that this [qui tam action] was not commenced by the United States.......It is true however, that [the relator], pursuant to statutory authority, has brought this suit in the name of and on behalf of the United States____” Id. Congress established qui tam procedures to encourage private citizens to come forward when they know of fraudulent claims against the United States. Those citizens act on behalf of themselves, in the name of the United States. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b); Ex rel. Foulds, 171 F.3d at 289; Minotti 895 F.2d at 104 (noting that qui tam actions “allow individual citizens to initiate enforcement against wrongdoers”) (emphasis added). The legislative history of the Major Fraud Act is consistent with the statute’s plain meaning. See GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. at 108, 100 S.Ct. 2051 (<HOLDING>). ’ Congress’ purpose in passing the Major
holding that statutory language is conclusive in absence of clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary  holding that congress had clearly expressed through the structure and legislative history of  erisa an intention that the federal remedy  displace state causes of action holding that where statutory language is unambiguous it is to be regarded as conclusive unless there is clearlyexpressed legislative intent to the contrary holding analogous circumstances conclusive  of legislative intent holding that congressional intent as clearly expressed in legislative history cannot trump the irrefutably plain statutory language that emerged when congress actually took pen to paper