Financial Oversight Commission Act of 2009

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her statement.

Mr. Speaker, as I recognize the former chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary, I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his bipartisan work on coming to an agreement between our two bills that I believe led to the suspension today on the Senate bill.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker. It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this legislation is a combination of two well thought-out compromises. First of all, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, in fact, is going to take the place of a piece of legislation that is far more reaching and, in my opinion, overreaching, that passed out of Judiciary just this past week. In fact, by making this narrower, what we do is help the whistleblowers and those who would support them, while not going too far as to cripple the legitimate enforcement by cities and States and the right for them to discover waste, fraud

and abuse themselves, make those in corrections without seeing both punitive fines and perhaps 30 percent going to plaintiffs' trial lawyers.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this narrowing is a good compromise coming from the Senate, and I want to thank all of those in both parties who worked on this. I think it makes moot the legislation that was passed under Judiciary.

Secondly, another compromise, and one that I want to speak to, this 9/11-style commission, something that, as you can see, many people on both sides of the aisle--on both sides of the Capitol--thought was necessary. Over the last period of months, we have seen the Speaker of the House going from not supporting, and supporting only that her committee chairmen do the work, to supporting the concept of a House committee, to then a House-Senate committee, and, finally, I believe today, support for something that gets it almost right.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, on nearing the third anniversary of the 9/11 Commission, we should begin looking at what we did in the 9/11 Commission.

In 2007, on the third anniversary, Speaker Pelosi praised the bipartisan, independent commission for its work, calling the recommendations made by the commission earned and achievable, and, in fact, speaking to its bipartisan nature.

This year, as we pass legislation to make a similar-type commission to deal with the meltdown last year in our markets, I would call on Speaker Pelosi to help make the balance right.

As was previously stated, based on the current nominating system in the ordinary course, this would end up being a 6-4 split and be questioned by the American people as to whether or not it was Democratically led and Democratically dominated.

The Speaker has the ability, with her three appointments, to make this right, either by appointing one Republican and one Democrat, or, in this case, two; or I might suggest that even if she cannot find a Republican appropriate to be appointed from her allocation, that she could look to an independent or somebody independent of party politics.

I have previously supported, when asked, Sandra Day O'Connor, a retired Justice, or somebody of her stature who rises well above party politics, who may be considered to have some Republican background but who, clearly, in the eyes of the American people, would be a consensus- builder, able to look for the truth and look for compromise so as to reach the consensus, not a majority decision, but a consensus of this commission, as in almost every case--I believe in every case--the 9/11 Commission did.

I understand that this bill is the best bill we can get here today and I intend to vote for it, support it, and urge my colleagues to support it; not because I don't believe it should be above party politics and should be a 5-5 split, but because this is so much better than nothing at all and because I believe that the Speaker has it within her appointment powers to make this a perfectly good commission, one that we can all be proud of, and one that lives up to exactly what Speaker Pelosi asked for when the shoe was on the other foot after September 11, when we were looking at the need to get above party politics and we were looking to find people of stature to appoint.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my suggestions over and above my support for this legislation will be heeded.

Mr. Speaker, S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, improves current criminal and civil fraud statutes to help the federal government bring predatory lenders and unscrupulous financial institutions to justice.

Judiciary Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith sponsored the companion legislation in the House, H.R. 1748, the Fight Fraud Act of 2009. The bill before the House today is a true example of bipartisan, bicameral cooperation.

S. 386, as amended, merges these two important pieces of legislation together to provide comprehensive and effective solutions to combating mortgage fraud, securities fraud, and other financial crimes.

In times of crisis, crime often flourishes. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, unscrupulous people chose to exploit these tragedies to pad their pockets with money intended to help the victims.

The country's housing crisis is no exception. America's economic downturn, brought on by the housing crisis and other factors, exposed a significant amount of fraud and corruption within the mortgage, banking, and securities industries.

The drive for expanded homeownership along with unchecked lending practices and inflated property values, encouraged mortgage fraud, predatory lending, and institutional corruption.

Mortgage fraud comes in many forms, including deceptive practices by borrowers, predatory lending and institutional fraud.

And now, the fraud is spreading to schemes targeting homeowners who are facing foreclosure as a result of the plummeting housing market. Foreclosure scams are targeting cash-strapped consumers on the verge of losing their homes. Victims are lured into the fraud scheme with promises of financial assistance that never materializes.

