same sense as you would have agency. But it seems to me it would be a fair proposition, and as far as the amount of money the Government would pay out is concerned, I think that would be infinitesimal compared to what we allow in private claims that go beyond the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The CHAIRMAN. You may continue with your statement, but I just wanted to get some justification for the taxpayers assuming the liability and responsibility for the irresponsible act of the elected representative.

Mr. DENTON. My theory about that is simply this, if I can make it a little clearer: That the Representative and Senator must be given freedom to discuss anything within the body. There must be no limit on that. History has shown how it could be abused if they did not have that right. In order that all the facts may be brought out, they must be given the unlimited right in that regard. But when they do that, they are performing a necessary function of the Government and in performing a necessary function of the Government some third party is injured.

The CHAIRMAN. If it is a necessary function of the Government, I do not see why the Government should be liable for their performing a necessary function. It is the individual who performs an unnecessary act that could create any liability either on the Government or on the individual.

Mr. DENTON. Of course, he would have to make a false statement. Of course, that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you do not make any false statements in the interest of the Government.

Mr. DENTON. If I may make myself clear, here is my thought about it: I feel that that right to debate must be unlimited on the part of the Members. The Constitution requires it. I think that is sound, and that we should have that. The reason we have that privilege is that it serves the interest of the Government to have that privilege. It is a necessary function of the Government to give them that right. Now, my thought is that if some man is injured by a necessary function of the Government, it is not fair that he should bear all the loss. As between him and the Government, I think the Government should bear the loss. I think the amount of money would be infinitesimal which would be allowed in those cases.

I know some Members are lawyers and we know there are not many libel and slander suits brought. The amount of recovery is very small in that type of case. All this would do is give the man a right to go into court and have it established whether the statement made against him is false or true.

As I say, I think I have heard people say it would open the door to ambulance chasing. I provide in this bill that suits be brought in a Federal court. I do not think any lawyers would want to take a libel or slander suit on a contingent-fee basis. I do not think they are the type of suits that offer themselves to that type of practice. The Federal torts bill goes much further that way.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you provide in there something about prosecution on a contingent-fee basis.

Mr. DENTON. Oh, that is right. If I do not do that in the bill, I think it should be included. But I am not worried about that, be

cause nobody is going to handle these cases on a contingent basis. At least, I do not think they would.

Federal statutes give an individual the right of action against the United States Government for malicious prosecution. That is, a wrongful act of some Government official. We give them redress in that case.

The Federal Tort Claims Act, incorporated in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, gives the individual an action against the Government when he has been injured by a tortious act, but this remedy does not extend to libel and slander.

Of course, that is an innovation. For years you could not sue the Government for a public or private act. We paid out a great deal of money under the various claims acts in the War Department for damages done by the War Department and Navy Department during the war. I served as a claims officer at one time. The theory of that was that the Government was not liable, but it was a good-will statute. The Government wanted to have good relations with the people. The Government should be a fair Government, and although the Government did not have to pay this money, it went on the theory that the claims should be paid because the Government wanted to be fair and have good relations with the public.

The CHAIRMAN. That was on the premise that while there is no legal liability, there was a moral responsibility?

Mr. DENTON. That is right. We wanted our Government to be a fair government, and we wanted it to be a just government, and that is what I feel about this kind of a case. When a function of the Government causes an individual to be injured, it is a fair government that will recompense him.

We have gone part way in protecting the individual, but he can still be wronged by the Government. There is an old legal maxim that, "Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy." I think we must now grant a remedy in this type of case.

I should like to devote the remainder of my time before the committee today to some remarks with respect to a means by which the business of the House of Representatives can be expedited and its work made more efficient. This part of my talk I want to address entirely to the House of Representatives. Maybe I am appearing before the wrong committee in this respect.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is in order, because while the Senate has deferred to the House with reference to its own rules, the purpose of these hearings is to develop all prospects and proposals for reorganization that would involve congressional procedures, and so we are glad to have you submit it to us.

