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.

nal 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 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 Senator 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

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?

ties 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

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?

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 accomplish exactly that. We have civil 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."

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. 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

Mr. PASTORE. Absolutely. Mr. President, I am not talking for Studebaker,

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 will-
fully to refuse to do it.

Are we schoolboys, or grown men?
Or have we lived in vain for 59 years?
I do not believe that I have.
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 14250 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. PASTORE) 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,U00 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. Mr. GRIFFIN. standing.

No; that is not true. That is my under

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 difficulty 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.

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 participates in such violations, it is increas- 14251 ing the death toll on the highways, and should go to jail. If they do it intentionally, why should they not go to jail?

People are being put in jail for other criminal violations. We do not impugn anybody by enacting such laws. We enact criminal laws for the unlawful, not for the law abiding.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, have I any time left?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Indiana has expired. The Senator from New Hampshire has 2 minutes.

Mr. COTTON. I yield those 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma. Then I shall yield time on the bill to the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART).

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I think we would be making a great mistake to adopt the criminal penalty provisions sought by the Senator from Indiana without trying to define its There are no limits. It limitations. would apply not only to section 109, but to any regulation issued thereunder.

The bill has been carefully written up to this point. Adequate civil penalties have been provided. We feel that to subJect the giant automobile industry to any liability for criminal penalties will result in an invitation to the industry to stand still and not move forward with safety standards, because it will be afraid to move. I do not know how many people or companies this provision would affect. Certainly it would affect the manufacturing companies and its officers. I do not know whether it would affect the There foremen. handling automobiles. fects their salesmen or

clear.

are

30,000 dealers Whether it afnot we are not

So before we rush into this matter, we might take a page from other legislation. In the Federal Aviation Act, there are

no

ness.

The

companies greatly to

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. time of the Senator has expired. Mr. COTTON. I yield 4 minutes on the bill to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. HART. Mr. President, the truth of the matter is that the Senate has before it and I hope is going to pass a strong, effective auto safety bill.

In fact, we probably should have had one years ago—and probably would have if enough had cared. Impressive auto death statistics have been published for more years than many of us can remember but until recently there has been no great public or legislative concern. It was just sort of accepted as one of the inescapable dangers of living in a modern age.

In that sense, we have all been guilty, each of us who has ever read the highway casualty lists and shrugged and put the paper down for another sip of iced tea. Perhaps those of us in positions of leadership have been guiltiest of all.

Now, belatedly and suddenly, the public and the Congress is concerned, and there is nothing more forceful than fresh concern and anger.

A cold fact of life is that legislationlike fist fights-develops most quickly in an atmosphere of exaggerated drama, urgency, and anger.

Other men-Michigan's Secretary of State, James Hare, for example-had been concerned about the same problem for years, but voices that are reasonable and balanced often have a way of leaving society unmoved.

The one man who has provided most of the drama and anger-Ralph Nadermight be justifiably criticized for a lack of balance and an overabundance of anger, but no one can deny his very real contribution as a catalytic agent.

As I see my role, it has been to see that autos become as safe as possible as soon as possible without allowing the white heat of fresh concern to result in a bill so harsh it would damage the economy.

The bill should allow careful judgment so that no desirable safety feature should be delayed-but also to see that deadlines are not so restrictive and immediate that plant shutdowns become necessary.

this.

The bill now pending does

I think everyone will agree that Congress should be careful not to legislate unemployment for any period of time. The industry does have lead times that are mechanically impossible to alter and recognition of this is reflected in the bill and our committee's report.

In this business of auto safety, we should also see that new car design is not the only factor. The competence of the driver is important. The design of the highway is important. The quality of law enforcement is important.

But so is the mechanical condition of the car after it has been on the road a few years.

Consequently, there is one strengthening feature of the bill that I have pushed for in committee and am glad is included.

It is the used-car inspection clause. This bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress within a year how we can insure that used cars operated and sold are up to safety standards.

Used-car inspection is not something the Federal Government can or should embark on directly. It is a matter best handled by strong State inspection programs.

In the fervent and justifiable drive to gain new car safety design, let us not neglect the fact that safety is also endangered by brakes without linings and tires without tread, by faulty wheel alinements and cracked headlights.

This too, I think, would importantly increase the motorist's chances of survival.