kentucky before the voting age was lowered to 18. The contrast since that time is remarkable. In days before, meetings were usually at t ended by partisan members of one's party and seldom were questions directed to the candidate about the poin t s at issue. But now, candidates speak before colleges and even high school classes and are subjected and properly so, to important and penetrating questioning. I believe that it has attained its greatest purpose and value, in that it gives the young men and women of our country the right of p a rticipating in their government, State, local , and n a tional, in i t s decisions, and under the processes of I un d erstand that the Senator is not intending to offer the bill as an amendment to the Voting Rights Act. Is th at correct? Mr. CooK. That is correct.

Mr. CooPER . I thank my colleague . I am glad because in my studies of two recent cases-Sou t h Carol in a against K at zenbach and K at zenbach ag ai nst Morgan- t h e court indicated that the Congress must provide the facts upon which the country can determine that the Congress has acted rationally, under section 5 of the 14th amendment. The purpose of the Senator's bill is one in which I concur, but there are grave questions about the constitutionality of a statute as compared to an amendment. I am very happy to have heard my colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield now to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND) 8 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 8 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today we are presented with a unique opportunity to register a vote of confidence in the youth of our country. By appr?v­ ing Senate Joint Resolution 7, proposing a Constitutional amendment which would lower the voting age to 18 for all elections we can entrust our young Citizens to expand their role in the process of self-government and reaffirm our faith in the principles of our Nation's founders. t d Mr. President, I have long advoca e reducing the voting age to 18. I have always maintained, however, that this goal must be achieved within the framework of the Constitution. That is why I was a cosponsor of an amendment to the Constitution last year, and of the proposed amendment this year.

The Congress took an unconstitutional approach to enfranchising 18-yearolds by enacting the Voting Rights Act of 1970. The right to vote for the 18- to 20- year-old age group should never have been attempted by Federal legislation. In my opinion, this right should only be granted by an amendment to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1970 as it applies to Federal elections only. Since the right to vote in State and local elections has only been granted by three States, we, therefore, presently have a burdensome and unworkable system. This situation should be corrected by amending the Constitution to grant the right to vote to 18-yearolds in all elections.

Mr. President, by its very nature, a dual-age voting system imposes a financial burden on the States and generates confusion among the electorate. According to a 50-State survey of election officials recently completed by the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee, putting the dual-age system into effect would cost the Nation's taxpayers a minimum of from $10 to $20 million. In my home State of South Carolina alone, the costs of maintaining a dual system for the more than 165,000 of our citizens in the 18 to 21 age bracket are estimated at between $25,000 and $30,000 per calendaryear.

Unless a uniform minimum age is established for voting in all elections, separate registration and voting procedures will have to be established in most of our States. More manpower will be needed in handling elections. More voting machines, or special "lock-out" devices for existing machines, will have to be bought by all communities.

Mr. President, dual-age voting would also prove unworkable because of the difficulty in determining just what constitutes a Federal election. Some States select nominees for Federal office in State conventions. Delegates to these State conventions are often selected in State elections or caucuses. The existing law prohibits the young voter from participating in this vital activity, thus denying him even an indirect voice in choosing his party's candidates for Federal office.

The greatest cost of not allowing our young people full participation cannot be measured in monetary terms. In traveling throughout this country and talking with young citizens from many different backgrounds I am deeply impressed with the knowledge and maturity of the great majority of our youth. They are the most highly educated of any generation this Nation has produced. By the age of 18 the majority have completed their high school education, and many are continuing their education in trade schools, colleges, and universities. Nearly 1 million young men and women in this age bracket are serving with honor in the Armed Forces. More than 3 million work at full-time jobs, and countless more serve as part-time employees, paying taxes on their earnings to finance the operations of our local and State governments.

Mr. President, I believe young people have proven their responsibility, and should be granted full citizenship. It just does not make sense to permit young people to have a voice in choosing national leaders while denying them the opportunity to participate in local government. I am convinced that government functions best at the local level, where citizens have the greatest individual effect by working with their elected officials to solve their own problems. Effective local government demands greater citizen involvement. To stifle the potentially productive power of the young--especially at a time when our youth have a greater appreciation of government and are stimulated to become involved in its processes--would be a grave error.

I believe in the young people of our country, for they are our Nation's future. The self-styled revolutionaries performing on the nightly news are not the real spokesmen for their generation. The responsible a.ctions of the majority of our young people speak for themselves. I look forward to working with them in finding solutions to our common problems in helping to make this Nation a better place through what President Nixon has called "those small, splendid efforts" made at the local level.

Mr. President, there must be no generation gap barring the path to the voting booth. Our 18-year-olds are not preparing for citizenship, they are living as citizens; thus they should be accorded all the attendant rights and responsibilities. This is why I have cosponsored this resolution and urge my colleagues to join in granting our young citizens full partnership in the political process.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, if the Constitution of the United States is amended to lower the voting age to 18, this will be thanks more than anything else to the efforts of one man-the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

Senator RANDOLPH is the staunchest friend the 18-year-old vote ever had. Twenty-nine years ago, back in 1942, Senator RANDOLPH, who was then a Member of the other body, introduced his first joint resolution to enfranchise 18-year-olds. Since that time, he has introduced 10 other resolutions with the same aim-two in the House and eight in the Senate. In his quiet personal style and without ever seeking the limelight, Senator RANDOLPH has continued to champion a cause that he believes in, and in the 29 years that have elapsed since his first House joint resolution, he has seen a.n increasing number of people come to feel the way he does about the 18-year-old vote.

