Lynn N. Rivers: “I will speak to that threshold. While the claim is that this amendment will produce greater equity by eliminating…”

“I will speak to that threshold. While the claim is that this amendment will produce greater equity by eliminating differences between the treatment of Members and ordinary citizens and greater efficacy within the Justice Department, I believe it will do neither. Frankly, I believe this new proposal, when distilled down, is nothing more than a variation on the protect Members theme that is already written into this bill. While the language of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] allows the court to deny reimbursement if it believes the prosecution's case is substantially justified, Members can and will claim that their prosecution was politically motivated. The words of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] support the suspicion. He argued in his written testimony to the Committee on Rules that there is, quote, a legitimate fear that a prosecutor could become politically involved with the particular case, could feel so compelled to win that he forgets his duty is not to win but to ensure justice. But, Mr. Chairman, it is a rare defendant that could claim that his prosecution was politically motivated. Only Members and other public officials will travel the path that this amendment lays out. Concerns that this bill is really about Members are heightened in that this proposal was not introduced in previous Congresses and only surfaced after the angry glare of public opinion focused on H.R. 2267 and its existing Member exemption language.”