S. 386 amends federal fraud statutes to specifically prohibit false statements by mortgage brokers and agents of mortgage lending businesses.

The bill also expands the major fraud statutes to include fraud against the Troubled Assets Relief Program, economic stimulus funds, or other federal rescue or recovery plans.

The Fight Fraud Act authorizes additional funds for federal law enforcement agencies, the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This legislation promotes the ongoing investigative partnerships between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

The bill also supports programs that provide critical training and investigative support services, intelligence services, research support and other resources necessary to investigating these financial crimes.

Additionally, this legislation will strengthen the liability provisions of the False Claims Act as well as make some necessary technical changes to the Act.

The False Claims Act provisions in this bill will undoubtedly enhance the Federal government's ability to recover government money and property that would otherwise be lost to waste, fraud, or abuse.

What's more, these provisions do so in a responsible manner that will not encourage the filing of frivolous or unfounded False Claims Act cases.

Simply put, the False Claims Act provisions in this bill go the proper distance in ensuring that the Act remains a viable tool in the government's continuing fight to protect taxpayer dollars from fraud.

(COMMISSION)

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act also contains provisions to create a bipartisan, independent ``Financial Markets Commission.''

This Commission will examine the questions of ``Why?'' and ``How?'' the current financial and economic crisis occurred.

We have seen the success of past blue-ribbon panels, such as the 9/11 Commission.

In 2007, on the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 Commission report, Speaker Pelosi praised the bipartisan, independent Commission for its work--calling the recommendations made by the Commission ``urgent and achievable'' making the country more ``unified'' and ``effective.''

Speaker Pelosi is right. A bipartisan, independent commission can produce valuable results.

Which is why I proposed a similar bill last fall and again this Congress, H.R. 74.

I view the effort to create this commission as a vehicle for this Congress to demonstrate a willingness to set aside partisanship and put the interests of our country first.

As with the 9/11 Commission, the Financial Markets Commission report should be free of accusations of political showmanship and a partisan slant that have tainted current investigations.

This Commission is not the place for partisanship OR Congressional meddling.

It is a place for the American people to get answers.

Ideally, in today's bill, the composition of this Commission would have been bipartisan down the line, with a 5-5 split like the 9/11 Commission that was adopted by a Republican Congress instead of the 6-4 divide that has come to the floor today at the direction of the Democratic Leadership.

Speaker Pelosi said in 2005, when discussing a possible Commission to review Hurricane Katrina events, a ``real commission'' is bipartisan and independent.

The decision to depart from the 5-5 model of the 9/11 commission in favor of a commission whose composition has a partisan slant is disappointing.

But I believe the credibility of this commission's report will still depend on its ability to deliver conclusions and recommendations that all the members of the commission will embrace.

I am hopeful that the members of Congress who will be responsible for appointments to

this Commission will ensure that the panel's composition is bipartisan, independent, and focused on producing a nonpartisan report--not scoring political points.

In closing, The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 is a good government bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and I thank the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, whenever we attended to matters in our district over the last year, when many of our constituents are facing the most catastrophic time in their life, it may be a catastrophic illness or a personal matter that changes or skews their whole life-style. We are seeing the financial markets and the structure of financial calamity alter the lives of Americans.

I think it is important to note that this Congress, this new Congress, has made an effort step by step to respond to the needs of Americans. I thank Mr. Issa for his work and that of our full committee and the leadership of the Senate to bring us S. 386 which amends the Federal criminal fraud statutes to reach the full range of fraud and other financial crimes that have come to light as the financial crisis has unfolded.

It is important for America to know that we will hold those accountable for the malfeasance and the criminal acts that they have engaged in; for example, the Bernie Madoff issue, with so many people losing not only their sole possessions and resources, but in essence some would say losing their lives.

This amends the security fraud statute to include commodities fraud. It clarifies that it is a felony for a mortgage banker to knowingly make materially false statements on a loan application or overvalue property. We can attest to the fact that this has happened.

And in keeping with that, I am also supportive of H.R. 1728, that is, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act.

For those of us at town hall meetings and who have listened to any number of those who are in foreclosure, they told us that they would see papers that they had signed come back with the altering of their rates, with the altering of their income, with the altering of certain vital points that would then, in essence, put this fraudulent document in a position for the individual to receive a loan on false premises. Therein lies the underpinnings, if you will, of this collapse; the overexerting, if you will, of the market by lending to people who could not afford the homes, by miswriting on the documents. All of this came about.