More and more people now agree with Senator RANDOLPH that there is something deeply unfair about requiring a man to fight for his country while at the same time denying him the right to vote for his country's elected officials. More and more people now see that if 18-year-olds are considered responsible citizens by one standard-because they are treated as adults in courts of law, because they can be sued in many States and make wills and purchase insurance-­ then they should also be considered responsible citizens by the standard that gives them the right to vote.

Personally, Mr. President, I feel that Senator RANDOLPH's confidence in the intelligence, commonsense, and high ideals of our young people is justified. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that 18-year-olds are incapable of exercising sound judgment as responsible voters, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 7.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I want to register my strong support for Senate Joint Resolution 7, the proposed constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18 in all elections--State and local, as well as Federal.

This resolution is a singular tribute to the wisdom and fortitude of its principal author, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) who has worked with such dedication for almost three decades for this progressive extension of the franchise. The case for this amendment could not be more clear or compelling.

We have given the vote to our young citizens in Federal elections. To withhold that right in State and local elections would be a senseless travesty.

But there is much more here than a matter of consistency. The enormous problems and the fateful choices we will face in the 1970's are too big for any single level of Government.

If ever there was a moment when we had to make "grassroots democracy" more than rhetorical flourish, it is now. And the way to breathe life into our political institutions at every level is to engage in the political process the energy, the idealism, the critical intelligence, and the fresh integrity of our young people.

This resolution is an essential step in that direction. The passage of Senate Joint Resolution 7 is a responsibility that Congress must meet. The rest will be up to the young people of this country. It makes no sense to continually admonish young people to work within the system-while denying them the basic tool for making the system work.

There are many legitimate ways to bring about social change. But nothing is so effective as the right to vote.

The vast potential for constructive and orderly change inherent in the right to vote cannot be overestimated. In the past several years, we have witnessed the dramatic changes in this country resulting from the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In 1972, there will be over 15 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 21. We have an obligation to bring that vital part of our population into the political decisions that will shape their future.

There are those who argue that young Americans no longer care about their country.

But I am convinced that they do carethat they are concerned about the plight of their communities and their Nation as never before.

This amendment can be a building block for a new America. I am proud to join the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia in urging its passage.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor and to vote for final passage of Senate Joint Resolution 7, a constitutional amendment extending the right to vote in all elections-Federal, State, and local-to citizens 18 years and older.

Approval of this proposal will represent a highly significant event in the history of the effort to extend the voting franchise. Millions of individuals who rightly merit a voice in the operation of the government that affects their lives in many ways will be afforded an opportunity to shape the policies of their country.

This amendment represents democracy at its best; it assumes that those who are obligated to pay taxes, who are held legally responsible for their actions, and who are required to defend their Nation can have an equal voice with their peers in setting its laws and policies. Indeed, it could well be said that ratification of this constitutional amendment will remove one of the last vestiges of compulsory servitude in our legal system.

But more than that, our support of this proposal will be a clear message to young people that in the eyes of their country they possess the maturity and wisdom to register a full voice in the functioning of government. It will be a firm statement to them that they can work to change the system while operating within the system. At a time when many of them have an opportunity to do intensive thinking about American tradition and its social and legal structures, collegeage individuals will now have a greater incentive to test their own ideas and to be able to judge as well as to influence their Nation's direction.

~e average 18-year-old tn 1969 had completed 12.2 years of education. More than 50 percent of those age 18-male and female--are today enrolled in schooL This, of course, is a great change-and a welcome one-from the statistics of a generation ago, when only 16 percent of all young people went to college in 1940.

Our young adults have conclusively proven, I believe, that they do deserve and will use wisely the full political rights which this proposal will bestow upon them.

From a practical standpoint, there is another important reason why this constitutional amendment should be ratified as soon as possible. As a result of the Supreme Court decision last December upholding a provision of the 1970 Voting Rights Act which lowered the voting age to 18-but making it applicable only to Federal elections-there are bound to be many complex administrative problems and added expenses for election officials for so long as there are different minimum ages for voter qualification in State and local as opposed to Federal elections. The best and most expeditious solution to the problem will be for the Senate and House to each pass the amendment and then for at least three-fourths of the State legislatures to approve it.

Congressional action followed by the Supreme Court's ruling will, hopefully, have the effect of hastening the implementation of this proposal which so many distinguished individuals and groups have been advocating for so many years.

It is a change which I have long advocated. I firmly believe that the millions of young people who will be given the right to vote by this amendment will use that right proudly and honestly, and that our country will benefit greatly from their contributions.

SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH, FATHER OF THE 18-YEAR-OLD VOTE

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, no Member of the Congress deserves more credit for action on lowering the voting age to 18 than my distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH). The Senator has been fighting for this measure for 29 years, in both Houses. In 1942, while serving in the other body, Senator RANDOLPH introduced his first joint resolution to achieve his conviction that more of our young people should be given full participation in setting the course of this country. Senate Joint Resolution 7, now before us, is the 12th such measure my colleague has proposed. I have made clear my own firm support of Senate Joint Resolution 7, as have 86 other Senators. I feel certain that not one of my colleagues does not share my gratitude and sincere appreciation for the nearly three decades of diligent work given this legislation by the Senator from West Virginia. I think he is deserving of our highest commendation. It was Senator RANDOLPH, testifying before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, who gave the most compelling reason why this measure should be favored by every Member of the Congress.

"The future in large part," he said, “‘belongs to young people. It is imperative that they have the opportunity to help set the course of that future."

Mr. President, I am personally confident that Senate Joint Resolution 7 will be passed by the Congress. We owe this eventuality to Senator RANDOLPH. Millions of American young people, and the Congress, are already in his debt.

THE 18-YEAR-OLD VOTE: A LONG, HARD BATTLE

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I wish to applaud the efforts of the Senator from West Virginia in his attempt to extend the right to vote, one of the most privileged rights of our democratic society, to those Americans between the ages of 18 and 21 who are presently disenfranchised by State and local regulations.

The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has brought this dream partly to fruition, marks a turning point in the history of Senator RANDOLPH's long struggle in behalf of this measure. As a Congressman in 1952, Senator RANDOLPH submitted his first proposed constitutional amendment to this effect, and the degree of his dedication and persistence in attaining this goal is reflected in the fact that Senate Joint Resolution 7, which now has the support of a total of 86 cosponsors, is the 11th in a series of proposed constitutional amendments that the Senator from West Virginia has sponsored since 1942.

Few times in my memory has a proposed constitutional amendment had such overwhelming support from the Senate. This is a tribute not only to the diligence of the senior Senator from West Virginia, but to the basic justice inherent in his proposed resolution.

Those young Americans who are now required to bear arms in the furtherance of our foreign policy-indeed all young people who share full citizenship responsibility in every other way-should have a right to participate, through the elec· toral process, in the formulation of national policies and goals. This has been affirmed in principle by our Supreme Court and by the overwhelming support that the Senate has given to this measure.

The correctness of this stand is also attested to by the unmistakably high level of political maturity evident in young people today. Due to the impact of our media and educational system, they are extremely well-informed and interested in the political issues of our day, and, overwhelmingly interested in participation in the political process. It is important that we afford them this opportunity to increase their participation in this respect, not only because it is fair, but because I firmly believe that Americans in the 18- to 21-year-old category can make very positive contributions to our society. Through their idealism, their energy, and their ability to take a fresh look at our unsuccessful attempts to solve problems, they can be of invaluable assistance. I have created a Subcommittee on Youth within Labor and Public Welfare Committee for essentially this same purpose, to provide for the channeling of this constructive potential into our governmental process.

The resolution of the Senator from West Virginia provides young Americans with an even more direct access to our democratic institutions. It is a resolution I wholeheartedly support. I am proud to have been associated with him in this determined and relentless pursuit of this goal.

Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, we are here today to decide whether or not 18- year-olds ought to be granted the right to vote. All of us in the Senate are aware of the fact that since 1942 the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator RANDOLPH, has championed the cause of providing 18-year-.olds with voting rights. It is most appropriate that we are today considering his bill.

Mr. President , we are here today while, half a world away, 18-year-olds are fighting and dying for their country in Southeast Asia.

We are here today as Senators; as elected representatives of the 50 States, trying to deal with the issues of war and peace, of race, of justice, of repression, and of civil liberties. We deal with many issues. That is our mandate.

All of these issues affect 10 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 21. They are taxed. They are drafted. They fight and die in wars. They can marry. They have children. They can be jailed; but they cannot vote.

They carry all of the responsibilities of adults and yet they do not carry the most important right that can be granted to any American citizen, the right to vote. They are both disillusioned and disenfranchised. They have played an important part in American poll tics within the last 5 years. They have helped lead our country on the most important single issue of our times-the war. They have canvassed the land on behalf of new priorities and ne w candidates. They have represented a trend toward conscience instead of consensus. They have relied on issues and not merely ideology. They have stood for their beliefs.

And yet, despite all of their interest, their awareness, and their activity, they have been denied the right to vote.

I feel that it is long past time that we lower the voting age to 18 in every election across the land. We cannot, in good conscience, continue to ask 10 million Americans to share in the responsibilities of democracy while denying them a real voice in shaping the policies that they live with and die for .

Mr . MONTOYA. Mr. President, I want to commend those workers in the vineyard who have labored hard and whose determination has finally brought general acceptance to the proposition which is before the Senate today.

For years the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. . RANDOLPH) was the prime mover and sponsor of this resolution. Little by little he gained a following which mushroomed into today's general acceptance. I congratulate him for his tenacity and perseverance and for the culmination of his great efforts in this fine victory which is about to be realized.

The distinguished Senator from Indiana has been the real shepherd of this legislation in its journey through the Judiciary Committee and his presentation has been most effective.

