Should the federal government reimburse members of Congress and staffers for the costs of successfully defending themselves against federal criminal charges stemming from their jobs? Should ordinary citizens similarly be reimbursed if they are acquitted of federal charges of criminal wrongdoing?

These issues may soon be stirring debate in the wake of legislation proceeding on Capitol Hill.

• In July 1997, House subcommittee unanimously approved a measure introduced by Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) to require the Justice Department to pay the legal costs of members and aides who are acquitted of criminal charges brought by the department's prosecutors.

• Murtha said his proposal was prompted by the acquittal last year of his colleague, Rep. Joseph McDade on federal bribery and racketeering charges.

• Murtha says he is "trying to establish that there is a separation of powers," and that McDade -- who had been charged with using his office for the benefit of defense contractors in exchange for campaign contributions -- had reported everything "in accordance with the rules of the House and yet he was still prosecuted."

• Under the Independent Counsel Law, members of the executive branch are reimbursed for legal bills if they are not brought up on charges.

Although Murtha believes federal prosecutors "are conscientious people" for the most part, he says he is "trying to deal with an excess."

Miami attorney Neal Sonnett, speaking for the American Bar Association, said that if restitution were made to members of Congress solely on them being acquitted, "then the same benefit should apply to everyone."

And Bob Schiff of Public Citizen's Congress Watch added, "If we're not going to reimburse regular Americans acquitted of crimes, we shouldn't be reimbursing members of Congress and their staffs."

Source: M. J. Zuckerman, "Perkolating on Hill: Lawsuit Reimbursement," USA Today, July 29, 1997.