I do not know. I have my own self, personally, for some time felt that there was great need on the part of the two committees of Congress to jointly go into the whole question, all of the questions, of voting, all of the voting laws, with a view of seeing if they could not do something to somewhat standardize all the laws and permit for greater voting, and I think one of the primary reasons that that is necessary is the moving around of the people of our country at the present time. That has been going on, as you gentlemen know, for some time now. A lot of our citizens who sincerely want to vote and who have been used to casting their vote are not privileged to do that any longer because of the conflicts between the various State laws. Mr. VURSELL. May I interrupt you at that point? I believe one of the finest things that this committee has done is to start to do the very thing the gentleman has suggested, when we issued recommendations to the States and laid out a pattern which so many of the States saw fit to cooperate with, by setting up their primary elections to an earlier date. I think we all know that the absentee voting laws of the various States never gave enough time for anyone, hardly, to vote an absentee ballot, but since we laid out this pattern and law in Public Law 712, with the long ballot in order to aid the soldiers, we have brought into being a vehicle that is being builded upon which will take care of the very things that you suggest. As the States move up their primaries and effectuate their State laws in order to make them compatible with the Federal pattern of law that we have been laying down, that will be accomplished. It is my judgment that it will cover hundreds of thousands with much longer voting periods for 1946 than it did for 1942, before we brought this bill into being.

Mr. COMBS. May I supplement that, Mr. Vursell? In other words, your point is that the activities of this committee pointed the way for State cooperation to reach a uniformity without any encroachmen of the Federal authority upon the State.

I would like to add this further comment. The American Bar Association has a very active committee on uniform State laws, and as a result of its work nearly every State in the Union has a uniform law with respect to negotiable instruments, demonstrating how you can, by setting forth a pattern and getting the cooperation of the States, arrive at uniformity without Federal encroachment upon State authority.

Mr. HADDOCK. You have uniform traffic laws and many other things, and if some organization such as this committee or a joint committee of Congress would set down and draw up uniform laws, you would find that most of them could adopt them.

Mr. GAVIN. I do not know about that. We had some interesting discussions last year when we tried to get the States to adopt some of the recommendations. I think it would be very interesting to the gentleman if he would get the Congressional Record and refer back to the debate that took place when this legislation was before the Congress last year. You would really secure some illuminating information as to the whole subject matter.

Mr. HADDOCK. It is a difficult problem, and I understand how some of the States feel about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, Mr. Manasco?

Mr. MANASCO. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Patterson?

Mr. PATTERSON. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Haddock, we thank you very much.

Mr. HADDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret that all of my facts were not correct. That is one of the reasons we wanted additional time. /

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we will proceed with the amendment on page 4, made by Mr. Manasco and seconded by Mr. Vursell. All in favor of the amendment will say "aye." Opposed, "no." The amendment is adopted unanimously.

Now I will ask Colonel Willis to offer to the committee the amendments as suggested by the War Department, and he at the same time representing the other services, which I understand it is generally understood that he does.

Colonel WILLIS. I might mention, Mr. Chairman, on page 7, just in passing, at the very bottom of the page, where it says "at least 60" the Senate committee changed that to "at least 45." I think that was on the basis of testimony by Mr. Fred Cook, from the National Association of Secretaries of State. I just mention that as what the Senate committee did. We pointed out that we thought it was highly desirable that the voters have as long a time as possible.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a recommendation.

Colonel WILLIS. At this point I am just bringing to your attention what the Senate committee did.

Mr. GAVIN. What was their object in changing it to 45?

Colonel WILLIS. I think Mr. Cook, chairman of the elections committee of the National Association of Secretaries of State, stated that he felt the States, if the bill showed 60 days, would all adopt 60 days, and that they would run into considerable difficulty in moving their primaries around. The exact reason why the committee adopted it I, of course, do not know. It was done in executive session. The chairman of the Senate committee asked the Army and the Navy about the time. The Navy testified that they preferred 60 days, and I testified that it was up to the committee but that I felt that the men, the voters, should be granted the maximum time possible. The present law specifies 45 days. Thirty-five of the States, according to the best information we have, actually allow 60 days in practice.

Mr. COMBS. If we were to amend this by putting in 45 instead of 60, it would not prevent any State from giving more time.

Colonel WILLIS. No, sir. This is simply a recommendation. Mr. COMBS. This says "at least 45" and if the State granted more it would be all right.

Mr. MANASCO. They could make it 100 if they wanted to.

Mr. GAVIN. I have concluded that he suggests that we leave it alone. Colonel WILLIS. No, sir. I just raised a point as to what the Senate committee had done.

The CHAIRMAN. It is in the line of recommendations, which is not binding at all.

Colonel WILLIS. No, sir. I do not think it is. We just hope the States will adopt the longest time possible.

The CHAIRMAN. We will proceed on page 9, and go through.

Colonel WILLIS. On page 9, line 11, the War Shipping Administration suggested that after the word "military" and before "operations" that the words "or merchant marine" be put in.

The CHAIRMAN. And the purpose of that is that the War Shipping Administration will have ceased to operate.

Colonel WILLIS. The joint operation of merchant marine and military is being separated as we get into peace time operations and the War Shipping Administration thought "military operations" would not cover it fully, so it should be "military or merchant marine operations.

Mr. MANASCO. I move that we adopt that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection. It is so ordered.

Is there any other question on page 9?

Colonel WILLIS. There is another one in line 24 on page 9, that same wording, "or merchant marine" after the word "military" and before "operations."

Mr. MANASCO. I move that that language be adopted wherever it appears in the bill.

Mr. GAVIN. I second the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further discussion? Those in favor of the motion that has been made and seconded say "aye." Opposed, "no."

