The legislative clerk read the amendment, as follows: On page 58, line 17, strike out "reasonable". On page 58. line 17, insert "and such reasonable reimbursements immediately after "installations". On page 58, line 18, strike out "(2)". On page 57, lines 7 and 8, strike out "an increment of 2" and insert in lieu thereof "a reasonable reimbursement of not less than 1". On page 57, lines 19 and 20, strike out "an increment of 2" and insert in lieu thereof "a reasonable reimbursement of not less than 1". Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I have a small amendment, which I feel is not controversial. The bill provides that in the event a vehicle shall be found to be not in compliance with applicable safety standards, the manufacturer or distributor shall repair the equipment in order to protect the dealer, who would not be responsible for this condition. The bill provides that the manufacturer shall reimburse the dealer or distributor all transportation charges, plus an increment of 2 percent a month of such price paid prorated from the date of notice of such nonconformance to the date of repurchase by the manufacturer or distributor. Also, in the event that the automobile is to be repaired and made safe, the manufacturer shall provide the parts, and the dealer shall receive 2 percent per month until the repairs have been made. We asked the dealers and the manufacturers to check the cost carefully. They have agreed that they should have a reasonable charge of not less than 1 percent. In some instances this will not be sufficient to make the dealer whole. Then they must negotiate the reasonableness of this amount. If that is not possible, my amendment provides that the reasonable value shall be fixed by the courts. I believe that the committee will accept the amendment, because there is no objection to it on the part of the manufacturers or of the dealers, and it has no effect whatever on the safety features of the bill. Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MONRONEY. I yield. Mr. COTTON. I understand from the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma that this provision, which deals so intimately with the relation between the manufacturers and the dealers, has been out and is reasonably satisfactory to both groups at this time, and it still adequately protects the public. Mr. MONRONEY. I am informed that the dealers and the manufacturers are satisfied with the provision of not less than 1 percent at the present time. Some doubt exists as to the reasonableness of the 2-percent amount fixed by the committee when the bill was before it, and both groups are willing to agree to this amendment. Mr. COTTON. I hope the amendment will be accepted. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BREWSTER in the chair). Is all time yielded back? Mr. MONRONEY. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield back the time under my control. The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and ask that it be reported. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana will be stated. The legislative clerk read the amendment, as follows: New Section 111, to follow Section 110, Criminal Penalty, inserted following line 6, page 48, with following sections renumbered accordingly: "CRIMINAL PENALTY "SEC. 111. Whoever knowingly and willfully violates any provision of section 109, or any regulation issued thereunder, or whenever any corporation violates any provision of section 109, or any regulation thereunder, any individual director, omcer or agent of such corporation who knowingly or willfully authorized, ordered, or performed any of the acts constituting in whole or in part such violation, shall be fined not more than $50,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I ask that I may be yielded 5 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. my Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, amendment is a simple one. It was offered in the committee, and was rejected by the committee. However, it was in the original bill that I introduced in the Senate, which was cosponsored by a number of Senators, and it was also offered in the House of Representatives by Representative MACKAY of Georgia. The simple question before us is whether or not we are going to subject a person who knowingly and willfully violates this act to criminal penalties. To ask this question is to answer it. The position that such a person be exempted from criminal penalties is indefensible in law, reason or morality. In this country, a reckless driver, convicted on a manslaughter charge, can be fined and imprisoned. So can a person convicted of stealing a car. Yet we are being asked to pass a bill which exempts persons who knowingly and willfully violate one or more of its provisions from any statutory criminal penalties. 14248 Such violations may involve hazards or defects which can result in the death or injury of innocent people. By comparison, violations involving economic matters, such as antitrust, securities selling or income tax, have long established criminal sanctions attached to them. These sanctions are considered effective deterrents. Now, when human life is at stake. we are asked to restrict this bill to civil penalties. I cannot agree. This legislation applies not just to the automobile manufacturers but to thousands of parts producers and suppliers. It is basically unfair to raise these companies and their personnel to a privileged pedestal of exemption from criminal penalties for intentional violations. It is a poor precedent to set a policy that smacks of favoritism. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior whether done on a dark road or behind a corporate organization. I see no reason whatever for permitting such unequal penalties under the law. In the past, there have been numerous laws passed by Congress which have dealt with safety and standards-setting. Most of these laws have provided for criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations. These laws include those dealing with the safety of household refrigerators, labeling of hazardous substances, brake fluids, seat belts, motor carriers under the Interstate Commerce Commission, aircraft-concerning airworthiness certificates, interference with navigation, explosives, and so forthsteam boilers on vessels, coal mines, and food, drugs, and cosmetics. It should be noted that the brake fluid and seat belt acts provide for criminal fines and imprisonment. These acts would be repealed by the present legislation which, in its present form, would render behavior now under the scope of criminal sanctions, exempt from such penalties. It is argued that no safety statutes include both a civil and criminal penalty. If this is so, I would reply that the inadequacy of the past should never be a blueprint for the future. The administrator of this legislation should be given a broad range of enforcement options from civil to criminal in order to carry out his responsibilities flexibly and justly. Such options are necessary to permit him to tailor the most appropriate enforcement action to the particular gravity of violation. To place before us an "either/or" choice between criminal and civil penalties obscures the necessity and desirability of having both types of provisions in this bill. The other argument against criminal penalties is that it would be difficult to determine which person is engaging in criminal behavior. It is a bizarre plea, indeed, to say that because the culprit is difficult to identify, we should throw out the criminal provision under which he could be apprehended and brought to justice. I would not welcome seeing the day when knowing and willful violations of this act, that could result in death and injury, cannot be brought under the rule of criminal law. As long as the possibility of such outrageous behavior can be envisioned on the part of a few of the thousands of persons under the provisions of this bill, the enforcement tools must be there and ready for use. The automotive industry is no sacred cow to escape from legal accountability that is expected of other industries and persons engaged in producing products that could be hazardous to life and limb. I understand that the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON), has expressed himself on this matter. I appreciate the statement which he has made. I have also discussed with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF] the amendment as well as certain publications which are being circulated indicating that he did not favor criminal sanctions. The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF] assures me that he intends to support my amendment; that it was not necessarily misleading, but certainly it is not the fact that he intends to oppose the amendment. Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HARTKE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. RIBICOFF. I think the difference is that my objection to the original penalties was that they made no distinction between willful acts of violation and simple mistakes. I did not think there should be harsh penaltieseven if they were civil-in the absence of willfulness and intentional acts. But to say from that, that I oppose criminal sanctions for willful violation is not correct. Am I correct in understanding the amendment of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE) that it is intended to apply criminal penalties only if there is a willful and intentional violation? Mr. HARTKE. The Senator is correct, as far as this amendment is concerned and its intention. It says and does, as is provided in the criminal law where a man willfully and intentionally causes injury to another or performs an act causing injury to another and is subject to a fine. Mr. RIBICOFF. I wish to say to the distinguished Senator that I am confident there will not be a willful or intentional violation of the act by the automobile manufacturers. I am satisfied that all of them realize their responsibility. I am confident that they are going to comply with the law wholeheartedly and will even voluntarily go beyond it. The present leaders of the auto industry need not fear these criminal sanctions. My dealings with them convince me of their deep desire to produce safer cars and work within the regulations. But the amendment says to any and allpresent and future-that the United States is ready to use its ultimate authority to help insure auto safety to the American people. Mr. HARTKE. I do not see a situation where any one of the Big Four would willfully and knowingly violate any provision of the act. This does not cover negligence. There is no criminal penalty for anyone guilty of negligence. It is a simple definition 14249 that anyone, who beyond any question of doubt, beyond all doubt, intentionally and willfully does something prohibited in the law, and the result of which would cause injury, according to the act, will be subject to something more than civil penalty. Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. HARTKE. I yield. Mr. RIBICOFF. I think it should be pointed out because I had this colloquy with the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] earlier in the discussion of the bill-that the bill does apply to not only automobiles manufactured and distributed in the United States, but also to automobiles from foreign countries which are imported to the United States and distributed. Basically this penalty would apply to any distributor of a foreign car who willfully violated the law. It could be any of the automobiles that are manufactured abroad, many of which do not have these safety features. I am sure the distributor of imported cars will try in most instances to make sure all of the requirements of this act are in their automobiles. So we are not only dealing with manufacturers and distributors of American-made automobiles, but automobiles manufactured in every industrial country in the world today and sent to the United States. Is that correct? Mr. HARTKE. The Senator is correct. That is the point which should not be lost sight of. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? in a car, the net result of which would make the brake fluid ineffective in an automobile going down the highway, does the Senator mean to say that this is not a culpable act and that such a man should not be subject to a criminal penalty? That would be ridiculous. Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senators who have just spoken destroy their own objective when they state they do not expect that there will be any violations. I believe that the two remedies provided for are adequate. Mr. HARTKE. Let me say to the Benator from Ohio that I would hope any person would not expect other persons to violate the law but, nonetheless, we do have the situation where there are many criminal laws on the books. We may not expect anyone to violate the law, but we still have criminal laws for those who will not abide by the common and ordinary decencies of man. Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, this matter of the insertion of criminal penalties into this bill was discussed and studied exhaustively by the committee. The committee decided to remove them from the statute and I believe it was absolutely correct in doing so. I believe it was a very wise decision. Mr. President, we are not dealing with mobsters and gangsters. We are dealing with an industry which is the industrial pride of America, the envy of the industrial community of the world. It provides millions and millions of jobs for Americans at respectable pay. I realize that this safety law is necessary. What we are trying to do is sensibly and realistically to promote safety for the benefit of the public. We are not trying to pass a law that will be punitive. We are not reaching down to eliminate gangsterism by this bill. We are trying to promote safety. We intend to pass a bill which will ac Mr. HARTKE. I am happy to yield complish exactly that. We have civil to the Senator from Ohio. Mr. LAUSCHE. Am I correct in understanding that the bill as now written provides a civil penalty for violation of the act in an amount of $1,000 for each violation and a limitation in the aggregate of $400,000 upon the violator? Mr. HARTKE. That is a civil penalty maximum. Mr. LAUSCHE. Am I correct in understanding that the bill also provides that any person who has been offended by the acts of a manufacturer has a relief through a court of equity in the obtaining of injunctive relief against the violator? Mr. HARTKE. The Senator is correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. The amendment of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE], in addition to these two reliefs, would provide a third relief, making it a criminal offense to willfully and knowingly violate the act. Mr. HARTKE. That is correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. Does the Senator from Indiana feel that the two remedies here provided will be adequate? Mr. HARTKE. I do not. If a man adulterates brake fluid, say, puts water in it-half water and half fluid-does this knowingly and willfully and puts it penalties for violations that will go up to $400,000-the greatest ever enacted by Congress. Furthermore, there is injunctive power under the statute. But this amendment intends to give the industry a third shot over the bow SO to speak, and would write in the words "knowingly and willfully." No one ever said anything about acting "willfully." We realize and the industry admits there has been a slowness in bringing about the reforms necessary to guarantee safety to the American people. We recognize that. Because of the tardiness, this bill is now before the Senate. The law will be complete as written. I urge upon my colleagues in this Chamber: let us not make this a punitive law then we will be destroying at the outset all the objectives we are trying to accomplish. Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield? Mr. PASTORE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. HART. Does the Senator believe that insuring compliance with this would be a persuasive reason for providing this heavy civil penalty? Mr. PASTORE. By treating these people with decency and with respectability, not as so many mobsters because mobsters they are not. They provide Jobs for millions of Americans in this .country. Our automobile industry is the envy of the world. All one has to do is travel throughout the world to find out where the best automobiles are being made. They are being made in America. Yet some Senators stand in this Chamber and assert that the industry should be punished for this and punished for that. All we want the industry to do is carry out the standards which will be promulgated by the Department of Commerce. If they do not do so, then there is power provided under the bill to make them do it. If they will not do it, then they will be held responsible. There are the massive civil penalties. Let us be fair and frank. Let us be practical. Who will be paying for these safeguards in the end? The consumer, of course. The industry will not be reluctant to do what needs to be done because, in the final analysis, the cost of compliance will be added to the price of the automobile to the consumer. Up to now, Americans have involved themselves in the razzle dazzle and glamour of the automobile. Some people like a lot of chrome. Some people like their cars painted pink, others blue. Thus, we have gone into fashion and styling. Now we are saying, let us cut out some of the frills and let us go more into safety. I believe that if we pass this bill as reported by the committee, we will be doing exactly that. Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator also knows that it is going to be difficult for any person who might violate the provisions of section 109, or any regulations issued thereunder, to be able to prove that he did not have access to knowledge that the action was improper. I think that doubling the civil penalty from $200,000 to $400,000 will have the greatest influence on preventing any such action. A criminal penalty might even freeze the designs to prevent any exporter from possible violation of regulations issued under section 109. Mr. PASTORE. Absolutely. Mr. President, I am not talking for Studebaker, but I can say for General Motors, for Chrysler, and I can say for the Ford Motor Co., that they are not willfully and deliberately going to refuse to put a safety device on an automobile which device has been decreed by the Secretary of Commerce. They are not going willfully to refuse to do it. Are we schoolboys, or grown men? That is all I have to say. Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield for one question? Mr. PASTORE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Indiana for two questions if he wishes. Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, how much time remains to both sides? Who has charge of the time in opposition to this amendment? Mr. PASTORE. Perhaps the Senator has. I have already used up half of the time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the proponent of the amendment, the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE), has 4 minutes remaining, and the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] has 7 minutes remaining. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President. I delegate my time to the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. CoTTON). Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator for giving me such a generous "remnant” of it. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. GRIFFIN). The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the eloquent statement just made by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PAS. TORE) and to commend him for his stand on this legislation. It should be kept in mind that the Congress is plowing new ground. We are plowing new ground in an area which can affect the jobs of one out of every seven Americans now working. This is so because the automobile industry, directly or indirectly, provides work for one out of seven Americans. I should like to propound a question to the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARTKE) who is the author of the pending amendment: Is it not true that if the Senator's amendment should be adopted, this would be the first Federal statute in the area of safety or standards setting which would provide for both criminal and civil penalties? Mr. HARTKE. I do not want to say that that is true, because I have not had an opportunity to research that. I had to fly back to Washington after attending a State convention which is held every 2 years. I had asked for this bill to go over, but I was not given that privilege, and I therefore had to return to Washington and have not had a chance to research that problem. However, let me say that I do not care, because I think it is important we realize, as a matter of principle, two points: One is neglect, and the other is the culpa. ble act of knowingly and willfully violating the law. I do know this, as a student of the law, that most of the acts adopted by State legislative bodies provide for both civil and criminal penalties. One can drive an automobile down the highway, and be arrested and sent to jail for as small a violation as making a lefthand turn in the wrong place. The Senator is not going to say that in a situation where a man can install a steel rod in an automobile which he knows will not hold the steering mechanism under certain pressures, and knowingly and willfully installs it against the standards set, and knows the steel rod to be defective yet goes ahead and does it—which could mean that the Senator's family or mine could be killed-that that man would still not have to bear any punishment if caught. I am sure the Senator does not mean to say that all that man would have to do would be to take $400, 14250 000 out of the company's