I believe it is more in the public interest that we have this particular procedure followed, as indeed was the one which you suggested initially. Neither method of appointment would not diminish the authority of the Secretary of Commerce. Indeed, I believe we would strengthen his hand as he tries to wrestle with this tremendously important problem.

Actually we are having much ado about nothing. I hope my colleagues over on the other side will go along with us and show your confidence in the President of the United States and the Senate on this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER).

The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the Committee divided, and there were-ayes 49, noes 66. Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. SPRINGER and Mr. ROGERS of Florida.

The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that there were-ayes, 80; noes, 77.

So the amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. O'NEILL OF
MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts: On page 43, after line 3, on line 4, a new section 109 (c) to follow section 109 (b):

"CRIMINAL PENALTY

"SEC. 109 (c). Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any provision of section 108, or any regulation issued thereunder. shall upon conviction be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to congratulate the chairman and the committee for having hearings and reporting this legislation. But I also want to make reference to a fellow by the name of Ralph Nader who lighted a bomb under the people of America, and he deserves a great amount of credit. I know that I received probably 100 letters from my constituency with regard to automobile safety; there is no question that Ralph Nader was responsible. I want to congratulate the committee for bringing out this bill. On the whole, I believe it is a good bill. But, of course, from my amendment you may infer that I do not believe the bill goes far enough. Let me read to you in part from an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post the other morning:

According to the Commerce Committee report Sections 109 and 110 of the bill, the civil penalties and injunctions provisions, "should constitute sumcient enforcement authority to assure full adherence to Federal safety standards." This is not the case. It is ludicrous to think that the Secretary of Commerce, armed only with the threat of injunction, could force an unwilling auto manufacturer to toe the line without an Impossible amount of litigation. The membership of the House has an obligation to strengthen the bill on the floor; and the

Administration, which so warmly embraced the Senate bill, should lend its support to this effort.

My amendment is a simple one, rooted in relevant history and legislation dealing with other areas of the public safety. The amendment simply provides that any person who knowingly and willfully violates this act be subject to criminal penalties. It is inconceivable to me how there can be any valid objections to such a provision in an act that deals with the safety of millions on the highways of our country. Why should the auto industry be placed in a privileged position here, when a host of other industries over whom safety legislation has been enacted are subjected to criminal penalties upon conviction for knowingly and wilfully violating the law? To ask the question is to answer it. A double standard-one for individuals and other industries and one for the automotive industry-is unjust and unnecessary. Let a few examples do for many.

The Congress has passed laws dealing with safety and standards setting that have provided for criminal penalties in the area 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 forth-steam boilers on vessels, coal mines, and food, drugs and cosmetics. Even the brake fluid and seat belt legislation, which was initiated by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, provided for criminal fines and imprisonment. I recall no objection at that time to these criminal provisions; they were drafted into the legislation from the very beginning by committee staff.

Yet, by the present act before us, these two laws will be repealed and incorporated into the present act's purposes. Knowing and willful violation of the seat belt and brake fluid acts now would incur a criminal penalty; when this act is passed, such violation would only incur a civil penalty. Does this mean that the public safety is not in need of the most effective deterrent from now on? Have the frightening disclosures and news in recent months about automobile safety provided any basis for a weakening of the deterrent impact that flows from a strong enforcement section? I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. proceed for an additional 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will not object if some other Member asks for additional time.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Oh, I never object.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the Congress has decided many times before that the main deterrent to illegal behavior by corporations is the deterrent that is aimed to pierce the corporate veil and attach to the culpable individual. That deterrent is the criminal provision. The Congress has applied this deterrent to illegal behavior far removed from hazards that can result in the death or injury of innocent people. For example, violations involving economic matters, such as antitrust, securities selling or income tax have long established criminal penalties applicable to them. These economic activities involve small and large business organizations. If there are criminal provisions in these acts that deal primary with monetary matters; why should there not be criminal provisions that deal with matters of human life, and cover large business organizations situated in this country and in foreign countries that come within this act? Why should a negligent driver be exposed to criminal fine or imprisonment, as is presently the case, and a knowing and willful manufacturer be exempted from such judgment?

The inclusion of criminal provisions in this act indicts no one. It does say that anyone who knowingly and willfully violates this act, that could result in serious harm or death, will be brought within the rule of the criminal law. It serves notice to all concerned that safety is serious business and that those responsible must exert close care and scrutiny over their decisions and supervision. Thus, as is true of all effective deterrents, the chief impact of a criminal provision will be preventive. It will further the climate of rigorous care that must pervade the automotive industry for the protection of our people. The administration of this act to achieve the maximum safety will not be easy. It will be even more difficult if the Secretary has inadequate enforcement tools. One thing is certain. The Secretary bears a heavy responsibility and the public will expect him to bear it well. To permit this bill to pass without enforcement provisions suited and necessary to his task will invite the delays and the wishy-washy regulatory performance that has caused so much public disillusionment with the processes of Government. There is nothing more calculated to erode public confidence in Government than Congress giving a department heavy responsibility without commensurate authority. We are raising the public's expectations for greater safety; let us move forward as we have in the past, to provide a more solid base for their fulfillment.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I hope I do not take the 5 minutes allotted to me, but first I would like to say that the administration when they sent up this bill did not ask for criminal penalties. When the Depart

