age of 25. William Pitt the Younger entered Parliament at age 21 and became Prime Minister of England three years later.

When this country was young, so were most of the people who conducted its affairs. It is sad-ridiculous really-that as the country has aged and as life spans have increased, we have let national leadership age as well.

It may be said that it would be more logical to propose that people should be eligible for election at 18 if one favors their voting at 18. But we have not yet lowered the voting age to 18, and it's hard to see how we could leap-frog that problem by enabling people to be elected who could not vote. So my present proposal is that they should be eligible for election to Congress at 21. Chronological age bears little relationship to maturity beyond an early point, and maturity may or may not be what the people wish in an elected representative. Certainly beyond the age of 21, there can be little valid justification for prohibiting American citizens from running for public office.

The history of the franchise in this country is a history of the gradual broadening of an originally very limited base. We have extended the vote to the non-propertied, to blacks, to women, to those who do not speak English--all in the hope and to the purpose of strengthening democracy. But we continue to apply other tests to our young people, and we apply these tests arbitrarily and unfairly. They, alone of all our citizens, must be intelligent, mature, and responsible. Can someone tell me how many citizens now eligible to vote could pass a test with these vague criteria-and who would decide who had passed it? If participation encourages responsible behavior, as we have always insisted it does, wouldn't it serve useful, pragmatic purposes as well as the high principles of representative government to extend the franchise again, this time to the largest and most restive group of Americans now denied the chance to vote? Of course, this unrepresentative quality is exacerbated by the seniority system. Some of this may take a considerable time to change, but we ought to start right away on the basic question of who can vote, so at least more weight can be given to that part of the population which is so drastically underrepresented because of age. If we extend the franchise to people 18 to 21 as we should, the age level of the Congress might in turn be reduced somewhat. And that might help restore some confidence in the representative quality of the legislative process at a time when it would be very useful to this country to do precisely that.

Now what are the reasons, if any, for retaining 21 as the voting age? How did 21 happen to become the voting age to begin with? The answer to that question ought to be the clincher to this controversy. Does anyone remember that the 21-year-old vote is rooted in eleventh century English law, that it is based on the notion that until a man was 21 years old, he was not physically strong enough to bear the vestments of battle?

If that is a sound basis for adopting voting ages, we had better inquire into the qualification of people over 50 or 60, or maybe even 40, to vote, not those 18 to 21.

But even then, 21 was the age of majority only for the nobilitya male of the "common people" was reckoned as an adult at age 15

when he became "capable of husbandry and of conducting * * * rustic employs." By that standard, in view of our attitude toward nobility and common folk in this country, it might be more seemly to set the franchise at 15, if 11th Century common law notions are to guide us on this matter today. But then there's the question of women, few of whom might be equipped to pass an armor-bearing test. I suppose on balance the whole question of who can bear arms is an unpersuasive one on which to base the voting age. In fact, since they have now lowered their voting age to 18, the British themselves seem to be leaning toward this view.

It puzzles me when people say that "old enough to fight" doesn't necessarily mean "old enough to vote." Shouldn't it at least mean you are old enough to vote on whether you're old enough to fight?

If I may summarize then: the 21-year-old vote originated in factors that have nothing to do with the nature of society today, factors that have no validity for America in the 1970's. On the other hand, there are very strong reasons why we should now extend the franchise to this very large group of people who are eager to participate more fully in society, who could contribute to making our Government more representative, and who need and deserve the encouragement of the opportunity to vote in the face of the importuning of those who try to convince them that democratic process has no meaning for them or for millions of other Americans. They are old enough to have graduated from high school, they are married, they have families, they pay taxes, they bear arms; it makes no sense that they cannot vote.

Senator BAYH. I do not know anybody today in the Congress who has had a greater degree of association and influence with young people than you have. What can we do-it has come up repeatedly -what can we do to try to convince the countryside that people are ultimately going to vote on issues like this, the quality and the qualifications of the average young citizen that you and I know, work with, and for?

Representative LOWENSTEIN. Of course, there is a great deal that we should do. To begin with, we ought to quit using the fact that there are many alienated young people, some of whom do irresponsible and disabling things we ought to quit using that fact as an excuse to ignore their legitimate grievances. Politicians and others. who work themselves into a lather denouncing the misbehavior of some students ought to be in the forefront of the effort to lower the voting age, it seems to me. The more ore critical you are of the alienation -the more eager you should be to encourage people who are alienated to get in and change the system through the electoral process. Isn't it self-defeating to use the fact that some young people are so frustrated that they are trying to blow things up as an excuse for keeping all young people from using the vote which is supposed to be the basic tool for more violent redress of grievances in this country?

