Patrick Leahy: “If I might respond to that, they have. The Senator from Virginia asked whether they have done it in a criminal…”

“If I might respond to that, they have. The Senator from Virginia asked whether they have done it in a criminal prosecution. No, this is not a criminal statute. They have done it in a civil case, and there is a huge amount of case law on this in civil cases. The only difference is, if the Senator is worried about the rights of contractors and others, in a criminal case, of course, you have to prove specific intent. In civil cases, you have to prove it with a preponderance of the evidence. Here you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But these are words of art: ``overvalues a good or service with specific intent to excessively profit from the war, military action. . . .'' Those are words of art. They have been interpreted by the courts. The difference, again, as I said, if you are doing it in a criminal case, as the Senator from Virginia well knows, you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. ``Excessively profit'' is taken from the renegotiation act, which is, as I said, a civil act. The constitutionality of that was upheld; I believe it was in the Lichter case.”