THE 18-YEAR-OLD VOTE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, last year Congress and the Supreme Court took significant steps toward expanding the franchise to a large segment of the American public. Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 which by legislative authority sought to reduce the minimum voting age from 21 to 18 years in all elections. Later, in passing on the validity of this congressional action, the Court held that the 18-year-old-vote provisions were "constitutional and enforceable as they pertain to State and local elections." Going further, Mr. Justice Black, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said:

It is obvious that the whole constitution reserves to the States the power to set voter qualifications in State and local elections, except to the limited extent that the people through constitutional amendments have specifically n a rrowed the powers of the States.

This decision confirmed the apprehension of many constitutional scholars who held serious doubts as to the propriety and validity of legislative action in this area. The President and many Members of Congress submitted their belief last year that a constitutional amendment to lower the minim urn voting age was the appropriate vehicle for realizing this commendable and worthwhile goal. Nonetheless, Congress chose to utilize its legislative powers, and we are faced with the obligations of ameliorating the consequences.

The Court ' s decision created a formidable problem for State and local officials charged with administering elections in jurisdictions which have not adopted the 18-year-old minimum age. Under the present state of the law, separate registration and balloting procedures will be required for those individuals who are qualified to vote only for presidential and vice presidential electors, Senators and Congressmen, and for those qualified to vote for all candidates and issues presented to the electorate. Needless to say, this requirement will impose a substantial burden on State and local election officials. In my State of Kansas alone approximately a quarter-million new voters have been granted the Federal franchise. The monetary and administrative factors are staggering; the cost for implementing dual systems in the 47 States required to deal specifically with at least 10 million voters between 18 and 21 is estimated to be in excess of $20 million. In view of the Congress' creation of this problem it is imperative for Congress to act expeditiously to remedy it.

Swift approval of Senate Joint Resolution 7 is the best and most appropriate means of providing an 18-year-old minimum voting age for all elections. As the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) said yesterday , the hour is late, but it is still possible to arrange a solution in time for the 1972 elections. The Senate can do its part by approving the proposed constitutional amendment contained in this joint resolution and sending it to the House, from where it can be sent to the State legislatures, which, it is hoped, will cooperate in solvi n g this expensive and invidious form of discrimin a tion .

At this point I believe it would be appropriate to remark on the vision, foresight, and persistence of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, who since 1942, as a Member of the House of Representatives, has been in the forefront of efforts to secure passage of an 18-year-old vote amendment. As the author of Senate Joint Resolution 7 he has again this year championed the cause of constitutional approbation for the 18-year-old vote, and he must take well-deserved pride in being associated with an ideal, the ripeness and momentum of which are nearly universally recognized.

I have had the privilege of being associated with the Senator from West Virginia's efforts in this cause since coming 1A- the Senate, and prior to entering the Senate I was associated with similar efforts in the House of Representatives. I wholeheartedly support the goal of universal18-year-old suffrage and commend the Senator from West Virginia for his efforts.

As the list of cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 7 attests, this measure has exceptional bipartisan support, and I urge that, as amended by the Committee on the Judiciary, it receive the approval of which it is so deserving.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I rise at this point to express general appreciation to those Senators who have just reiterated their support of Senate Joint Resolution 7. A total of 86 Senators have joined as cosponsors of the resolution we are now considering. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point the list of Senators who have joined me as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 7.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Mr. Aiken, Mr. Allen , Mr . Allott, Mr. Baker, Mr . Bayh, Mr. Beall, Mr. Bellmon, Mr. Bible, Mr. Boggs, Mr. Brock, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Burdick, Mr. Byrd of West Virginia, Mr. Cannon, Mr Case, Mr. Chiles , Mr. Church, Mr. Cook, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Cotton, Mr. <.;ranston, Mr. Dole, Mr. Dominick, Mr. Eagleton, Mr . Fannin, Mr. Fong, Mr. Gambrell , Mr. Goldwater, Mr. Gravel, Mr. Griffin , Mr. Gurney, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hart , Mr. Har t ke , Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Hruska, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Javits, Mr. Jordan of Idaho, Mr. Jordan of North Carolina, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. McClellan, Mr. McGee, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Mcintyre, Mr. Magnuson, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Mathias, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Miller, Mr. Mondale , Mr. Montoya , Mr. Moss, Mr. Muskie, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Pastore, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Pell, Mr. Percy, Mr. Prouty, Mr. Proxmire, Mr. Ribicoff, Mr. Roth, Mr. Saxbe, Mr. Schweiker , Mr. Scott, Mrs. Smith, Mr. Sparkman, Mr. Spong, Mr. Stevens , Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Symington, Mr. Taft, Mr. Talmadge , Mr. Thurmond , Mr. Tower, Mr. Tunney, Mr. Weicker, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Young.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky < Mr. CooPER).

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I want to pay my tribute to the Senator from Indiana < Mr. BAYH ) and my colleague from Kentucky ( M r . CooK ) for their work in bringing this amendment from the Committee on the Judiciary to the Senate. I part i cul a rly wish to pay honor to the distinguished senior Sen a tor from West Virginia ( Mr. RANDOLPH) for sponsoring this amendment, and for his earlier sponsorship of 1942 similar amendments in, and since that time. He should be very proud that he was one of the first to propose this constitutional amendment 29 years ago, even in broader form, and that at last his work and his hopes will be realized. We owe him our appreciation, but his greatest satisfaction will come in the knowledge that he has played a major part in strengthening the democratic process, and our country.

