after further debate, the Senate agreed to a unanimous consent request of Senator Mansfield to return S.J. Res. 1 to the calendar, not to be brought up again before the end of the November election recess. No further action was taken.

On September 26 and 27, 1973, the subcommittee conducted a new series of hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 1. At these hearings the subcommittee heard testimony from Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, Robert Strauss, Chairman of the Democratic National Party, Lucy Wilson Benson, President of the National League of Women Voters, Professor Paul Freund, Harvard Law School, Robert G. Dixon. Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Stephen I. Schlossberg, General Counsel, United Auto Workers and John D. Feerick, American Bar Association. These hearings were printed for the use of Senators and Representatives. On December 21, 1973, the subcommittee ordered Senate Joint Resolution 1 reported to the full Committee.

THE 25TH AMENDMENT (PRESIDENTIAL INABILITY AND FILLING OF VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT)

The 25th Amendment became a part of the Constitution on February 10, 1967, when action by the legislature of the 38th State, Nevada, completed the ratification process. The first implementation of the provisions of the 25th Amendment which provide for the selection and confirmation of a new Vice President occurred in 1973. Because of the novelty of this procedure, the subcommittee staff devoted a majority of its time for several weeks to answering numerous inquiries from Congressional offices, the press, and interested citizens as to the details of the selection process contained in the 25th Amendment. As a part of the effort to provide complete information about the legislative history of the 25th Amendment, the staff compiled a document (See, Selected Materials on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, S. Doc. 93-42) containing the Senate and House reports on the 25th Amendment, selected testimony from the hearings, and other material published in legal journals. In addition the staff assisted the Chairman of the subcommittee in preparing his testimony on the history of the 25th Amendment which was presented to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and to the House Committee on the Judiciary when those bodies were considering the nomination of Mr. Gerald R. Ford to become Vice President of the United States. A concise legislative history is included in this report.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senate Joint Resolution 1, introduced by Senator Bayh and referred to the subcommittee on January 22, 1965, was identical to Senate Joint Resolution 139, which passed the Senate by a vote of 65 yeas to 0 nays in the second session of the 88th Congress. After a public hearing the resolution was reported favorably to the full committee on February 1, 1965. On February 10, 1965, the full committee reported the joint resolution to the Senate with amendment, together with the individual views of Senators Dirksen and Hruska (S. Rept. 66).

Senate Joint Resolution 1 passed the Senate on February 19, 1965, by a vote of 72 yeas to 0 nays. The House passed House Joint Resolution 1, a similar resolution, on April 13, 1965, by a vote of 382 to 29 (Rept. No. 203). The language of House Joint Resolution 1, which differed slightly with the version passed by the Senate, was then substituted for the language of Senate Joint Resolution 1. On April 22, 1965, the Senate disagreed with the House amendment and requested a conference. Senators Bayh, Eastland, Ervin, Dirksen, and Ĥruska were appointed Senate conferees. Representatives Celler, Rogers of Colorado, Corman, McCulloch, and Poff were appointed April 28, 1965, as House conferees after the House insisted on its amendment and agreed to a conference. On June 30, 1965, the House by a voice vote agreed to the conference report. The Senate adopted the report by a vote of 69 yeas to 5 nays on July 6, 1965.

Below is a chronological list of the ratification by the States:

The National Archives has received no information from the States of Georgia, North Dakota, or South Carolina.

(The 25th amendment is reprinted in the appendix of this report.)

AGE OF CONGRESSIONAL SERVICE

With the ratification of the 26th amendment, eleven million younger voters have been enfranchised. However, another vitally important part of the political process remains subject to constitutional limitation: no one can become a Representative until age twenty-five nor a Senator until age thirty.

The purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 5 and 116 is to lower the age of eligibility for service in Congress by three years the same amount the voting age was reduced by the 26th amendment—to twenty-two in the House and twenty-seven in the Senate. Research by the Subcommittee staff has indicated that, despite the bar, at least five men have been elected to the Senate before their thirtieth birthday.

S. Rept. 1423, 93-2-2

One of these, Senator Biden of Delaware, was elected in November 1972. The youngest man ever to serve in the House was elected at the age of twenty-two-three years below the constitutional requirement. On December 19, 1973, the subcommittee held a day of hearings on these proposals. Among the witnesses heard from were Representative Robert F. Drinan of Massachusetts, who has a similar proposal in the House, Russell D. Hemenway, National Director, National Committee for an Effective Congress, William Klamon, National Student Association and Karl Rove, National Chairman, College Republicans. The subcommittee also received a statement for the hearing record from the Young Democratic Clubs of America. These hearings will be printed for the use of Senators and Representatives and the subcommittee will continue its study of these proposals during the second session of the 93d Congress.

CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 76 was to provide for voting representation in the Congress for the District of Columbia. The 23d amendment (1961) incorporated the District of Columbia into the presidential electoral process, but did not provide for representation in the House or Senate. The question of Congressional representation for the District of Columbia is of course distinct from such other questions as "home rule" and statehood: An appointed mayor-council form of government was recently instituted in the District of Columbia.

Senate Joint Resolution 76, introduced by Senator Kennedy, provided that the District of Columbia would have full voting representation in the Senate and the House, two Senators and the number of Representatives it would have if it were a State.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On October 24, 1967, the House Judiciary Committee reported favorably on House Joint Resolution 396 (H.R. Rept. No. 19, 90th Congress, 1st session), granting the District two Senators and the number of Representatives it would be entitled to if it were a State. The Subcommittee held hearings on congressional representation for the District of Columbia on November 8 and 9, 1967, and these hearings were available in printed form for the use of Senators and Representatives. No further action was taken in the House or the Senate in the 90th Congress.

