Were this reading of the statute correct, Congress would have created a strict liability crime.

The idea of a "strict liability crime" is an oxymoron.

A strict liability crime, however, does not require that a mens rea be found.

Automatism is a defence even against strict liability crimes like dangerous driving, where no intent is necessary.

Except for strict liability crimes, the type and severity of punishment often follow the degree of culpability.

The exception is strict liability crimes.

In strict liability crimes, the actor is responsible no matter what his mental state; if the result occurs, the actor is liable.

In criminal law, intent is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime.

Insanity is a deranged state of mind, and consequently no defence to strict liability crimes, where mens rea not is a requirement.

The definition proposed includes provisions for both individual and state responsibility and would be a strict liability crime(including both intent and negligence).