Patrick Leahy: “The Harry Truman amendment was civil. This is criminal. Thus, this is more protective of a defendant because, as the…”

“The Harry Truman amendment was civil. This is criminal. Thus, this is more protective of a defendant because, as the distinguished Senators know, and certainly those who have been prosecutors know all too well, in a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil case can often be the preponderance of the evidence. This is more protective of both sides. But it holds the hammer of a criminal proposal. This has tough criminal penalties for individuals who defraud the American taxpayer. It provides a maximum criminal penalty of 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million. The reason we did criminal rather than civil, there was a time when if you proposed a $10 million fine back at the time of Harry Truman, that was a lot of money. We have had at least one company that has already had to pay back money on overcharging and profiteering. They spend more than that $10 million on a weekend running ads saying how good they are at feeding the troops. But if you are facing a criminal penalty and might go to the slammer, then you think about it. I will state why this is necessary. For example, if we wanted to use current law, which is basically what the second-degree amendment is, current law does not specifically outlaw war profiteering. My amendment, which the Senator from Illinois has spoken about, does specifically outlaw war profiteering.”