On August 28, 1969, President Nixon sent a special message to Congress urging that the District of Columbia's 800,000 residents be granted representation in Congress. The President endorsed the proposal that the District of Columbia be permitted one Representative in the House of Representatives and such additional representation in either the House or the Senate, or both, as the Congress may prescribe by statute-up to the representation to which the District would be entitled if it were a State. President Johnson had also endorsed this proposal.

On June 1, 1970, the Subcommittee held hearings on Senate Joint Resolutions 52 and 56. Testimony was received from eight witnesses, all of whom favored such action. Public Law 91-405, 84 Stat. 845, ap

proved September 22, 1970, authorized a non-voting delegate from the District to the House of Representatives and established a twelvemember commission to "study and investigate" the present organization of the government of the District of Columbia.

During the Senate debate on Senate Joint Resolution 7, the 18-yearold-vote proposal, Mr. Kennedy on behalf of himself and Messrs. Eagleton, Harris, Javits, McGovern, and Mondale, sent to the desk an amendment (No. 11), which was ordered to be printed, lie on the table, and be printed in the Record. That amendment would have added an additional section to the joint resolution proposing a second constitutional amendment which would have granted voting representation in the Congress to the residents of the District of Columbia.

On March 10, 1971, after two hours of debate, the Senate tabled the Kennedy amendment by a vote of 68 yeas to 23 nays. See 117 Congressional Record S2872 (daily ed. Mar. 10, 1971).

During the past year Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Judiciary Committee held a complete set of hearings on the issue of D.C. Representation. House Joint Resolution 253, which would have provided such representation, was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee on February 29, 1972, as a result of these hearings. (See H.R. Rept. No. 92-889). No further action was taken in the 92d Congress. However, during the first session of the 93rd Congress, as the issue of "home rule" for the District of Columbia was being debated in both Houses of Congress, the subcommittee continued to receive substantial press and constituent inquiries on the subject of representation in Congress for the District. In order to bring together the latest information available on this topic, the subcommittee decided to hold hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 76, which would grant the District of Columbia two Senators and the same number of Representatives it would be entitled to if it were a State. These hearings were held on July 19, 1973 when the subcommittee heard testimony from the nonvoting representative for the District in the House of Representatives, Walter D. Fauntroy, the Mayor-Commissioner of Washington, Walter E. Washington, representatives of both major political parties in the District and the sponsor of the proposal, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. The hearings are being printed for the use of Senators and Representatives and the subcommittee staff expects to continue to study this proposed change in the Constitution during the second session.

PRAYER

The general purpose of Senate Joint Resolutions 7, 10, 15, 57, 84, 89, 122 and 167 is to permit some form of prayer in schools and other public buildings. The provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 7 (Mr. BAKER), 10 (Mr. SCHWEIKER), 15 (Mr. SCOTT, Va.), and 57 Mr. BARTLETT) would authorize "nondenominational" prayer in public buildings. Senate Joint Resolution 84 (Mr. SCHWEIKER), 89 (Mr. ROTH), and 122 (Mr. TALMADGE) would allow "voluntary" prayer and Senate Joint Resolution 167 (Mr. SCHWEIKER) provides for "silent prayer or meditation".

The subcommittee held two days of hearings on these proposals on July 27 and September 24, 1973-the first such hearings on the Senate since 1966. Testimony was heard from several members of Congress

including Senator Richard S. Schweiker of Pennsylvania, Senator Dewey Bartlett of Oklahoma, Senator William V. Roth, Jr. of Delaware, Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. of Tennessee and Representative Chalmers P. Wylie of Ohio. In addition public witnesses were heard in support of proposed amendments to allow prayer in public buildings. Some of the witnesses were Charles E. Mattingly of the American Legion, Mrs. Bennett G. Miller, Back to God Movement, Mrs. Rita Warren, Youth of America, Ind. and Rev. Robert G. Howes, Citizens for Public Prayer. The subcommittee will continue consideration of these proposals during the second session of the 93rd Congress.

PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY

Under clause 5 of section 1 of article II of the Constitution, eligibility for the office of the President is limited to "natural-born" citizens of the United States. The purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 137, introduced by Senator FONG, is to expand the eligibility clause for the office of the President to include all citizens of the United States, naturalized or natural-born, providing that they have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years prior to being elected to the office of the President. The adoption of such an amendment to the Constitution would clarify the meaning of the phrase "natural-born" citizen and eliminate the built-in discrimination against naturalized citizens, thus opening the highest office of the land to all citizens. The subcommittee intends to give this proposal careful consideration and to hold hearings on it during the second session of the 93rd Congress.

PRESIDENTIAL TERM

Senate Joint Resolution 109, introduced by Senator Mansfield, would limit any future President to a single, 6-year term.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

In the 92d Congress, the subcommittee conducted hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 77. Senators Mansfield and Aiken-the original sponsors of the joint resolution-both appeared to testify on behalf of their proposal. Senator Aiken told the subcommittee that this proposal should not be regarded as a "panacea for curing all the ills of our form of government." He seemed worried about the time a President has to spend defending himself against political attacks, some of which "are aimed at defeating him should he be a candidate for reelection." He thought the single, 6-year term would "remove to a great extent the President's worry over his own political standing and allow him to make decisions free from the temptations of political expediency."

Senator Mansfield testified: "It is only in providing a single presidential term of 6 years, I believe, that this Nation will preserve for its highest office, a sufficient degree of freedom and independence to function properly and adequately today and in the years ahead."

Clark Clifford opposed the joint resolution: "I find the notion that a President should be above politics inconsistent with our system of