As Enacted SEC. 109. (a) Whoever violates any provision of section 108, or any regulation issued thereunder, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation. Such violation of a provision of section 108, or regulations issued thereunder, shall constitute a separate violation with respect to each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment or with respect to each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required thereby, except that the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed $400,000 for any related series of violations. (b) Any such civil penalty may be compromised by the Secretary. In determining the amount of such penalty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of such penalty to the size of the business of the person charged and the gravity of the violation shall be considered. The amount of such penalty, when finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, may be deducted from any sums owing by the United States to the person charged. Violations. 6 Conference Report House Report 1919, Page 19 CIVIL PENALTY Section 109(b) of the House amendment permits the Secretary to compromise any civil penalty imposed for violations of this act. Section 109 (b) of the proposed conference substitute is the same as the House amendment with the addition of a sentence from section 110(b) of the Senate bill making it explicit that in determining the amount of any civil penalty or the amount agreed on in compromise the Secretary shall consider both the size of the business of the person charged and the gravity of the violation. House Passed Act Congressional Record-House "SEC. 100. (a) Whoever violates any provision of section 106, or any regulation issued thereunder, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation. Such violation of a provision of section 108, or regulations issued thereunder, shall constitute a separate violation with respect to each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment or with respect to each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required thereby, except that the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed $400,000 for any related series of violations. "(b) Any such civil penalty may be compromised by the Secretary. The amount of such penalty, when finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, may be deducted from any sums owing by the United States to the person charged. House Debate Congressional Record-House Mr. HALPERN. H.R. 13228 is an excellent piece of legislation as it now stands. It significantly strengthens the Senate version of the traffic safety bill by covering trucks and buses currently regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission and by authorizing the establishment of Federal standards for used vehicles within 2 years after enactment of the bill. I believe, however, that it is unnecessarily weaker than the Senate bill in the area of enforcement. It does not include sev eral enforcement and investigatory measures appearing in the Senate version, such as civil penalties for manufacturers failing to notify owners and dealers of safety defects, and provisions for on-site inspection of manufacturer's premises by the Secretary with penalties for any noncompliance discovered during the inspections. I believe we should carefully consider amending H.R. 13228 to bring it into conformity with the Senate bill in these matters. Congressional Record-House AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. O'NEILL OF Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. 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. 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 The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection commensurate authority. We are raisto the request of the gentleman from ing the public's expectations for greater Massachusetts? Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, re serving 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. 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 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- Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to 19663 ment of Justice was asked for a recom- you now that the FAA which runs the mendation on this they did not ask for airlines of this country do not have any criminal penalties. The Justice Depart- criminal penalties in theirs and they can ment said that they did not favor it. It take as many as 150 or more on one airis in the RECORD as it was given in the craft, and I would add that one is cerother body. I would like to know who tainly interested when one gets on an the gentleman would single out to charge airplane as to whether he is going to be with a crime. You cannot put a cor- safe or not. poration in jail. Are you going to take Mr. Chairman, there are many other one of the men down on the line, the factors which are involved. However, foreman, or which one? The Depart- we have criminal, but not civil penalties ment of Justice said that the bill would in the seat belt and brake fluid laws. We have to be narrowed if criminal penalties repealed them in this because we believe are included. in civil penalties which we feel are far Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Will more effective and much easier to apply. the gentleman yield? Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendMr. STAGGERS. Yes. I yield to the ment should be voted down overwhelmgentleman. ingly. Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. All I There are a lot of people who would want to say is this: The record of the like to make this a punitive measure. automobile industry is this: They have However, we are trying to make this an cut corners. They have cut corners effective measure. I do not believe the when the safety of the American public intent of this bill is to punish people. has been in question. They have cut It is to save lives and reduce injuries. corners in order to save money. I think We have injunctive procedures in this those who make decisions to cut corners measure, and many other procedures on matters of safety should pay the that can be brought to bear. For that penalty. reason I believe the amendment should Mr. STAGGERS. Who are you going be voted down. to put in jail? Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. The to strike out the last word, and I rise in same as any other act you have on the opposition to the amendment. books with regard to public safety. Mr. Chairman, it should be pointed out Mr. STAGGERS. No one could be very clearly first of all that the function readily identifiable. of this amendment is to narrow the effect Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Just of this statute. It is well known to like every other act with regard to public students of the law that criminal statsafety. utes are very narrowly construed. This Mr. STAGGERS. But you do not is one of the reasons that the committee know who you are going to put in jail, in its wisdom did not insert criminal and it would have to be determined. penalties. This would take a long time. We have Furthermore, the gentleman's amendcivil penalties which come to eight times ment would require that the violation of the proposed criminal penalties. Tell this statute be committed "knowingly me, do you know of any safety stand- and willfully." This imposes an almost ards statute in this land where we have impossible burden of proof on any prosboth civil and criminal penalties? You ecution. Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. asked me to name one. cannot point to one. I would say also This is one of the most difficult things tleman yield further? Will the Mr. STAGGERS. I yield. proves this: Mr. STAGGERS. No, they do not. First of all, for any violations of this They do not have any civil penalties statute, or for marketing an unsafe vewhatsoever. hicle, or for failure to exercise adequate I can answer that very quickly, be- standards of care in the manufacture of cause I was in the committee. You can- vehicles, the bill provides for all civil not come up with one. 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 unsafe 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 prepon derance 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 wonder if a limit of 5 minutes or 10 19664 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? Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman Mr. MOSS. I refuse to yield further unless I am afforded additional time to give me my full 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has refused to yield further. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I find myself in the same |