PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 111-190.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jun 9, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on May 24, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to: (1) extend until June 22, 2020, provisions of that Act limiting civil damages in antitrust enforcement actions involving conduct covered by antitrust leniency agreements; and (2) revise the timeliness requirements applicable to an antitrust leniency applicant for cooperating in an antitrust enforcement proceeding, including the timeliness of cooperation after a stay or protective order has expired or terminated.
Directs the Comptroller General, within one year after the enactment of this Act, to submit to the congressional Judiciary Committees a report on the effectiveness of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, both in criminal investigation and enforcement by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and in private civil actions. Requires such report to include a study of the appropriateness of the addition of qui tam proceedings to the antitrust leniency program and of creating anti-retaliatory protection for employees who report illegal anticompetitive conduct.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides for compliance with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-190.
Became Public Law No: 111-190.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4559-4560)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S4559-4560)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 366 - 4 (Roll no. 293). (text: CR H3716-3717)
House roll call 293 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 366 - 4 (Roll no. 293).(text: CR H3716-3717)
House roll call 293 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3725-3726)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Nadler (NY) objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5330.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3716-3717)
Mr. Nadler (NY) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E882-883)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5330 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5330 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5330 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5330 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.