133 Cong.Rec. 14,177 (statement of Rep. Waxman, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment). Further, the mandatory exclusionary period “strengthens the ability of the Secretary of [HHS] to exclude from Medicare and Medicaid those health care providers and practitioners who fail to provide quality health services or who have engaged in fraud involving health care programs.” 133 Cong.Rec. 20,922 (statement of Sen. Bentsen). Thus, while Manocchio’s exclusion from Medicare due to making a $62.40 fraudulent demand against the Government may constitute “rough remedial justice” (Halper, 490 U.S. at 446, 109 S.Ct. at 1900), the purpose of his exclusion is to protect the public, a legitimate nonpunitive goal. See also Greene v. Sullivan, 731 F.Supp. 838, 840 (E.D.Tenn.1990) (<HOLDING>). Since we find that the five year mandatory
holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that exclusion from participation in medicare and medicaid programs serves remedial goals and does not violate the double jeopardy clause holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that conviction of and punishment for both the underlying predicate offense and continuing criminal enterprise does not violate double jeopardy