In the mortgage bill that we will be discussing over the next 24 hours, I was glad to argue on the point of language dealing with predatory lending which is also covered in S. 386, as we have indicated, and as well to provide an amendment that provides for an individual knowing how much their mortgage and interest would cost over a period of time. It is all right to be able to go in and fill out papers that indicate that you have a down payment of $2,000, but it is another thing to know that you are buying a house for a million dollars or $5 million, or more over a period of your lifetime, and whether or not that individual, that particular purchaser, understands the facts in the documents before them.

The bill that we have before us amends Federal money laundering statutes to make them more effective in the context of fraud, prosecutions and ensures their appropriate use, and explicitly made fraud against the TARP and economic stimulus programs also a felony.

There is a lot of money out there, Mr. Speaker, and there is certainly the possibility that all of those moneys can be used in a fraudulent manner.

I believe it is important for the Members of this body but also the American people to know that we are working. And I also add in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are doing a lot of good work today. I also support the legislation, H. Res. 14, that acknowledges the importance of the Border Patrol in combating human trafficking. I am working to ensure that they have extra language to help them with additional Border Patrol agents and also to fight the guns and drugs that have a lot to do with human smuggling. The American people need to know the work that we are doing.

I am in support of S. 386 because it puts a pin in the balloon of fraud that has hurt so many people. I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 386, Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act that was introduced in this Congress by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers from Michigan. This timely legislative initiative is aimed at fighting fraud and protecting taxpayers. If passed, this bill will help Americans recover from the present economic crisis. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

This legislation is designed to combat fraud by increasing vigilance and accountability concerning the manner how American tax dollars are spent. The types of fraud covered by this legislation include financial fraud, corporate fraud, contracting fraud, and mortgage fraud.

Because recent history has demonstrated that large government outlays of money has attracted persons attempting to create fraud, this legislation provides the Congress with the opportunity to identify viable solutions to fraud and misuse.

Current federal law enforcement uses a number of criminal statutes to prosecute fraud. The criminal penalties for fraud are found in Title 18 of the United States Code. This bill extend the application of these penalties to new areas.

Specifically, this bill will increase accountability for corporate and mortgage fraud and will safeguard against future fraud on those programs that Congress recently developed to restore America's economy. This bill provides increased funding for the expanded role of the Department of Justice. Financial institutions, mortgage lenders, and other private entities are held accountable. This bill will target face statements made to financial institutions and false statements made by financial institutions, i.e. in the overvaluation of property.

H.R. 1292, To amend Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, establishes a grant program to authorize funds to states to work with information sharing and training programs focused upon the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of terrorism, economic and high-tech crimes and will aid in the creation and maintenance of intelligence led police and information sharing.

The bill provides the FBI with additional funding to combat financial fraud and identity theft. This additional provision of funding is responsive to the role that fraud has played in the housing crisis. This bill provides the FBI with greater funding to combat fraud. Its purpose is to address the corrupt and fraudulent practices of ``flippers'', ``scam artists'', and ``mortgage fraud rings.''

President Obama has signaled that he will freeze releasing additional TARP funds to AIG because of its mismanagement (i.e., AIG was using TARP funds to pay for employees bonuses). The TARP bill proscribed the use of the TARP funds and specified that there would be repercussions if the TARP funds were used wrongly. There are many companies that used these funds inappropriately.

The fist sign of the crisis that America presently finds itself in occurred in March 2008 when investment bank Bear Stearns turned to the federal government and competitor JP Morgan Chase for assistance in addressing a sudden liquidity crisis. At that time, the Federal Reserve provided JP Morgan with funds to complete the merger. Later, in July 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Company seized control of IndyMac, the nation's largest home lender.

In September, the federal government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. Since August 2008, the federal government has invested billions of dollars into financial institutions. Much of this money was given directly to large banking institutions. Other money was distributed through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. This program was supposed to increase liquidity in the credit and lending markets. Some of this money, it was later found was mismanaged and was used to buy other banks.

On October 3, 2008, under the TARP, Congress authorized $700 billion for the Treasury to buy troubled assets to prevent further disruption in the economy. After the Act was passed, the Administration decided to use a portion of the $700 billion to recapitalize some of the nation's leading banks by buying their shares. Despite this purchase by the government, many banks had no intention of making new loans. In allocating the TARP fund, Treasury made a determination about which banks would survive and receive funds and which banks, usually smaller, would not. By the end of 2008, nine of the largest banks were participating in the TARP program. AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup all benefitted.

