Page images

dilemma as the distinguished gentleman we are doing just as the gentleman from from Massachusetts. I cannot under- Michigan (Mr. DINGELL), who proceeded stand why there is such vigorous oppo me, said, we are narrowing the consition to providing a criminal penalty for struction. willfully and knowingly violating the Let me read to you from a letter from provisions of this act. We are not talk the Deputy Attorney General in this reing of repealing the administrative or gard, to the chairman of the committee civil penalties that are provided. Re in the other body. He said: member that in this act we are not deal We would not generally favor imposition ing only with the large automobile manu of criminal penalties for violation of the act. facturers or assemblers. We are dealing were criminal sanctions created, the statuto with many people who are real fly-by

might have to be narrowed in the respects

we have noted, and it would undoubtedly night artists accessory shops.

receive a narrower judicial construction. We had testimony just a few years ago in the committee, and we finally had to . This is the point the gentleman from report out a bill fixing standards for Michigan made so effectively a minute brake fluids, because we found people ago. My point to you is that by doing were knowingly and willfully selling in what this amendment suggests, instead interstate commerce, brake fluids that of adding another gun, we are in effect would break down under normal oper

making a weaker bill, because we are ating temperature. Yes, we also provided making a provision that is going to be criminal penalties for seat belts which construed more narrowly and is going to failed to meet any reasonable tests of

affect a more limited number of people. strength.

The provision as it is drafted at the presLet us not kid ourselves that we are ent time is a broader bill and will affect dealing with this very complex industry, more people and will bring about more composed only of totally responsible in in the field of safety and compulsory dividuals. The record is too complete

standards. with instances to disprove that theory.

I point out, as I said earlier, this is No damage is done by adding this sec

a new field of legislation for the Congress. ond gun to the arsenal to deal with those For more than 30 years the auto industry who willfully and knowingly violate-it

has been turning out vehicles and, by deals with the matter of those who im- all statistics, sale vehicles. port, those who offer in interstate com This is a tremendously important inmerce, and not just necessarily the very dustry not only in the State of Michigan, few manufacturers of automobiles. Let which I happen to represent but across us stop considering this legislation only America. It is tremendously important in context with the more responsible seg

to our economy. ment. Remember, there are many who

One out of seven Americans directly are not in that category.

gains his livelihood from this particular I urge the adoption of the amendment.

industry. In the district I represent Mr. HARVEY of Michigan. Mr.

more than & majority are directly or Chairman, I move to strike the requisite

indirectly affected by it. number of words.

This Congress should in its wisdom go Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to

slow in this regard and should not jump the amendment. Mr. Chairman, no one

into something hastily, when we do not here has complained that the present

know what we are doing and do not even penalties in this bill are by any means

know the man in the plant whom we will inadequate. It has been stated that we

level criminal penalties against. should add another gun. But let me ask

We are not dealing with thugs and this: Is the possible fine of $400,000 not

hoodlums. We are dealing with a reenough of a civil penalty?

sponsible industry. I am proud of them,

both the automobile executive and the I can think of a good many auto industries after all, they are not all Ford,

man on the line assembling vehicles or

making parts. and they are not all General Motors;

What this amendment would do is there are a good many small ones as

disrupt a major industry. It would make well, who make trucks and parts for

the executive afraid to make decisions. whom the $400,000 fine would be disastrous and immediately put them in

It would make the worker afraid to do

his job. bankruptcy. Is not the power of in

I wholeheartedly oppose the amendjunction, the power of restraint that ment. goes with injunction enough? It has Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr. been said that, no, instead we should

Chairman, I move to strike the requisite add another gun. Let me say this, that

number of words. we are not adding another gun. Instead

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman The question was taken; and on a divifrom Massachusetts already has been · son (demanded by Mr. O'NEILL of Mag. recognized under the 5-minute rule, and sachusetts) there were üyes 15, noes is not entitled to further recognition. 120.

The question is on the amendment of. So the amendment was rejected. fered by the gentleman from Massachu. setts (Mr. O'NEIL).

House Committee Report House Report 1776, Pages 22, 24, and 25


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 à 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.)


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 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

[ocr errors]

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
June 24, 1966, 14258

Civil penalty

motor vehicle equipment or with respect to Sec. 110. (a) Any person who violates any each failure or refusal to allow or perform an provision of section 109, or any regulation 'act required thereby. Issued thereunder, shall be subject to a civil (b) Any such civú penalty may be compenalty which may be recoverable in a civil promised by the Secretary. In determining action brought by the Attorney General in a the amount of such penalty, or the amount United States district court in the name of agreed upon in compromise, the appropriate. the United States, of not to exceed $1,000 for ness of such penalty to the size of the busi

ch such ness of the person charged and the gravity person the maximum civil penalty shall not of the violation shall be considered. Tho exceed $400,000 for any related series of vio- amount of such penalty, when finally deterlations. Such violation of a provision of mined, or the amount agreod upon in com. section 109, or such reguations 188ued there- promise, may be deducted from any sumas under, shall constitute a separate violation owlag by tho United States to the person with respect to each motor vehicle or item of charged.

Senate Debate
Congressional Record-Senate
June 24, 1966, 14229


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 much argument in the committee and violate the standards set or the rules and I guess there will be on the floor, because regulations of the Secretary.

