[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            FALSE CLAIMS ACT

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, an amendment to the False Claims Act 
[FCA] is needed to clarify that it does not apply to claims of 
violations of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act [AMAA].
  The FCA allows private parties to sue to collect moneys owed to the 
Government under existing contracts or lease arrangements or obtained 
from the Government under false pretenses. Private persons can bring 
suit in the name of the Government and recover treble damages. The FCA 
was meant to address ``fraud against the Government''. Nothing in the 
history of the FCA supports that it should be used to collect fines or 
penalties that have neither been sought nor imposed by the Federal 
Government.
  The AMAA regulates the flow of citrus onto the market through the 
issuance of marketing orders. Violations of the AMAA are subject to 
civil fines through the forfeiture provisions of the act.
  FCA actions were brought by opponents of marketing orders based on 
the theory that if the marketing orders were violated, fines would be 
owned to the Government. The Justice Department argued that these so-
called reverse hypothetical false claim cases should be dismissed 
because a violation of a marketing order results in a penalty and does 
not cause financial loss to the Government. However, Federal district 
court judges in California ruled that Congress was silent and therefore 
left the door open for these types of claims.
  Recently, the Department of Agriculture has dropped all claims in the 
citrus industry for violations of the AMAA. It is expected that the FCA 
claims will also be dismissed. However, the threat remains that these 
types of cases could be brought. Therefore, I have been supportive of 
an amendment to the FCA to clarify that the FCA does not apply to 
claims of violations of the AMAA. Marketing order violations should be 
prosecuted through the process established by the AMAA, not by 
extending coverage of the FCA.
  Last Congress during consideration in the House of Representatives of 
legislation to amend the FCA--H.R. 4563, language was included to 
exclude possible violations of the AMAA from the FCA. The committee 
report stated that they did not believe that Congress intended the 
False Claims Act to support actions under the AMAA and thus the bill 
specifically excluded such actions from coverage.
  Senator Grassley has led the effort in the Senate to correct some 
outstanding problems in the FCA, unrelated to the marketing order 
issue. His legislation, S. 841, unfortunately was never reported from 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was confident that the marketing 
order could be addressed at that time.
  Efforts were made to try and solve this one problem with the FCA 
during the final hours of this Congress. However, objections were 
raised to any FCA amendments for fear that the entire issue would be 
reopened. Those objections were unrelated to the substance of the 
problem of the application of the FCA to AMAA violations. I have 
discussed this issue a number of times with Senator Heflin, chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice. I believe he 
and other members of the Judiciary Committee are supportive. Although I 
will not be around next year to work on this issue, I am hopeful that 
this problem can be solved once and for all during the 104th Congress.

                          ____________________