Mr. DENTON. In that connection, it is my hope that your committee will recommend legislation to provide for the procurement and installation of a mechanism for the recording and automatic counting of roll calls taken in the House. I have proposed a reform along that line in H. R. 1326, which is now pending. In its present form, my bill would direct the Architect of the Capitol to take the necessary steps toward the installation, and would authorize an appropriation to cover the costs incident to the undertaking.

At the outset, I will say that the electrical recording and counting of quorum calls and roll-call votes is no innovation in American

legislative procedure. Such a system has been known and used successfully in a number of State legislatures over a 20- to 30-year period. The Wisconsin State Assembly made first use of electrical voting in 1916, and thus has had 35 years of practical experience with the system. At the present time, electrical voting systems are in operation in at least 20 of the 48 States. These States are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. A twenty-first State, Maryland, is now making installation.

In five of these States, the system is used in both the upper and lower chambers. Not 1 of the 20 States which have adopted the system has ever abandoned it in favor of the oral roll call. Hence, it can be seen that electrical voting has thoroughly proved itself in the test of time and practical application in the State legislatures.

The compelling basic consideration favoring the use of electrical voting is that, more and more as time goes on, Members of the House are slipping toward the losing side in the competition of time available versus their necessary duties. The press of legislative business has been growing steadily more heavy since the middle 1920's, and the unfortunate result is that, now, a Member frequently must choose between participating in floor proceedings, attending to necessary committee business, or performing work required at his office. It is seldom, indeed, that he can exercise all three of these functions to the best effect. To the extent that he falls short in those duties, it can be said that the representative character of our Government is weakened.

While there may be some degree of lost effort or inefficiency in any one of the phases of a Member's activity, the waste seems to me to be most apparent and most useless-in the time-consuming quorumcall and roll-call procedures, as they are at present carried out. The very foundation of representative government-deliberation and decision in the public view-has become, in one sense, a stumbling block in the legislative process. I submit that a way must be found to expedite the very necessary, yet basically mechanical, procedure of calling the roll in the House, and I am thoroughly convinced that the solution lies in electrical recording and counting.

During last year, 1950, the House was in session for 796 hours, over a period of 180 days. In this time there were 153 quorum calls and 154 roll-call votes taken. Assuming an average of 35 minutes for each quorum call and 45 minutes for each roll-call vote, 205 hours, or 41 average 5-hour days of debate, were used up in calling the roll of the House. That figure represents 25 percent of the total time spent in session.

By use of the electrical system, allowing 20 minutes for each call of the roll-15 minutes' warning, and at most 5 minutes in actually voting the same 307 votes and quorums could have been recorded and counted in exactly half the time-some 103 hours, or 21 average days of debate. Twenty days, or 102 hours could thus have been gained, or "saved," for the discharge of other business. There is no doubt that Members of the House could have employed these 20 days profitably in the public interest.

What would the gain of 20 days per year, repeated continuously over a period of 10 or 20 years, or an indefinite time, involve as to costs? Tentative cost estimates were made a year and a half ago by

the International Roll-Call Corp., of Richmond, Va., when the House Chamber was in process of renovation, and an approximate determination was made at the figure of $200,000 for provision of a system. Now that the renovation of the Chamber is complete, additional work would be required in the installation, and a figure of $300,000 would be more realistic, as I understand. Those figures are based on the assumption of outright purchase and installation of the system, and yearly maintenance charges would add a small amount to the long

run cost.

However, the International Roll-Call Corp., which is at present the sole supplier of the system, suggests that it may be more economical not to purchase the mechanism outright. It can be installed at an estimated cost of $100,000 and then be rented and maintained on contract for an approximate yearly cost of $10,000 over an extended period of time. In that event, the company would furnish servicing, paper record forms, printing ribbons, and other requirements, at no additional cost. When the proposed system is reduced to detailed consideration, I should urge that careful calculation be made as to the purchase versus the rental aspects of the installation.

