What the amendment says is that the funds appropriated under this bill shall not be used to enter into or pay for either a contract or salary to a person or an entity which is the subject of a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding in which the Federal Government has alleged fraud. That means, Mr. Chairman, that it would only apply not where there was a mere investigation of fraud, but, rather, where there was an allegation which had been formalized by the filing of a civil or criminal or administrative complaint; and not a civil or administrative complaint by anyone, but, rather, by the Federal Government. If we cannot protect under the laws of this Nation the expenditure of taxpayer funds to entities which are currently being prosecuted for fraud, then I would say we are in deep trouble.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to the use of federal funds in cases of alleged fraud.
Share
More from John Shadegg
Well, it seems to me that while we do not know what the quid pro quo was for any given deal, we know a couple of things: We know the insurance companies went in first and foremost and said, We want an individual mandate. We want the…
Oh, the cost went up. Wait, the cost went up? They have forced everybody in Massachusetts, like this bill would do, to buy a health insurance plan on the premise that the cost would go down. But in Massachusetts where they did it, the cost…
That's what we call defensive medicine, which means a doctor defending himself in advance or practicing defensive medicine because he is afraid he's going to get sued and has to be able to respond to that suit.
I believe most people across America know that we have been debating health care reform for almost a year now--actually, quite frankly, a little over a year now. And I think most Americans agree with me and probably with almost everybody…