My reason for speaking, other than commending our colleagues, is to speak of the experience of my State of Kentucky. It was the second State in the Union to give, in 1955, to its 18-year-old citizens the right to vote. I had participated in five general State elections before that date, and three since then, and I know that giving to these young men and women the right to vote invigorated the election process in Kentucky.

They have not only participated in their parties as Democrats and Republicans, but they have broken away from parties when they felt they should do so. They brought into the debate between candidates and the people a fuller discussion of the issues.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.

Mr. COOPER. Could I have an additional half minute?

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, acting for the chairman of our Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments (Mr. BAYH), and with his authority, I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator.

Mr. COOPER. I wanted only to finish the sentence.

I have said they brought into political debate and discussion in our State a fuller inquiry. They ask questions; they do not just listen to candidates' speeches, but they want to know the reasons for their stands upon issues. They have brought to our State and to our people a wider intelligence, a better understanding of the issues, and a more faithful democratic process. I believe the experience of Kentucky will be confirmed throughout the United States when this utes? amendment is ratified.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. President, I am appreciative of the reference of my cherished friend from Kentucky (Mr. CooPER) in referring to the intense interest, over a considerable number of years, which I have had in this very important, very vital, and very basic subject.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my able colleague from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD).

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my senior colleague today. It was 29 years ago when, as a Representative from the Second District of West Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives, the then Representative JENNINGS RANDOLPH initiated the effort which is going to culminate today, certainly with respect to this body's action, in the adoption of a resolution putting before the people of the United States an amendment to the Federal Constitution to allow 18-yearold citizens to vote in State and local elections.

I commend my colleague on his statesmanship, his vision, his dedication, and his never tiring efforts to see this amendment ultimately brought before the people of the United States for their decision. He has been very active here in the Senate in obtaining cosponsors of which I am one. He has actively urged upon the Committee on the Judiciary and the appropriate subcommittee the favorable reporting of this resolution. He cast his "bread upon the waters" 29 years ago, and it is returning now, after "many days."

I also want to express commendation and appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH), who has so ably guided the proposed legislation through his subcommittee. It was largely through his vigorous leadership on the subcommittee and in the full Committee on the Judiciary that favorable action was taken by the subcommittee and the full committee.

So, I join my colleagues today in paying very deserved tribute again to my senior colleague (Mr. RANDOLPH) , and also to the Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH), and to the Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked in the subcommittee and on the full committee to bring this proposed legislation to its fruition. They have done an excellent job.

Not only the young people of the United States are going to benefit from the vision and the work of these Senators, but also, this great Nation as a whole may benefit therefrom.

I know that my senior colleague looks upon the action of the Senate today with great satisfaction and pride as it prepares to vote on this measure, which he has so long diligently supported and endeavored to bring to a final decision. I congratulate him.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 additional min­

Mr. BAYH. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, perhaps I rise too often, but I do so because of the statements, rather of a personal as well as of an official nature, which are being made as we near the time for a vote on this important matter.

The Senator from West Vir g inia ( Mr. BYRD) is a cosponsor of the resolution. He has been an effective advocate.

I have noted, Mr. President, that approximately 35 young people are sitting in the gallery at this time, in one particular section. As they came in and took their seats, I thought again, as I have thought through the years, how important it is to implement the body politic, as we know it, with the franchise of freedom and responsibility to this group of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds, whom I call young adults. I think we perhaps emphasize too much that they are just youth. They are young adults, and they are faced with the problems that we, who are older, are faced with in considerable degree. To have them, in a sense, not on the sidelines but in the main arena, as participants is a satisfaction which I have anticipated.

I earnestly set forth · my thinking now, as I have on many, many occasions that if we refer this matter to the States, as I believe we should, and if a sufficient number of the States ratify, as I believe they will, we will have strengthened the process under which the elective system of government moves forward, meeting the changes and the challenges of this Republic and all its people.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

M~. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. President, usually it is said that there are two sides to every question; but, apparently, there is only one side to the issue now before the Senate and that is the matter of granting the' vote to young people of the age of 18 years and older.

I, too, want to commend the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) on his statesmanship and on his determination and the dedication he has had to the cause of providing the vote for 18-year-olds. He initiated this movement in Congress in October 1942, when he introduced a resolution in the House, of which he was then a Member. He has never let up in this drive to submit a constitutional amendment back to the States, and during the 91st Congress he was the author and the chief sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 147, of which there were 73 cosponsors. I am proud to say that the junior Senator from Alabama was one of the cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 147, which should have been submitted to the States in the 91st Congress. We are running 7 months behind the schedule that we would have been on had the amendment been submitted back at the time the 18-year-old by statute effort was made in the Senate and the amendment added to the voting rights bill.

At that time, the junior Senator from Alabama and several other Senators urged that we follow the route of submitting the constitutional amendment to the States at that time. Senate Joint Resolution 147 provided for giving the franchise to 18-year-olds in all elections. That would have been the better practice, and it would have avoided the chaos and confusion that has been created by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 7 is to mop up and clean up the confusion caused by that decision of the Supreme Court.