For some aspects of the present crisis, I believe that there were a number of conscious decisions undertaken by bankers, financial institutions, and other lenders that have had a direct and adverse effect on borrower.

I also understand that some Mr. and Mrs. Main Street Americans played a role. Many made false statements or exaggerated their income or engaged in other types of fraud in an effort to secure a mortgage that they could not afford. This bill is designed to take an even-handed approach and to stamp out fraud, mismanagement, and false statements whether they occur on Main Street or Wall Street. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am generally not in favor of commissions. I think Congress gives up too much of its power to commissions in my brief experience here. But this is one point that I think does call out for a commission. Certainly just as egregious as what happened to this country on 9/11 was what happened to this country in September 2008 when we experienced a financial meltdown. And to date, we have not looked back into the causes of the crisis and held anyone accountable.

In fact, Congressman Brady from Texas and myself introduced a bill earlier this year for just such a commission, H.R. 2111, that differs substantially from the bill under consideration today.

The bill that we are considering today creates a 10-member commission with subpoena power. It is going to be composed of six Democrats and four Republicans. When we did the 9/11 Commission, was that not a 50/50 split with some members being named by agreement amongst the commissioners who were already selected? Why would we unbalance this commission when, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there is just as much guilt on one side of the aisle as there is on the other.

Senate 386 allows the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee to select a commissioner. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee may have been part of the problem.

The bill allows the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee to appoint a representative to the commission. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee may have been part of the problem.

Senate 386 creates an accountability commission focused on protecting the government. H.R. 2111 creates an accountability commission focused on protecting taxpayers and restoring public confidence, something that is critical at this juncture.

Importantly, Mr. Speaker, we do things like this all the time. We bring up an important concept and we pass it under suspension of the rules. This is an important commission that should be created with all due care and caution by this Congress, and then empowered to go out and do the work that we want it to do, not slipped in in the middle of a very quiet legislative day when Members don't even have any idea what they're coming to the floor to vote on.

I just want to end by quoting from the Investors Business Daily, an article entitled, Probe Yourselves, from April 16, 2009. The article says, `` `Regulators also deserve blame for lowering lending standards that then contributed to riskier home ownership and the housing bubble.' Exactly correct.''

Continuing to quote, ``As such, Pelosi's proposed commission will be little more than a fig leaf to cover Congress' own multitude of sins-- letting its Members, the true creators of this financial mess, bash business leaders as they pose as populist saviors of Main Street from Wall Street.''

Continuing to quote, ``On NPR Thursday, a reporter confronted Representative Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, with the fact that his $300 billion `Hope for Homeowners' program''----

``Chairman Frank was asked about his $300 billion `Hope for Homeowners' program, passed with much fanfare a year ago that had so far helped one homeowner. One. Frank's response: `It was the fault of the right.' ''

Continuing to quote, ``The truth is, Mr. Frank's party has been in charge since 2006. And during that time, Democrats have presided over one of the most disgraceful and least accomplished Congresses in history. This financial mess began on their watch, yet they pretend otherwise.''

Further quoting from the Investors Business Daily, the commission that is outlined ``won't get to the bottom of our financial crisis; it will carefully select scapegoats to be ritually shamed by the liberal media, stripped of their wealth, and exiled. The new rules will be imposed that will no doubt make things worse. And the cycle will begin again.

``Wall Street didn't create this subprime mess, Congress, through repeated interventions, did. When the whole thing failed, it was Congress' fault.''

They conclude by saying, ``We'd be happy to support a 9/11-style commission to look into the causes of the financial meltdown. But only if Congress agrees to put itself under the microscope. Anything less would be a sham.''

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 16, 2009]

Probe Yourselves

Named for its chief counsel, Ferdinand Pecora, the 1932

congressional commission dragged influential bankers and

stockbrokers before its members for rough questioning--both

of their business practices and private lives.

The Pecora Commission led directly to the Securities Act of

1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the creation of

the Securities Exchange Commission in 1935 to oversee Wall

Street.

Now Pelosi's calling for an encore. ``People are very

unhappy with these bailouts,'' she noted, especially the

bonuses that went to executives. ``Seventy five percent of

the American people, at least, want an investigation of what

happened on Wall Street.''