ment of Justice was asked for a recommendation on this they did not ask for criminal penalties. The Justice Department said that they did not favor it. It is in the RECORD as it was given in the other body. I would like to know who the gentleman would single out to charge with a crime. You cannot put a corporation in jail. Are you going to take one of the men down on the line, the foreman, or which one? The Department of Justice said that the bill would have to be narrowed if criminal penalties are included.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STAGGERS. Yes. I yield to the gentleman.

All I

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. want to say is this: The record of the automobile industry is this: They have cut corners. They have cut corners when the safety of the American public has been in question. They have cut corners in order to save money. I think those who make decisions to cut corners on matters of safety should pay the penalty.

Mr. STAGGERS. Who are you going to put in jail?

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. The same as any other act you have on the books with regard to public safety.

Mr. STAGGERS. No one could be readily identifiable.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Just like every other act with regard to public safety.

Mr. STAGGERS. But you do not know who you are going to put in jail, and it would have to be determined. This would take a long time. We have civil penalties which come to eight times the proposed criminal penalties. Tell me, do you know of any safety standards statute in this land where we have both civil and criminal penalties? You cannot point to one. I would say also that the Senate debated this at quite some length. They came up with a vote of 62 to 14 against it.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. You

asked me to name one. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. STAGGERS. I yield.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. How about your present penalties with regard to seat belts?

Mr. STAGGERS. No, they do not. They do not have any civil penalties whatsoever.

I can answer that very quickly, because I was in the committee. You cannot come up with one.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to you now that the FAA which runs the airlines of this country do not have any criminal penalties in theirs and they can take as many as 150 or more on one aircraft, and I would add that one is certainly interested when one gets on an airplane as to whether he is going to be safe or not.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other factors which are involved. However, we have criminal, but not civil penalties in the seat belt and brake fluid laws. We repealed them in this because we believe in civil penalties which we feel are far more effective and much easier to apply. CXII-1240-Part 15

Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment should be voted down overwhelmingly.

There are a lot of people who would like to make this a punitive measure. However, we are trying to make this an effective measure. I do not believe the intent of this bill is to punish people. It is to save lives and reduce injuries. We have injunctive procedures in this measure, and many other procedures that can be brought to bear. For that reason I believe the amendment should be voted down.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it should be pointed out very clearly first of all that the function of this amendment is to narrow the effect of this statute. It is well known to students of the law that criminal statutes are very narrowly construed. This is one of the reasons that the committee in its wisdom did not insert criminal penalties.

Furthermore, the gentleman's amendment would require that the violation of this statute be committed "knowingly and willfully." This imposes an almost impossible burden of proof on any prosecution.

This is one of the most difficult things in jurisprudence to prove. I would point out as a former assistant prosecutor it is oftentimes well nigh impossible to prove.

Let us look further at this matter. We are told by the good gentleman from Massachusetts, who is my dear friend, that this legislation is not strong enough. A look at the bill, at what the committee has brought to the floor, disproves this:

First of all, for any violations of this statute, or for marketing an unsafe vehicle, or for failure to exercise adequate standards of care in the manufacture of vehicles, the bill provides for all civil penalties amounting to $1,000 per vehicle or $1,000 per tire, or $1,000 per part of a vehicle which is unsafe-up to a total of $400,000, certainly a most vigorous penalty almost to the point of being confiscatory.

Second, we have preserved every single common-law remedy that exists against a manufacturer for the benefit of a motor vehicle purchaser. This means that all of the warranties and all of the other devices of common law which are afforded to the purchaser, remain in the buyer, and they can be exercised against the manufacturer.

Lastly, we have expressly authorized use in the courts of the Federal Government the full powers of equity to enforce the bill at the request of the Secretary. This means that where there is either production of or the threat of production of an unsafe motor vehicle the Secretary may go to a court of equity and may enjoin production of the automobile, or may seek such other relief as is necessary to protect the American people from having an unsafe motor vehicle placed upon the highways.

This power could include affirmative injunctions, to require the manufacturer to take corrective action. It could include prohibitory injunctions to prevent un

safe motor vehicles from going on the roads. It could include judicially leveled penalties for violations of court orders, much larger than the $400,000 civil penalty authorized in the bill. It could include criminal contempt action, by which violation of a court order would place the violator in jail for so long as the court chose. It could include civil contempt, which would mean placing the individual under restrictions of the court until such time as he had purged himself of the contempt and until he had complied with the requirements of the court.

In addition, it would afford the possibility to the court and allow, where so necessary, the levying of civil penalties by the courts up to $1,000 per vehicle or part up to $400,000, as were necessary to assure the protection of the American people and to punish the manufacture of unsafe motor vehicles and parts.