Senator BAYH. You are so right. There is a great inconsistency there. And the question is how we can effectively argue to that inconsistency. The important contribution is making young people feel involved and doing away with this alienation.

Just one more question.

There has been some discussion here earlier today relative to a

proposal made by the President that we should give 18-year-olds the right to vote for Federal offices alone. What are your thoughts about that. for the Presidency, the Senators and the Congressmen?

Representative LOWENSTEIN. As an initial step I would support it, but I would prefer to extend the franchise across the board. Certainly it would be much better to have more young people voting for President and for Congressmen than none at all. But your leaderhip. tactical sense, and experience in this area are so preeminent that I would tend to follow your advice on how best to proceed. Senator BAYI. You might give it some thought. I appreciate your comments about my judgment. But my judgment I think can be enhanced by the independent thoughts of people like yourself who are so in tune with the general public feelings.

Representative LOWENSTEIN. Well, the problem seems to me to boil down to how can we get more high-priority energy focused on this question. These hearings should help some. We should consult with young people in both parties to try to get them to step up their national efforts. After all, one thing that won't stop is the clock, and politicians will be careful about approving the right to vote for people who in any case will be able to vote within 3 years. The problem is to bring this whole matter to a head so elected representatives will have to go on public record for or against.

Senator Cook. I would like to say in that regard, we have 68 Senators who are now on this. But I think that our real hangup and our real frustration is that we have been more or less pretty well-advised that even if we are successful on this side of the Capitol we are going to run into a real buzz saw when we get over on the other side of the Capitol. And our problem may not be whether we can present this to the respective legislatures in the country, but whether we can get it through the House committee and get it onto the floor of the House of Representatives.

Representative LOWENSTEIN. Don't let us discourage you. We do not let you discourage us.

Senator Cook. Don't worry, we will just keep going doing it over and over. I do not mean that in any jest. But I think we are faced with the problem of first things first. And our real problem, it seems to me, once we get this out of the committee-and I do not think we will have any trouble getting it out of the whole committee-and I hope the Chairman agrees with me--I think our real problem is what fate we may face once we hand-deliver this over to the other side of the building.

Representative LOWENSTEIN. How about a trade-off-you follow our effective, principled, and forward-looking lead on abolishing the electoral college and we'll follow your effective, principled, and forward-looking lead on the 18-year-old vote?

Senator Cook. I agree wholeheartedly.

Representative LOWENSTEIN. The problem is that too often the House and Senate follow what is worst in each other's activities. Think how great it would be for the country if it worked out the other way this time.

Senator BAYI. Thank you very much, Congressman. We really appreciate your being with us today.

Senator Cook. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the testimony of Mr. Bruce J. March and Mr. Jim Chiswell of the Citizens for Vote Eighteen into the record at this time.

Senator BAYH. Without objection it may be done.

(The prepared statements of Mr. Bruce P. Marsh and Mr. Jim Chiswell for inclusion in the record at this point follow :)

VOTE 18-CITIZENS FOR VOTE EIGHTEEN.

EXTEND THE VOTE

Testimony in support of the eighteen year old vote presented to the SubCommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 91st Congress, second session, by Bruce J. Marsh, Executive Director of Citizens for Vote 18 and Jim Chiswell, Director, Washington Legislative Bureau.

TESTIMONY: BRUCE J. MARSH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITIZENS FOR VOTE 18 Senator Cook, I too am gratified for this opportunity to present_testimony before this distinguished committee. I am Bruce Marsh, Executive Director of Citizens for Vote 18.

I would like to get right to the matter at hand. For over two years we have been working with vote 18 on a state by state level, and while we support a national amendment, it is highly unlikely there will ever be a national groundswell for national action as it appears right at the moment.

We are talking about an age group of ten or more million Americans who are one of the most unstable groups in our populace. I say unstable because this is our time to independently experiment with what we have learned and are learning. We do this in our own communities-and these communities can and do change drastically in terms of geographical location, circle of friends and associations, and in terms of contact with different local opinions. So we are talking about a group of people who really can never be justly represented here today.

I do not profess to speak for them or am I naive enough to conceive of myself as their leader, rather I would like to present views and feelings of the real young American.