No doubt, that's true. The problem is, what ``happened on

Wall Street'' was a direct result of what happened on Capitol

Hill. And we're not the only ones who believe that, by the

way.

``Government policies, especially the Community

Reinvestment Act, and the affordable housing mission that

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling, are

to blame for the financial crisis,'' wrote economist Peter

Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute,

recently.

``Regulators also deserve blame for lowering lending

standards that then contributed to riskier homeownership and

the housing bubble.'' Exactly correct.

As such, Pelosi's proposed commission will be little more

than a fig leaf to cover Congress' own multitude of sins--

letting its members, the true creators of this financial

mess, bash business leaders as they pose as populist saviors

of Main Street from Wall Street predators.

Why do this now? Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues are

feeling the heat from Tea Party demonstrations and growing

voter anger over the massive waste entailed in the $4

trillion (and rising) stimulus-bailout bonanza. Again, the

Democrats created all this spending. Now, as it proves

unpopular, they just walk away from it.

On NPR Thursday, a reporter confronted Rep. Barney Frank,

chairman of the Financial Services Committee, with the fact

that his $300 billion ``Hope for Homeowners'' program, passed

with much fanfare last fall, had so far helped just one

homeowner. One.

Frank's response: It was the fault of the ``right.'' And

Bush.

Truth is, Frank's party has been in charge since 2006. And

during that time, Democrats have presided over one of the

most disgraceful and least accomplished Congresses in

history. This financial mess began on their watch, yet they

pretend otherwise.

What better way to take the heat off yourself than by

pointing accusing fingers at those most unlikable of people--

Wall Street bankers? That's what the Pelosi-Pecora Commission

will do.

It won't get to the bottom of our financial crisis; it will

carefully select scapegoats to be ritually shamed by the

liberal media, stripped of their wealth, and exiled. Then new

rules will be imposed that will no doubt make things worse.

And the cycle will begin again.

We're not saying Wall Street has no blame for the financial

meltdown. But Wall Street didn't create the subprime mess.

Congress, through repeated interventions in healthy markets,

did. And when the whole thing failed, it was Congress' fault.

We'd be happy to support a 9/11-style commission to look

into the causes of the financial meltdown. But only if

Congress agrees to put itself in the dock. Anything less

would be a sham.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 386) to improve enforcement of mortgage fraud, securities fraud, financial institution fraud, and other frauds related to federal assistance and relief programs, for the recovery of funds lost to these frauds, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 is crafted to combat financial fraud that contributed to causing and worsening our Nation's current economic crisis. We are bringing to the floor a bill that represents a consensus of efforts for the House and Senate, each acting on a bipartisan basis, blending the Senate-passed bill with H.R. 1748, the Fight Fraud Act of 2009, which the House Judiciary Committee reported last week.

This bill amends the Federal criminal fraud statutes to reach the full range of fraud and other financial crimes that have come to light as the financial crisis has unfolded. The bill amends the definition of ``financial institution'' and fraud statutes to make it clear that financial institutions include mortgage lending businesses. It amends the securities fraud statute to make it clear that securities fraud includes commodities fraud. It makes it clear that it is a felony for a mortgage broker to knowingly make a materially false statement on a loan application or fraudulently overvalue property in order to influence any action by a mortgage lending business. Of course, that is already a crime, and the bill clearly states this fact just in case anybody thought it was okay to cheat and defraud a mortgage lending business during the mortgage process.

It amends Federal money laundering statutes to make them more effective in the context of fraud prosecutions and to ensure their appropriate use. It also seeks to deter fraud from undermining the TARP and economic stimulus package efforts recently passed by explicitly making fraud in those cases a felony.

In addition to amending criminal statutes, S-386 clarifies key provisions of the False Claims Act in order to more effectively enlist private citizens in helping root out fraud against the government and bring its perpetrators to justice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the most important part of the bill, in my judgment, is not the clarification of various fraud sections in the criminal code, but its authorization of resources to investigate and prosecute fraudulent activities. Additional authorization for the FBI, for example, would enable it to nearly double the size of its mortgage and financial fraud program. The U.S. Attorneys offices and other components of the Justice Department and other Federal agencies involved in investigating fraud would also receive increased authorizations. Additional funds provided pursuant to the new authorizations can be used not only for Federal investigations and enforcement, but also to support State and local law enforcement efforts in this area, including training, technical assistance, expertise and other support provided through programs such as the National White Collar Crime Center.