The saving of time made possible by electric voting, which I have discussed is, of course, the principal argument and I believe, should be a decisive one-in favor of adoption of the system. There are other considerations very nearly as important, when taken together, which I will mention briefly. The automatic printer device in the system produces an accurate machine record, which is no larger than a legal-size sheet of paper, and is perfectly satisfactory as an official record. As few as three, or as many as 1,000 copies of this vote tally can be run off, as desired.

An illuminated indicator board on the wall of the Chamber will make clearly visible to all Members the nature of the particular proceeding which is under way, whether it be a quorum call, or a vote on a motion, an amendment, or on passage of a bill. Further, it will indicate the number or other designation of the measure being voted upon. Immediately as each Member votes from the switch located at his seat, his "yea" or "nay" vote is indicated by a green or red light beside his name on the display board. At the same time, and as long as the voting continues, an automatic tabulation of the "yeas" and "nays" is made. These totals appear in lighted figures on the board in continuing order as they change and increase toward the final result obtained when voting ceases. I mention these technical points for the reason that, if a Member is absent from the Chamber when a roll call is ordered, he may come in and determine from a quick glance at the board the information he desires for casting his vote. If he wishes, he may conveniently compare the votes other Members have cast before him. If he prefers to consult his own counsel, his deliberation will not be hampered by the noise and shouted responses which would occur during an oral roll call.

Because individual voting switches would be required for electrical voting, it would be necessary to make permanent assignment of a seat for each Member. I am of the opinion that this requirement would be for the good, since the Members would then not be obliged to wander about in search of a seat when the House is called to order.

On the whole, electrical voting would speed up the work of the House and make it vastly more efficient. Better attendance would be encouraged, during the shorter period of time actually necessary for

daily sessions to be held. By the elimination of noise and confusion on the floor of the Chamber, and with greater ease in making their vote a matter of record, the Members can set a more inspiring example to the thousands of impressionable gallery visitors, and raise themselves in the esteem and respect of the citizens they represent. I believe the adoption of electrical voting to be a necessary and desirable advancement, and I hope that the committee will see fit to recommend in its favor.

I wish to thank the committee for its tunity afforded me to appear here today. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

have any questions?

invitation and the oppor

Senator Monroney, do you

Senator MONRONEY. I appreciate very much your testimony, giving us the benefit of the close study which we know you have always made of the operation of the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

(H. R. 2130 is as follows:)

[H. R. 2130, 82d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide a remedy for persons slandered, libeled, or defamed by Members of Congress

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the purpose of this Act, while preserving inviolate the freedom of speech and debate guaranteed to Members of Congress by the Constitution of the United States, to provide a remedy for persons who are slandered, libeled, or defamed by such Members.

SEC. 2. Title 28, United States Code, is hereby amended by inserting immediately after section 2202 thereof a new chapter, to be composed of sections 2221 to 2225, inclusive, as follows:

"Sec.

"CHAPTER 152-DEFAMATION BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

"2221. Creation of remedy.

"2222. Jurisdiction and venue.

"2223. Procedure.

2224. Immunity from compulsory attendance as witness. "2225. Time for commencing action against the United States.

"§ 2221. Creation of remedy

"The United States shall be liable, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, for statements constituting slander, libel, or defamation made by a Member of the Senate or the House of Representatives while constitutionally immune from prosecution therefor, except that the United States shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages.

"The district court for the district wherein the plaintiff resides or the district court for the District of Columbia, sitting without a jury, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims not exceeding $10,000 in amount against the United States under this chapter, and shall hear, determine, and render judgment in accordance with the law of the place where the allegedly slanderous, libelous, or defamatory statement was made as if the United States were the individual who had made such statement. Costs shall be allowed to the successful claimant to the same extent as if the United States were a private litigant, except that such costs shall not include attorney's fees.

"§ 2223. Procedure

"In actions instituted under this chapter, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure, shall be in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States. Final judgments in the district courts in such actions shall be subject to review under sections 1291 and 1254 of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as other judgments of the district courts.