I understand that an amendment will be Right now, I cannot conceive, and be offered to restore the criminal penalty Lieve it would be a rare instance, that section. It is true that we have had few someone would willfully and knowingly, Federal laws which imposed both a civil after the standards have been set, try to penalty and a criminal penalty as well. put a car on the highways, or sell it, so The question was raised: Why was it that someone might be killed or injured. put in the bill? Because we are dealing But we thought we needed this section. With human lives. We are dealing with The committee discussed it at great the possibility that someone might willlength.

fully, knowingly, and deliberately vioThere is also a provision which pro- late the act and should therefore, be vides for an injunction procedure, so that subject to criminal penalty. In the past, the Attorney General can go into court numerous laws have been passed by Conto obtain an injunction against a manu- gress 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 & 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
June 24, 1966, 14248-14252

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, & 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.

of stealing a car. Yet we are being asked The legislative clerk read the amend- to pass a bill which exempts persons who ment, as follows:

knowingly and willfully violate one or Now Section 111, to follow Section 110, more of its provisions from any statuCriminal Penalty, inserted following line 6, tory criminal penalties. page 48, with following sections renumbered Such violations may involve hazards accordingly:

or defects which can result in the death "CRIMINAL PENALTY

or injury of innocent people. By com"SEC. 111. Whoever knowingly and willfully violates any provision of section 109, or any

parison, violations involving economic 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, omcer 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 aned not more than $50,

agree. 000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

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 & corporate Senate, which was cosponsored by & 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. & 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 sub- criminal sanctions. The Senator from
stances, brake fluids, seat belts, motor Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF] assures me
carriers under the Interstate Commerce that he intends to support my amend-
Commission, aircraft-concerning air- ment; that it was not necessarily mis-
worthiness certificates, interference with leading, but certainly it is not the fact
navigation, explosives, and so forth, that he intends to oppose the amend-
steam boilers on vessels, coal mines, and ment.
food, drugs, and cosmetics. It should be Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will
noted that the brake fluid and seat belt the Senator yield?
acts provide for criminal fines and im- Mr. HARTKE. I am happy to yield
prisonment. These acts would be re- to the Senator from Connecticut
pealed by the present legislation which, Mr. RIBICOFF. I think the differ-
in its present form, would render behav- ence is that my objection to the origi.
ior now under the scope of criminal nal penalties was that they made no dis-
sanctions, exempt from such penalties. tinction between willful acts of viola-

It is argued that no safety statutes in- tion and simple mistakes. I did not
clude both a civil and criminal penalty. think there should be harsh penalties
If this is so, I would reply that the inade- even i they were civil-in the absence
quacy of the past should never be a blue- of willfulness and intentional acts. But
print for the future. The administrator to say from that, that I oppose criminal
of this legislation should be given a sanctions for willful violation is not cor-
broad range of enforcement options from rect.
civil to criminal in order to carry out his Am I correct in understanding the
responsibilities flexibly and justly. Such amendment of the Senator from In-
options are necessary to permit him to diana (Mr. HARTKE) that it is intended
tailor the most appropriate enforcement to apply criminal penalties only if there
action to the particular gravity of viola. is a willful and intentional violation?
tion. To place before us an “either/or" Mr. HARTKE. The Senator is cor-
choice between criminal and civil penal- rect, as far as this amendment is con-
ties obscures the necessity and desirabil. cerned and its intention.
ity of having both types of provisions in It says and does, as is provided in the
this biu.

criminal law where a man willfully and The other argument against criminal intentionally causes injury to another penalties is that it would be difficult to or performs an act causing injury to andetermine which person is engaging in other and is subject to a fine. criminal behavior. It is a bizarre plea,

Mr. RIBICOFF. I wish to say to the indeed, to say that because the culort is distinguished Senator that I am condificult to identity, we should throw out

fident there will not be a willful or intenthe criminal provision under which he

tional violation of the act by the autocould be apprehended and brought to

mobile manufacturers. I am satisfied justice.

that all of them realize their responsibilI would not welcome seeing the day ity. I am confident that they are going when knowing and willful violations of to comply with the law wholeheartedly this act, that could result in death and

and will even voluntarily go beyond it. injury, cannot be brought under the rule

The present leaders of the auto indusof criminal law. As long as the possi

try need not fear these criminal sancbility of such outrageous behavior can

tions. My dealings with them convinco be envisioned on the part of a few of the

me of their deep desire to produce saler thousands of persons under the provi

cars and work within the regulations. sions of this bill. the enforcement tools But the'amendment says to any and allmust be there and ready for use. The present and future that the United automotive industry is no sacred cow to States is ready to use its ultimate author. escape from legal accountability that is ity to help insure auto safety to the expected of other industries and persons American people. engaged in producing products that Mr. HARTKE. I do not see a situacould be hazardous to life and limb. tion where any one of the Big Four would

I understand that the chairman of the wilfully and knowingly violate any procomặittee, the Senator from Washing- vision of the acto ton (Mr. MAGNUSON), has expressed him- This does not cover negligence. There self on this matter. I appreciate the is no criminal penalty for anyone guilty statement which he has made.

of negligence. It is a simple definition I have also discussed with the distin- that anyone, who beyond any question guished Senator from Connecticut (Mr. of doubt, beyond all doubt, intentionally RIBICOFF) the amendment as well as cer- and willfully does something probibited tain publications which are being circu- in the law, and the result of which would lated indicating that he did not favor cause injury, according to the act, will


« PreviousContinue »