Mr. Speaker, many financial crimes today go unpunished because law enforcement agencies simply lack the resources to investigate and prosecute financial crimes such as ID theft, mortgage fraud or organized retail theft. This bill will empower Federal law enforcement officials to hold criminals accountable for their crimes.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill incorporates legislation by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) which will create an independent, bipartisan commission with subpoena power to examine more broadly the circumstances giving rise to the current financial crisis.

I would like to commend the Judiciary Committee's chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and others on the committee, as well as the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and our colleagues from the other body for their help in making this such a strong bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut, the chairman of the majority caucus, Mr. Larson.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as she may consume to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield 4 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

(Mr. MAFFEI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, finally, in closing, I would remind the body that this is a bipartisan, bicameral consensus. We have worked together on a bipartisan basis in the House and the Senate.

The bill will prevent fraud by clarifying the fraud statutes and strengthen the False Claims Act. It will, I think very importantly, provide significant resources for fighting the fraud.

Finally, the value of the commission will be judged by its product, and we would all assume that the appointments would be people whose reputation is beyond reproach and we will get a good product from the commission.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act of 2009 gives the

Department of Justice the resources it needs to better combat and prevent the kind of financial fraud that has put our economy on its heels.

As I discussed with the bill's sponsors on this legislation in the House, however, I do have concerns about amendments like those included in this package that expand the reach of an already powerful weapon-- the civil False Claims Act. Often enforced by whistleblowers and their private counsel when the Department of Justice steps aside, the civil False Claims Act reaches beyond traditional fraud to impose treble damages and per claim penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 on individuals, corporations, and other legal entities who submit false claims for government program funds, knowing or recklessly disregarding the falsity of those claims.

The power of the False Claims Act comes from its broad terms, low burden of proof, enabling the government to impose penalties and recoup funds lost not only to frauds, but to less culpable schemes that abuse government moneys.

But there's also a danger in this. Not all whistleblowers and their lawyers have the same view of the statute as the Department of Justice and the risk of penalties, treble damages, and attorney fees. In many cases, the defense costs can cost some defendants to settle charges they would otherwise be able to defend.

One of the things this legislation does is expend that powerful weapon to reach schemes that defraud the government of money it pays by mistake--of ``overpayments'' that come into the possession of an entity, like a university or a research institution, through no fault of its own, that the entity keeps and maybe hides rather than notifying the government or returning it to the government.

Drafting language to pursue unlawful retention of an overpayment proved difficult, however. When we considered similar legislation in committee, I learned that hospitals, universities, and other research institutions are among various entities that function in government programs where the program rules do require those entities to account for overpayments.

They do so in the form of periodic reports prepared according to agency rules that account costs incurred and payments received. This allows them to reconcile overpayments and underpayments and, when appropriate, repay those overpayments.

But the drafting problem we faced was avoiding language that would impose liability on research institutions or hospitals for holding on to overpayments at a time when the applicable rules would allow them to do so pending repayment through the normal process.

This would include reconciliation processes established under statutes, regulations, and rules that govern Medicare, Medicaid, and all sorts of other various research grants and programs.

So, as a courtesy to my colleagues, I withdrew an amendment that addressed these issues and commenced negotiations to see that any amendments to the False Claims Act-protected entities that rely on those processes in good faith in handling their accounting, protecting them from unwarranted investigations and litigation concerning overpayments, they were, in effect, entitled to keep for at least a small period of time.

As reflected in the committee report, the Senate version of this bill was amended to afford that protection. A new subsection of the False Claims Act will not impose liability for the mere retention of an overpayment over the course of the reconciliation period. Rather, the new subsection would require proof of a knowing false record or statement, of knowing concealment, or of knowing and improper acts to avoid or decrease an obligation to pay money to the government.

So, if a person or entity receives an overpayment from the United States and fails to return it immediately and instead takes steps to return the overpayment through an applicable reconciliation process, then liability would not attach. However, if a person falsifies information during a reconciliation period or otherwise acts knowingly and improperly to avoid the payment, liability would attach.

So it's vitally important that we pass this legislation to fight financial fraud. But it's also important that we not punish universities, hospitals, and other important research institutions when they're doing everything that they are supposed to do. We must have enforcement and also fairness.