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 Ideals 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. I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. 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 injunction, the power of restraint that 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 The question was taken; and on a divifrom Massachusetts already has been sion (demanded by Mr. O'NEILL of Masrecognized under the 5-minute rule, and sachusetts) there were ayes 15, noes is not entitled to further recognition. 120. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'NEILL). So the amendment was rejected. House Committee Report House Report 1776, Pages 22, 24, and 25 PROHIBITED ACTS AND EXEMPTIONS Prohibited acts.-Section 108(a) of the reported bill prohibits every person from manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, or introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States, any vehicle or item of equipment manufactured on or after the date a Federal safety standard applicable thereto takes effect unless it conforms with that standard, except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section. This subsection also prohibits any person to fail to keep records, or refuse access to records, or to refuse to permit the copying of such records, or to fail to make reports, or to provide information required in section 112(b) and (c) of this title. It is further prohibited for any person to issue any certificate that a vehicle or item of equipment conforms to all of the Federal safety standards applicable to it if that person in the exercise of due care either knows or has reason to know that the certificate is false or misleading in any material respect. The purpose of this section is to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or importation into this country of vehicles or items of equipment that fail to meet the Federal safety standards. Sections 109 and 110 provide methods for enforcing these prohibitions, civil penalties, and injunctions. The principal addition made by the committee to this subsection is the provision prohibiting the issuance of a false or misleading certificate. (Section 114 imposes an affirmative duty on certain persons to issue these certificates.) CIVIL PENALTIES 24 Section 109 of the reported bill provides that whoever violates any provision of section 108, or regulation issued thereunder, will be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Each violation is a separate one with respect to each vehicle or item of equipment or failure or refusal to allow or perform a required act. However, the maximum civil penalty for any related series of violations shall not exceed $400,000. The Secretary is authorized to compromise these civil penalties and in the case where the United 25 States may owe moneys to the person charged, the amount of such penalty may be deducted from the sums owed. After considering other possible amounts, the committee determined that a penalty of not more than $1,000 would be most appropriate for an individual violation of any provision of section 108. As to a series of violations-that is, a violation which is repeated in terms of numbers of units but which is essentially the result of a single de ficiency--the committee established a maximum penalty of $400,000. It should be understood that $1,000 and $400,000 are maximums, and within these maximums the Secretary has discretion to compromise. Senate Passed Act Congressional Record-Senate Civil penalty SEC. 110. (a) Any person who violates any provision of section 109, or any regulation issued thereunder, shall be subject to a civil penalty which may be recoverable in a civil action brought by the Attorney General in a United States district court in the name of the United States, of not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation except that for each such person the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed $400,000 for any related series of violations. Such violation of a provision of section 109, or such 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. (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. Senate Debate Congressional Record-Senate Mr. MAGNUSON. We looked into the matter of penalties. facturer for failure to comply with the A revised bill, as the Senator from Wash- standards. Of course, if that injunction ington [Mr. MAGNUSON] and others were violated, the court could hold the wrote it, contained the civil penalty persons or the corporation in contempt which we think is quite strong. It also and could establish a criminal penalty, contained a criminal penalty. But the a civil penalty, or both. But there were criminal penalty was directed only to three penalties in the bill. There was those who would willfully and knowingly violate the standards set or the rules and regulations of the Secretary. Right now, I cannot conceive, and believe it would be a rare instance, that someone would willfully and knowingly, after the standards have been set, try to put a car on the highways, or sell it, so that someone might be killed or injured. But we thought we needed this section. The committee discussed it at great length. There is also a provision which provides for an injunction procedure, so that the Attorney General can go into court to obtain an injunction against a manu much argument in the committee and I guess there will be on the floor, because I understand that an amendment will be offered to restore the criminal penalty section. It is true that we have had few Federal laws which imposed both a civil penalty and a criminal penalty as well. The question was raised: Why was it put in the bill? Because we are dealing with human lives. We are dealing with the possibility that someone might willfully, knowingly, and deliberately violate the act and should therefore, be subject to criminal penalty. In the past, numerous laws have been passed by Congress which have dealt with safety and standard settings. Most of these laws But the committee, after long deliberahave provided a criminal penalty for tion on this matter, voted to retain the knowing and willful violations. Many civil penalty, and take out the criminal of these laws came out of the Committee penalty for willful and knowing violaon Commerce. I am the author of some tions, leaving in the injunction, which in of them. We provided a criminal pen- itself can result in a criminal penalty. I alty in the safety field just 2 or 3 years do not believe that any of us are relucago when we passed the bill on the tant about expressing our views on it. Hazardous Substances Labeling Act, the I hope the criminal penalty will be put Truth in Fabric Act, the Drug Amend- back in. I shall vote to restore it. Other ments of 1962, steam boilers on vessels, members of the committee will doubtless interference with navigation, and the have good reasons to vote not to do so brake fluid and seatbelt acts. Thus, when the amendment is presented. there is precedent for criminal penalties. Congressional Record-Senate Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I send from criminal penalties is indefensible an amendment to the desk, and ask that in law, reason or morality. In this counit be reported. try, a reckless driver, convicted on a The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manslaughter charge, can be fined and amendment offered by the Senator from imprisoned. So can a person convicted 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 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. Such violations may involve hazards or defects which can result in the death or injury of innocent people. By com"SEC. 111. Whoever knowingly and willfully parison, violations involving economic violates any provision of section 109, or any regulation issued thereunder, or whenever matters, such as antitrust, securities any corporation violates any provision of sec- selling or income tax, have long estabtion 109, or any regulation thereunder, any lished criminal sanctions attached to individual director, officer or agent of such them. These sanctions are considered corporation who knowingly or willfully au- effective deterrents. Now, when human thorized, ordered, or performed any of the life is at stake, we are asked to restrict acts constituting in whole or in part such this bill to civil penalties. I cannot violation, shall be fined not more than $50,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." agree. This legislation applies not just to the automobile manufacturers but to thouMr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I ask sands of parts producers and suppliers. that I may be yielded 5 minutes. It is basically unfair to raise these comThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without panies and their personnel to a priviobjection, it is so ordered. leged pedestal of exemption from crimiMr. HARTKE. Mr. President, my nal penalties for intentional violations. amendment is a simple one. It was of- It is a poor precedent to set a policy that fered in the committee, and was rejected smacks of favoritism. Criminal beby the committee. However, it was in havior is criminal behavior whether done the original bill that I introduced in the on a dark road or behind a corporate Senate, which was cosponsored by a organization. I see no reason whatever number of Senators, and it was also of- for permitting such unequal penalties fered in the House of Representatives by under the law. Representative MACKAY of Georgia. In the past, there have been numerous The simple question before us is laws passed by Congress which have whether or not we are going to subject dealt with safety and standards-setting. a person who knowingly and willfully Most of these laws have provided for violates this act to criminal penalties. criminal penalties for knowing and willTo ask this question is to answer it. The ful violations. These laws include those position that such a person be exempted dealing with the safety of household re frigerators, 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 penalties— even 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 that anyone, who beyond any question 14249 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 |