In the 91st Congress, the junior Senator from Alabama argued that it would be unconstitutional to change by statute a right given to the States by the Constitution. Consi d ered leg a l opinion in this country is that the Supreme Court resorted to the worst sort of legal gymnastics in coming to a 5-to-4 decision authorizing 18-year-olds to vote in national elections but denying that right in State and local elections.

It is interesting to note that five separate opinions were written by the Justices in the 18-year-olds vote case and that the supposed majority opinion held that 18-year-olds are authorized to vote in Federal elections but not in State and local elections, and that the majority opinion was not agreed to by a single other of the Justices, because not a single other Justice agreed with the conclusion that 18-year-old voting is authorized in one and not authorized in the other.

So it is significant to note that Senate Joint Resolution 7 is not confined to giving the franchise to 18-year-olds in State and local elections. It gives the franchise to those 18 years of age and older in all elections.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. ALLEN. I ask for 1 additional tion now. minute.

This should have been done during the last Congress. If it had been done at that time, then we would be 7 man ths ahead of the schedule we are on now. The junior Senator from Alabama is one of only 17 who voted against doing by statute what should have been done at that time bY constitutional amendment.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 7 in the 92d Congress, just as I am proud that I was a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution in the 91st Congress, and just as I am proud that I opposed 18-year-old voting authorization by statute and insisted that i · t be authorized by cons · constitutional amendment.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is left?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BROCK). Three minutes to the Senator from Michigan and 9 minutes to the Senator from Indiana (Mr. BAYH).

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining 3 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I rise to indicate my strong support for this proposed constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18 years for all elections.

Mr. President, proposals similar to Senate Joint Resolution 7 have been before Congress since 1941. Since that time literally hundreds of bills and resolutions have been introduced to lower the voting Yet today is only the second time that either House of Congress has had the opportunity to vote to extend the franchise to 18-,19-, and 20-year-olds by means of a constitutional amendment-­ the first opportunity was in 1954 when the Senate by a vote of 34 to 24 fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

Last June Congress passed the Voting Rights Amendments of 1970 which included a provision purporting to lower the voting age to 18 by statute. I indicated my serious concern then that such an attempt to lower the voting age by statute would run into grave constitutional questions. I urged then that the Senate proceed instead to adopt a constitutional amendment such as the one before us now.

Six months later, on December 21, 1972. 1970, the Supreme Court, in Oregon against Mitchell, struck down the statute at it applied to non-Federal elections. As a result, we are confronted with a confusing, nonsensical situation in which persons 18 to 20 years old are entitled to vote in Federal elections but they are precluded in most States from voting in State and local elections.

I agreed with the President when, as he signed the voting rights amendments on June 22, 1970, he said:

The time has also come to give 18-yearolds the vote, as I have long urged.

The way to do this is by amending the Constitution. Because of the likelihood that the 18-year-old vote provision of the law will not survive its court test, the Constitutional amendment pending before the Congress should go forward to the states for ratification appeal by the President is all the more meaningful now that the Supreme Court's predictable decision has left in its wake a confusing, chaotic situation.

Mr. President, I cosponsored a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to lower the voting age in the 91st Congress, and I was pleased this year to be a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 7, now before the Senate.

Our 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds are the best educated and best informed young people in our Nation's history.

Two hundred years ago, the average 18-year-old had received only 5 years of education.

Today the typical 18- and 19-year-old has more than 12 years of education.

Today, of the 11% million persons in the 18- to 20-year group, 80 percent are high school graduates and 46 percent are college students.

That young people today are politically aware hardly needs to be stated. Indeed, there has been no lack of criticism of extreme behavior on the part of a very small minority of these young people, particularly during the past few years. However, we need to keep in mind, as reported by the Eisenhower Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, that less than 2 percent of young peop!e in this country have been involved in violent behavior.

The remaining 98 percent--the concerned but law-abiding majority-are entitled to assurances that avenues are open for responsible and constructive political expression. If these young people are to work "within the system," they need access to the system. The right to vote will provide that access.

Mr. President, there is another important reason why Congress should act now to send a constitutional amendment to the States for ratification.

Since 18-year-olds in most States can vote only in Federal elections, the prospect, in the absence of such a constitutional amendment, is confusion and added expense if election officials should be reQuired to conduct divided elections. In Michigan, it is reported that an additional 400,000 new voters will be eligible to participate in Federal elections. Although exact figures are not yet available, it ha.s been estimated that dual age voting could cost the State of Michigan several hundred thousand dollars by Estimates in other States run much higher. For example, the extra cost of dual voting arrangements may run as high as $5 million for New York City alone.

Prompt action is necessary if we are to save these extra costs by extending the franchise to young people in time for them to vote in local and State elections, as well as Federal elections in 1972.

The Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments reported in February 1971 that--

Of the 47 States With a voting age greater than 18 for State elections, change before the 1972 election appears impossible in 39 States in the absence of a. Federal constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, the subcommittee has indicated that there is a "realistic possibility" of ratification of a Federal constitutional amendment by the requisite 38 States before the 1972 election. In this regard it may be significant to recall that when Congress approved a constitutional amendment extending the vote to women in 1919, many predicted that the States would not ratify it. In fact, however, the 19th amendment was ratified by the required number of States in less than 15 months.