I would point out that the average civil penalty asserted by the committee in lieu of a fine could go up to a total of $400,000, I would point out that the standard of proof which must be borne under the committee bill is much different and much better, if you are interested in enforcement, because a civil penalty is leveled by the courts upon a finding supported by only a fair preponderance of the evidence. It takes much less to sustain the case of the Government. In a criminal prosecution the Federal Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, a much heavier burden of proof.

The chairman of the committee pointed out something that should not be lost upon this House. Who is going to be charged with a criminal violation under this statute if it is amended the way the gentleman from Massachusetts would have it amended? Is it going to be the president of the corporation? Are we going to be able to say that he willfully and knowingly did this? The answer is most probably not. Is it going to be leveled against any production official or engineer of the company? It is going to be leveled against a production line employee of the company? Indeed, it could be, under the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts, leveled against any person who happens to be in the employ of the company, from the highest official to the lowest paid janitorial or custodial employee, including sweepers as well as those who work upon the assembly lines.

It is well known that the standard of proof required-that is, that a person knowingly and willfully violated the law-would impose such a burden on the Federal Government that it is highly doubtful that any prosecution of this kind would ever be successfully carried out.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOSS. I would be very pleased to yield to my distinguished chairman. Mr. STAGGERS. I wonder if we could set a time limit on this debate. I

minutes from now could be set.

Mr. MOSS. If this debate on the subject of time is going to continue, I do not yield further until I am given compensating time.

Mr. STAGGERS. Could we say 5 minutes after 5 debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto will be concluded?

gentleman

The CHAIRMAN. The from California has refused to yield further.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I find myself in the same dilemma as the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts. I cannot understand why there is such vigorous opposition to providing a criminal penalty for willfully and knowingly violating the provisions of this act. We are not talking of repealing the administrative or civil penalties that are provided. Remember that in this act we are not dealing only with the large automobile manufacturers or assemblers. We are dealing with many people who are real fly-bynight artists-accessory shops.

We had testimony just a few years ago in the committee, and we finally had to report out a bill fixing standards for brake fluids, because we found people were knowingly and willfully selling in interstate commerce, brake fluids that would break down under normal operating temperature. Yes, we also provided criminal penalties for seat belts which failed to meet any reasonable tests of strength.

Let us not kid ourselves that we are dealing with this very complex industry, composed only of totally responsible individuals. The record is too complete with instances to disprove that theory.

No damage is done by adding this second gun to the arsenal to deal with those who willfully and knowingly violate it deals with the matter of those who import, those who offer in interstate commerce, and not just necessarily the very few manufacturers of automobiles. Let us stop considering this legislation only in context with the more responsible segment. Remember, there are many who are not in that category.

Mr.

I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. HARVEY of Michigan. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, no one here has complained that the present penalties in this bill are by any means inadequate. It has been stated that we should add another gun. But let me ask this: Is the possible fine of $400,000 not enough of a civil penalty?

I can think of a good many auto industries after all, they are not all Ford, and they are not all General Motors; there are a good many small ones as well, who make trucks and parts for whom the $400,000 fine would be disastrous and immediately put them in bankruptcy. Is not the power of in

goes with injunction enough? It has been said that, no, instead we should add another gun. Let me say this, that we are not adding another gun. Instead we are doing just as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL), who proceeded me, said, we are narrowing the construction.

Let me read to you from a letter from the Deputy Attorney General in this regard, to the chairman of the committee in the other body. He said:

We would not generally 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 undoubtedly receive a narrower judicial construction.

This is the point the gentleman from Michigan made so effectively a minute ago. My point to you is that by doing what this amendment suggests, instead of adding another gun, we are in effect making a weaker bill, because we are making a provision that is going to be construed more narrowly and is going to affect a more limited number of people. The provision as it is drafted at the present time is a broader bill and will affect more people and will bring about more in the field of safety and compulsory standards.

I point out, as I said earlier, this is a new field of legislation for the Congress. For more than 30 years the auto industry has been turning out vehicles and, by all statistics, safe vehicles.

This is a tremendously important industry not only in the State of Michigan, which I happen to represent but across America. It is tremendously important to our economy.

One out of seven Americans directly gains his livelihood from this particular industry. In the district I represent more than a majority are directly or indirectly affected by it.

This Congress should in its wisdom go slow in this regard and should not jump into something hastily, when we do not know what we are doing and do not even know the man in the plant whom we will level criminal penalties against.

We are not dealing with thugs and hoodlums. We are dealing with a responsible industry. I am proud of them, both the automobile executive and the man on the line assembling vehicles or making parts.

What this amendment would do is disrupt a major industry. It would make the executive afraid to make decisions. It would make the worker afraid to do his job.

I wholeheartedly oppose the amendment.

Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts already has been recognized under the 5-minute rule, and is not entitled to further recognition.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'NEILL).

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. O'NEILL of Mas