[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6329-H6330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




ANTITRUST CRIMINAL PENALTY ENHANCEMENT AND REFORM ACT OF 2004 EXTENSION 
                                  ACT

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2675) to amend title II of the Antitrust Criminal 
Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of 
such title for a 1-year period ending June 22, 2010.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2675

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Antitrust Criminal Penalty 
     Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act''.

     SEC. 2. DELAY OF SUNSET.

       Section 211(a) of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty 
     Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is 
     amended by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT.

       The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 
     immediately before June 22, 2009.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation extends by 1 year expiring provisions 
of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, 
otherwise known as ACPERA. ACPERA not only increases maximum criminal 
penalties under the Sherman Act for hardcore antitrust violations but 
also created whistleblower incentives to spur antitrust cartel 
detection.
  Portions of the 2004 act are set to expire in 2 weeks on June 22. 
This 1-year extension preserves the penalties and incentives currently 
in place, while affording Congress time to explore possible 
improvements to the 2004 act.
  I am pleased to have as cosponsors of this bill the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, as well as full committee Ranking 
Member Lamar Smith and Courts Subcommittee Ranking Member Howard Coble.
  Cartel violations are some of the worst crimes perpetrated on the 
American consumer; yet they are too often crimes we cannot see, as all 
of this criminal activity takes place in secret meetings behind closed 
doors. In the previous bill, we were talking about crime in the 
streets, and now we are talking about crime in the suites.
  Price-fixing cartels can go undetected for years, possibly forever. 
With hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars worth of unlawful 
profits at stake, these criminal cartels are very effective at finding 
ways to keep their actions secret. But 5 years ago, Congress gave the 
Justice Department's Antitrust Division a new weapon to attack this 
secrecy head-on. ACPERA promotes the detection and prosecution of 
illegal cartel behavior by giving participants in a price-fixing cartel 
powerful incentives to report the cartel to the Justice Department and 
cooperate in the prosecution of the cartel.
  Before ACPERA, the Justice Department could offer leniency to a 
coconspirator who exposed a cartel and helped bring it to justice. But 
the cooperating party remained fully liable to paying treble damages to 
the cartel's victims and potentially exposed to having to pay the 
entire amount.

[[Page H6330]]

  ACPERA addressed this shortcoming in the criminal leniency program by 
also limiting the cooperating party's exposure to liability with 
respect to civil litigation. ACPERA empowers the Justice Department to 
limit civil liability of a cooperating party to single damages, not 
treble. The remaining coconspirators, however, remain jointly and 
severally liable for all damages. In this way, Mr. Speaker, the act 
strikes a carefully crafted balance, encouraging the cartel members to 
turn on each other while ensuring full compensation to the victims.
  The positive impact of this law cannot be overstated. In the first 
half of this year, ACPERA has aided the antitrust division in securing 
jail sentences in 85 percent of its individual prosecutions and over 
$900 million in criminal fines.
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and 
Competition Policy, I want to ensure that the Justice Department has 
all the tools it needs to continue its excellent work, which is to 
protect consumers against price-fixing cartels.
  Again, I thank the bipartisan coalition of Members who have joined me 
as cosponsors in this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire if the gentleman 
has any further speakers after I conclude?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We have no more speakers, and I would be 
prepared to conclude.
  Mr. ISSA. Excellent. I will be brief.
  This is noncontroversial. In fact, the Antitrust Criminal Enhancement 
Reform Act of 2009 is about a program that is working. It is a program 
that not only do I hope we will unanimously pass and send to the 
Senate, but that the Senate will act quickly so that after the 2 weeks 
remaining, this statute will not expire, and we will use this year 
wisely to review and reauthorize in a longer term basis this act.
  ACPERA has in fact worked. It is something that both the majority and 
minority have agreed on, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time on this 
matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2675.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________