Mr. President, I was pleased to note that a special commission on the age of majority appointed by Michigan's Governor, William A. Milliken, recommended last Monday, after a 6 - month study, that the voting age in Michigan be lowered from 21 to 18 for all elections.

I heartily endorse Governor Milliken's recommendation, and I hope that Michigan will be among the first States in the Union to ratify this proposed amendment to the Constitution. I am happy to report that my own State representative, the Hon. Mike Dively, who serves as vice chairman of the Youth and Student Participation Committee of the Michigan House of Representatives, is confident and optimistic about the prospects for prompt ratification by the State Legislature of Michigan.

For the sake of equity and clarity, as well as economy, I urge the Senate to give its overwhelming approval to this historic amendment.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I rise to express appreciation to Senators ALLEN and GRIFFIN WhO have just spoken. I remember the effective leadership in the constitutional amendment approach which the Senator from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN) ardently advocated during consideration of the Voting Rights Act in the 91st Congress.

I think he might take some solaceif that is the correct word-in the comments contained in an editorial published in the New York Times last Sunday, which expressed the belief that it would have been preferable, or it would have been the right way, if we had pursued a constitutional amendment.

I am in agreement with the distinguished assistant minority leader, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN). He is, as always, factual. He has referred to the situation which obtains in his own State of Michigan with reference to the action which has been taken there. Of course, considerable problems would not only affect that great State and its people, but also the people of the United States generally, if we do not act promptly and bring to fruition the effort which is now being made.

I express my thanks again to these two Senators who have just spoken.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 6 minutes remain­

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, just about everything has been said that con~Eivably could be said about the merits of this proposed constitutional amendment, which will soon be voted on. In the course of the debate much praise has been heard for many Members of this body, but there has been special praise-and deservedly so--for the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH).

I have already expressed my deep appreciation to the Senator from West Virginia for his untiring efforts in this cause. I had the opportunity to be on three college and university campuses in the last 4 or 5 days. Some of the younger generation tend to think that the problems confronting us today might be the result of the generation gap. That is not true. The Senator from West Virginia-who, I have just learned to my surprise, turned 69 a day or so ago-has been in the forefront of very far-reaching legislation not only here, but also in the other body.

Senator RANDOLPH has been an effective advocate in the formulation and enactment of numerous programs of vision which have as their aim the betterment of our society. His philosophy in promoting projects and programs is to offer a basis on which people can work out their needs in common undertakings and through which more segments of our population have greater flexibility and alternatives in a creative partnership with their government. The senior West Virginia Senator is a staunch believer in providing a helping hand-not a handout to those in need.

The meaningful programs in health, education, training, public facilities, pollution control, and environmental improvement, which have been fashioned through the dedicated efforts of Senator RANDOLPH reflect his philosophy and are ing conditions. impressive.

In reviewing these achievements, it is well to remember that, in many of these areas, this is the first time our Government, in focusing on the needs of the people, has developed comprehensive attacks on problems too long overlooked and neglected.

The Senator from West Virginia was the principal sponsor and Senate floor manager of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965-and subsequent renewal amendments-which authorizes a program of regional economic development in all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other States. Shortly, he will bring reauthorization amendments to the Senate for consideration.

The Public Works and Economic Development Act was cosponsored by Sena tor RANDOLPH and he assisted in the floor management of these measures. He has now directed the Public Works Subcommittee on Economic Development to undertake extensive economic development hearings in preparation for new legislation this year.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and its Subcommittees on Education, Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, Labor, and Alcoholism and Narcotics, Senator RANDOLPH has been an active sponsor of legislation to develop human resources and health care and medical facility programs and increased educational and training opportunities for all citizens. He has been an effective force in the formulation and passage of the Manpower Development and Training Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Higher Education Facilities Act, Library Services and Construction Act, Economic Opportunity Act, and the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act. The Senator's efforts in the area of education and human resources span the entire spectrum of education and training needs of our society. Despite the remarkable successes in the existing programs, the senior West Virginia Senator is the first to recognize that much remains to be done and that the Nation's efforts must be redoubled.

The Randolph-Sheppard Act, authvred by Senator RANDOLPH when he was a Member of the House of Representa— t~ : tives, established the program of vending facilities operated by blind persons. There are approximately 3,400 blind persons who are gainfully employed under the vending stand program.

From the enactment of the original Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 to the passage in the 91st Congress of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Senator RANDOLPH's name has been synonymous with the efforts and programs to &.id the working people of our Nation. In the House of Representatives, he was an active advocate in the fight to secure a minimum-wage program. He participated in the formulation of the National Labor Relations Act and the Full Employment Act. Throughout his public service career, he has consistently endeavored to secure programs to assist our working people and to better workSenator RANDOLPH's advocacy of effective programs to improve public facilities, transportation systems, and the environment goes back many years. His record of achievement in these fields of endeavor is known throughout our Nation. As a member of the Senate Committee on Public Works since 1958 and its chairman since 1966, the West Virginia Senator has been intimately involved with the legislative leadership in the areas of air and water pollution control, solid waste disposal, highways, and water resources development.