Everywhere I go I hear these professed youth leaders cry "now is the time to give young people the vote. We are standing on a great threshold which can make or break this country-the 18-year old vote." If we are in such bad shape already, I can't understand why they are doing justice to their fellow young people to man a so-called sinking ship!

There is a terrible lack of good and intuitive leadership among the young "establishment." As evidenced by the testimony presented before this committee, this is true of all segments of the population at this age. Two years ago we urged then candidate Nixon to get more young people involved in their congress. involved in hearings pertaining to them, and set up communication with what one might call "ordinary young Americans." This is what we must do, and unless we do, we are only kidding ourselves.

The high school and college youth of today is politically impracticle when it comes to getting what he wants or believes in. But he more than makes up for it in his originality, idealism, and vigor and determination he puts forth in his ideas.

That is why the young 18, 19, and 20-year old as well as the 16 and 17-year old belongs sitting here today.

I was gratified two weeks ago when we received two independent letters from former Peace Moratorium organizers. One said: "If organization can produce a Peace Moratorium, it can foster a move to a more effective, constructive voice – that of the vote. I think we should get to work here at the crux of our own problem."

And, indeed the problem is one of understanding among each one of us-a YOUTH GAP rather than a GENERATION GAP. Today college youth is growing sick-consciously and unconsciously-of the constant threats of violence. of the constant hammering on Vietnam, of the constant accusations of prejudice, and the slinger after slinger of curses, gripes, polarizations and rediculousness which permeates the campus today." Again, I point up the lack of effective

leadership of the young members "of the establishment" only highlighted by the superiority of the leaders on the left.

I am not willing to say young people are better prepared to vote today than were the young people of a hundred years ago Education is about the only thing that has changed. I cannot conceive of not giving a young person (or any person) the right to vote because we say he is less educated. Because the young people we have met have had a basic understanding of what is relatively sound and unsound, of what is right and what is wrong, of what is practical and what is not. Surely this is important to the nebulous ill-defined vacuum we call maturity.

When we can finally realize the value of the individual person, the guy who lives down the street, the young married man who goes home at night and does not get wholeheartedly involved in the public effort, then we will get a true impression of what is behind it all. But as long as the press plays Hollywood with the ill-related, otherwise fragmented disruption and rebellion, as long as we give credibility to organizations that have no viable power in terms of representation, but only appear to do so, and as long as we exclude the "everyday citizens" from the halls of government, we are only kidding ourselves. That, Mr. Chairman, is what vote 18 is all about.

TESTIMONY: JIM CHISWELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE BUREAU I would first like to thank the distinguished Senator from the State of Kentucky for allowing us the opportunity to insert this testimony into the Sub-Committee's record. My name is James Chiswell, Director of the Citizens for Vote 18 Washington Legislative Bureau. As a director of the New York Citizens for Vote 18 Organization, I have attempted to effect state passage of a lower voting age for the last several years. But rather than discuss this state effort, it is more important that the feelings of the young adults I have met and worked with, during this period, be expressed to the members of this committee. I take great exception with the comments that are being raised that the group of young adults 18 to 20 are on the verge of a revolution. They are in fact searching for positive, constructive actions that they as individuals and as a group could take. One such sign is a lower voting age. These are the feelings of the mass of high school, college and working youths in New York State and I am sure across the nation.

A very small percentage of the age group who are seeking the right of franchise are the militant or compus radicals that are receiving the headlines and television coverage of the media. It must be the vast majority of students and other young people that the members of the Senate look to when considering this extension of sufferage. Any steps that the Senate and House take to extend the right to vote will be forward progress and will be welcomed by the members of the Citizens for Vote 18. I want it clearly understood that our ultimate goal is lowering voting ages across the country so that 18 year olds can vote for all elective offices; but I recognize that the process of legislation is one of compromise.

The effort to lower the voting age has never been, since its inception, a "gut" type issue. It is not a cause that has brought forth mass marches or militant acts; but has been a cause that the majority of young people have hoped to further by avoiding such actions. The student in the classroom, the young man in the military and young people working across the nation are the people who will benefit from this legislation. I ask the members of this Sub-Committee, the members of both the Senate and House to consider these young people when taking up S. 147 on the floor. Young people are looking to Congress and their -tate legislatures for the right to express themselves through the most basic exercise of a democracy, the right of the ballot.

Senator BAYH. I understand that Mr. Stephen Bogardo of the National Businessmen's Council also has a plane to catch. We would like to have your testimony, if you please.

We thank Mr. Megel for his patience. We will have his testimony

next.