Mr. MANASCO. I move that the clerk be authorized to insert that language wherever it appears. That will save us having to take it up separately.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any question on page 9?

Mr. MARTIN. On page 10, line 7, in line with the international postage elimination, there might need to be a change in that legend in the box on line 7.

Mr. COMBS. "Free of United States Postage."

Mr. MARTIN. We wanted it made clear that we could accord only that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a second to this amendment?

Mr. PATTERSON. I second the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. Those in favor of the motion that has been made and seconded will say "aye." Opposed, "no." It is carried.

Colonel WILLIS. On page 10 there is one other one. It is up in the post card, in the post-card text, the line numbered 5. It says, "Mail my ballot to the following service address." War Shipping suggested, after the word "service," to put in parentheses "(or merchant marine)".

Mr. MANASCO. I move the adoption of that.

Mr. GAVIN. I second the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. The motion has been made and seconded. Those in favor of the motion say "aye." Those opposed, "no." The motion is carried.

Colonel WILLIS. Then, in the explanation right under that "5", where it explains what address to include, the following was suggested in lieu of the present description, which says, "Must include military or naval unit," and so forth. This is the phrase suggested:

Must include complete military, naval, or merchant marine mail address; include military or naval unit and APO or FPO and Postmaster; for merchant marine, include vessel, foreign agent, and port.

Mr. MANASCO. I move the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. GAVIN. I second the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. Those in favor of the amendment say "aye." Those opposed, "no." The motion is carried.

That concludes page 10?

Colonel WILLIS, Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Page 11.

Colonel WILLIS. There are two of those "merchant marine" changes there.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vursell, during your absence there have been two or three clarifying amendments that do not affect the bill at all. Mr. VURSELL. That is quite all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Page 12?

Colonel WILLIS. Two more "merchant marine" amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. Page 13?

Colonel WILLIS. Page 13, line 9, after the comma, War Shipping suggested putting in "The War Shipping Administration or the merchant marine of the United States," and then "proceed within the exercise of its judgment.

*

Mr. MANASCO. Right after the words "United States"?

Colonel WILLIS. After the words "United States" put in "The War Shipping Administration, or the merchant marine of the United States,".

Mr. MANASCO. I move the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. VURSELL. I second the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any question? Those in favor of the amendment say "aye." Those opposed, "no." The amendment is adopted unanimously.

Colonel WILLIS. There is another one of those "or merchant marine" amendments in that same paragraph.

The CHAIRMAN. That motion carried for such of those changes as are necessary.

Page 14?

Colonel WILLIS. Nothing there, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Page 15?

Colonel WILLIS. Yes, sir; in section 402, and this is my amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Let us hear what you have to suggest.

Colonel WILLIS. We have some language to suggest in lieu of the present section. In the operation of the voting procedures we utilize the existing facilities. For example, a soldier voting officer may be company commander, and devote a little of his time to soldier voting, and we carry the ballot mail along with the other mail. The only amounts that we can separate from our other normal expenses would be the money we spend for our post-card applications. We can definitely segregate that and know what it costs. They run $800 to $1,000 a million. That is, so far as I know, the only additional expense that we would have of any appreciable amount. Of course, if we got out a War Department circular or poster, that might be some additional expense. We were informed by the Comptroller General in 1944 that we did not have anything in our appropriations to cover such expenditures as were made to assist the United States War Ballot Commission. We pointed out that the present law provided that the Federal agencies were to assist the Ballot Commission in its operations. In view of the

impossibility of segregating voting expenses from other normal operations I have this language to suggest:

Pertinent appropriations for the agencies responsible for the administration of this Act may be used for carrying into effect its provisions.

My suggestion is to substitute it for the present section 402.

The CHAIRMAN. Strike out:

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.—

and in lieu thereof insert:

Pertinent appropriations for the agencies responsible for the administration of this Act may be used for carrying into effect its provisions.

Mr. MANASCO. That is a little unusual. Every other authorization uses the same language we use here.

Colonel WILLIS. The reason I suggest that, sir, is that the present section 402 authorizes us to ask for additional appropriations to carry it out. Our Budget Division tells me, and I can readily understand, that there is no way of finding out how much voting costs. This would permit us to use our present appropriations. We would charge the post cards to stationery and binding. The pay of the Army would naturally include the pay of an officer who was primarily a company commander but was doing work as voting officer in addition to his normal duties.

Mr. COMBS. In other words, if the bill were left to stand as it is, if you got any funds to help with this matter, you would have to seek an appropriation for the purpose, and your amendment would just authorize you to go ahead and handle it as you would any matter in your own department, without seeking additional appropriations. Mr. MANASCO. Would that not violate your Budget and Accounting Act?

Colonel WILLIS. I am not an expert on that, sir. This language was given to me by our Budget Division. I checked with the Bureau of the Budget and told them about it when I took the report over there for clearance.

Mr. MANASCO. What did the Budget Bureau say?

Colonel WILLIS. They seemed to have no objection.

Mr. MANASCO. I wonder what the General Accounting Office would say? That is a pretty broad authorization there.

The CHAIRMAN.- I do not see why section 402 cannot provide the necessary funds to carry out this act. That is the law.

Mr. COMBS. If you put this in here, you will have to go seek a special appropriation for this purpose. This would merely authorize an appropriation, the way we have it in the bill at the present time, and it would put the War and Navy and other Departments right back where the Colonel referred to, the difficulty of handling the matter before. They would raise the point that their existing funds that had been appropriated under the regulations could not be used.

The CHAIRMAN. And they would have to get an emergency or deficiency appropriation.

Mr. COMBS. Which they are unable to segregate out. If we adopt the language he suggests, that difficulty would be removed and they would simply go ahead and handle the matter as they handle everything else.