Truly, Senator RANDOLPH is one of the influential Members of Congress who for several years have been providing active opposition to the continued environmental degradation that has now aroused national outrage. Under his guidance, the Committee on Public Works has moved on numerous fronts to develop a national policy to halt destruction of America's natural resources and reversing the pollution that is making increasingly large parts of the Nation undesirable. The landmark pollution control and environmental measures of recent years, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Solid Waste Disposal and Resource Recovery Acts, Water Quality Improvement Act, the Air Quality Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Environmental Quality Act, bear the imprint of my esteemed colleague's work and represent significant steps toward enhancement of environmental quality.

The Senator from West Virginia has had a long and distinguished record in the field of highway legislation. This notable record had its beginning when he was a Member of the House of Representatives and authorized legislation prior to World War II which led to the consideration and establishment of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Today, he is recognized as the leading authority on highways in the U.S. Senate. The highway measures which the Senator has sponsored or cosponsored have covered every aspect of highways from planning, design, and research to their safe and efficient use by the motoring public. Among them are such landmark measures as the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1964, the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1966, the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970.

Among public officials, he is probably the one most aware of the importance of a soundly developed road program to provide the Nation with the safest and most efficient means of transporting people and goods. During Senator RANDOLPH's chairmanship, highway legislation has reflected the changing needs and wishes of the public and reflects a move toward greater public responsibility in the relationship of highways and the communities. Highway laws developed in the committee now require the consideration of social and environmental goals and objectives in the location of proposed highway projects.

-Today, Mr. President, I believe that the Senate will pass yet another one of Senator RANDoLPH's fine proposals. I think that this measure will pass the Senate today, that it will pass the House of Representatives, and that it will be ratified in time for the 1972 elections. I think that we ought to ask ourselves what will happen after ratification, I have said to young and old that lowering the age is not a panacea for the problems confronting us. Both young and old have both strengths and weaknesses. There are young peoeple who will not vote just as there are older people who will not vote.

This amendment will not solve all our problems and sweep away all our woes. It will give the 11 ~ million young people who are outside of much of the legislative process, young people who are subject to all laws passed in this body and in all other legislative bodies, the right to participate in the election process and shape and mold their own futures.

Passage of this amendment will challenge young Americans to accept even more responsibility and show that they will participate. I have faith that they will participate.

I think the RECORD ought to show that, according to material the Senator from Kentucky submitted during the hearings, young people do vote when they have the opportunity. The record of the participation in the franchise is one of the real tragedies in our democratic society. There should be no reason under the sun why less than 60 percent of our citizens vote.

I predict that young people will vote, in large numbers. I believe that once these younger citizens have the right they have sought, they will use it.

Mr. COOK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield before the Senator from Beall West Virginia closes? Obviously he should do so, because this really has been his project for 30 years.

Mr. BAYH. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. COOK. Mr President, with all due respect to all people who have worked Burdick in this of recent vintage, I really hope that someone in the country after this measure passes does the Senator from Case West Virginia the honor of referring to this as the Randolph amendment.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I am genuinely grateful for the thoughtful remarks of the Senator from Kentucky. He is very kind.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time Dominick has expired.

QUORUM CALL

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

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

The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.

The 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), and the Senator from Maine (Mr. MusKIE) 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), the Senator from Maine (Mr. MusKIE), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. JoRDAN) would each vote

Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the 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) would each vote "yea."

The yeas and nays resulted-yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

(No. 18 Leg.)

YEAs-94

Aiken Ervin Moss Allen Fannin Nelson All ott Fong Packwood Anderson Fulbright Pastore Baker Gambrell Pearson Bayh Goldwater Pell

Griffin Percy

Bellm on Gurney Prouty Bennett Hansen Proxmire Bentsen Hart Randolph Bible Hartke Ribicoff Boggs Hollings Roth Brock Hruska Sax be Brooke Hughes Schweiker Buckley Humphrey Scott

Inouye Smith

Byrd, Va. Jackson Sparkman Byrd, W.Va. Javits Spong Cannon Jordan, Idaho Stennis

Kennedy Stevens

Chiles Long Stevenson Church Magnuson Symington Cook Mansfield Ta!t Cooper Mathias Talmadge Cotton McClellan Thurmond Cranston McGee Tower Curtis McGovern Tunney Dole Mcintyre Weicker

Metcalf Williams

Eagleton Miller Young Eastland Mondale Ellender Montoya

NAYS-0 NOT VOTING-6

Gravel Hatfield Mundt Harris Jordan, N.C. Muskie

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 0. Two-thirds of the Senators present and voting having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) is passed.

The joint resolution as passed reads as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 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."

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make technical and clerical corrections in the engrossment of Senate Joint Resolution 7.

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

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, I commend the subcommittee for its expeditious handling of this amendment. I would like also to say that this is a supreme moment for our colleague from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH). The passage of this resolution today marks the end of a fight which has been waged by him since 1942, when he first introduced a House joint resolution for a constitutional amendment permitting 18- year-olds to vote.

Time after time he introduced his resolution, and doggedly pursued it. The resolution we have passed today was the 11th he had sponsored since the original So today we see the culmination of years of effort with success. I congratulate the able Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) upon the successful passage by the Senate of Senate Joint Resolution 7, which affects the rights of so many people.