profits and be clear. They were not civil penalty cases. The civil penalties will come out of the pockets of those who do not have to worry about paying $400,000. Mr. GRIFFIN. If I may propound another question, on which I hope the Senator from Indiana may answer much more briefly, Is it true that the administration, and the Justice Department, have both said they were against the inclusion of criminal penalties? Mr. HARTKE. No; that is not true. Mr. GRIFFIN. That is my understanding. Mr. HARTKE. That may be the Senator's understanding, but it is not true. I happen to have a letter from them. It has been circulated as being the truth; but it is not true. Mr. GRIFFIN. Has the administration indicated that it is in favor of the Senator's amendment? Mr. HARTKE. They have said they had no objection to it. I do not know what that means. They have said that so long as civil penalties are adequate, they do not think they are needed, but that they have no objection to criminal penalties in the bill. Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield. Mr. MORTON. As I understand it, the Deputy Attorney General formally advised the committee: We would generally not favor imposition of criminal penalties for violation of the Act. Were criminal sanctions created, the statute might have to be narrowed in the respects we have noted, and it would also undoubtedly receive a narrower judicial construction. There would also be some dimculty in determining on which individuals criminal penalties should be imposed. Under the antitrust laws criminal sanctions are imposed on individuals who have been participating in conspiratorial activity. The individuals responsible for noncompliance with safety standards, however, would not be as readily identifiable. Mr. GRIFFIN. Would the Senator from Kentucky agree with me, in light of statement just read, that if the amendment of the Senator from Indiana were adopted, the scope and breadth of this statute would be narrowed, because it is the practice of the courts, where criminal penalties are involved, to interpret statutes very narrowly; that protection for the public would actually be less than without the provision? Mr. MORTON. Yes. That was the opinion of the Deputy Attorney General, as I read the language. Mr. HARTKE. Let me point out that this bill would not be the only bill under which criminal and civil sanctions are provided under Federal law. Is the Senator interested in hearing them? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, how much time do I have left on the bill? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 27 minutes remaining on the bill. Mr. MAGNUSON. How much time has the Senator from Indiana on his amendment? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes. Mr. HARTKE. Let me give examples of statutes incorporating both civil and criminal penalties: The Civil Rights Act has subsection 1 (a) and (b), which concern tabulation of votes, and intimidation, threats, or coercion. Subsection 1 (c) and (d) impose criminal penalties for false information in registering or voting, providing penalties of fines not more than $10,000, or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both. These criminal penalties apply to violations of people's rights to vote. Senators can talk about pink and blue automobiles, but I have not seen anyone who likes blood. That same subsection provides criminal penalties for falsification or concealment of material facts or giving false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of examiners or hearing officers. Subsection j(d) concerns civil action by the Attorney General for preventive relief; injunctive and other relief and (a) provides for criminal penalties for violation of (a) or (b) of subsection 1. Under the "bomb hoax" bill, as amended July 7, 1965, subsection a provides civil penalties for importing or conveying false information. Subsection b provides criminal penalties of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, for the same violation, providing such violation is willful and malicious. The Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 provides both criminal and civil penalties. The Food and Drug Act provides both civil and criminal penalties. I think it is rather peculiar to talk about the industry in this way. I agree that I do not think General Motors, Chrysler, American Motors, or Ford will be willful in violating the law, but if they are not going to willfully violate the provisions of the act, why is there such a fuss? Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HARTKE. I yield. Mr. PASTORE. Because the very spirit of the amendment is obnoxious. Mr. HARTKE. Why is it obnoxious? Mr. PASTORE. Because by inference the Senator is impugning the industry. There is absolutely no need for that provision in the law. The mere fact that it is written in the law, psychologically or otherwise, infers that the Senate is dealing with mobsters. The Senate is not dealing with mobsters. We are dealing with an industry which gives a splendid living to hundreds of thousands of families. Mr. HARTKE. I know arguments are made and will be made by people who do not want a safety bill. In other words, the argument can be made, why pass criminal laws, because we hope nobody will violate them? But there are thousands of manufacturers, some of them in my State, who I imagine will be unhappy about Congress passing any law in this field. But if any company in my State, or in any other State, knowingly par |