Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate St. Elizabeth Medical Center of northern Kentucky. St. Elizabeth has been named as a magnet hospital by the American Nurses Credentialing Center.

Designation as a magnet hospital by this organization is an extremely prestigious honor, so much so that some have called it the Nobel Prize of hospital nursing. Fewer than 200 providers have received this recognition. This puts St. Elizabeth in the company of only 3 percent of U.S. hospitals.

Just as the award it has received indicates, St. Elizabeth acts as a magnet for nursing. It offers the exceptional quality of nursing care and attracts and retains the most talented nurses. Not only is this good news for St. Elizabeth, but it is good news for the community-- they know that if they go to this facility, they will be receiving some of the best care in the country. I am extremely excited that northern Kentucky is receiving the nursing care that it deserves.

I congratulate St. Elizabeth Medical Center on this achievement. Everyone involved with this institution is an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky. I look forward to all that St. Elizabeth accomplishes in the future.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will ensure fair tax treatment for domestic coal producers and coal exporters to help them receive the coal excise tax refunds due to them from an unconstitutional tax they paid.

For years the Federal Government collected the coal excise tax on coal exports from coal producers and coal exporters. In 1998, the Federal Courts declared the coal excise tax unconstitutional when applied to exported coal.

Although those that export coal are entitled to the refunds of the unconstitutional coal excise tax on exported coal, they face serious and significant obstacles to obtaining refunds of the tax with the Internal Revenue Service and the courts.

This legislation will end unnecessary litigation on this issue and simplify the IRS process that U.S. coal producers and exporters use to obtain refunds of the coal excise tax they paid. It also will ensure that the producer or exporter that actually exported the coal, and thus is entitled to the refund, receives that refund.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will ensure fair tax treatment for domestic coal producers and coal exporters to help them receive the coal excise tax refunds due to them from an unconstitutional tax they paid.

For years the Federal Government collected the coal excise tax on coal exports from coal producers and coal exporters. In 1998, the Federal Courts declared the coal excise tax unconstitutional when applied to exported coal.

Although those that export coal are entitled to the refunds of the unconstitutional coal excise tax on exported coal, they face serious and significant obstacles to obtaining refunds of the tax with the Internal Revenue Service and the courts.

This legislation will end unnecessary litigation on this issue and simplify the IRS process that U.S. coal producers and exporters use to obtain refunds of the coal excise tax they paid. It also will ensure that the producer or exporter that actually exported the coal, and thus is entitled to the refund, receives that refund.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, today I rise to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Toyota Motor Company for their 20 years of successful and prosperous operations in Georgetown, KY. This stunning achievement serves as a shining example to us all in regards to leadership and innovation in the American workforce.

Since coming to Kentucky in 1986, Toyota has provided our State with thousands of job opportunities while giving the employees the ability to contribute ideas for product improvement, oversee quality control, and continually strive for perfection. This strive has resulted in the Toyota Camry being named the most popular car on the American automotive market eight times out of the last 9 years.

With three locations in Kentucky, the Georgetown manufacturing plant, the North American Parts Center--Kentucky, and the company's largest North American manufacturing headquarters in Erlanger, KY, it is easy to see the economic benefits that Toyota has brought to our State. The Georgetown plant alone employs over 7,000 team members and has generated over 34,000 jobs in Kentucky and nearly 100,000 jobs across the United States. So often we hear about jobs being lost to overseas firms, but in Kentucky we are fortunate the Toyota jobs came to us. This partnership has benefited Toyota and Kentucky, and I know both parties will reap the benefits for years to come.

Today, the Georgetown production facility is Toyota's largest production plant in North America. Kentucky's dedicated skilled production team has been key to Toyota's success.

Toyota has proven its commitment to Kentucky by supporting the interests of the Commonwealth and giving back to our State in so many ways. By contributing to education, the arts, local business leadership organizations, and supporting women's rights, this company has proven time and again the importance of a strong business and community partnership.

Words cannot express the generosity that Toyota has shown Kentucky through industry job opportunities and community service. I am excited to see what this partnership will bring to Kentuckians and generations to come. Once again, I want to congratulate the Toyota Georgetown facility and its employees on 20 years of success. I also want to thank them for all they have given to our State.

Mr. President, I respectfully ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to make some remarks about the supplemental appropriations bill now on the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to the emergency supplemental bill. It has, unfortunately, become routine to see emergency spending bills on the floor. But I understand the pressing need for this legislation to defend America from terrorism and respond to one of the worst natural disasters in America's history.

These reasons are why we have emergency supplemental legislation in the first place. I strongly support the President's $92 billion request. His request includes essential funding to pay the men and women serving in our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also provides the funding needed to restore damaged military equipment and purchase new state-of-the-art technology.

For fiscal year 2007, we have budgeted for much of the cost of the war on terror, but this emergency supplemental is important to provide our American Armed Forces the additional funding they need today.

I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting the defense portion of this legislation. And I would like to roll up my sleeves and help the Americans who were so devastated by Hurricane Katrina rebuild their homes and communities. I believe strongly in these two missions, and I will fight to ensure they are properly funded.

But today we are looking at legislation that has billions of dollars of extra spending in nonemergency areas. In fact, it has everything but the kitchen sink. As I read through the programs that will provide $20 million for oyster fishermen in New England and $4 million for erosion control projects in California and Michigan, I am starting to believe the kitchen sink must be in there, too, somewhere.

It saddens me to see in this legislation that States outside of the gulf coast are trying to latch on to the people who suffered from last year's hurricanes. Emergency spending should be just that--used for emergency purposes. We should not just add in billions of dollars of extra funding because this is a moving legislative vehicle.

The legislation before us includes some programs like the Community Development Block Grant Programs which are funded significantly higher than the President's request. While I support this program, I do not think this emergency spending bill is the appropriate place to increase overall funding for CDBG. I do not see the need to spend an extra billion dollars and expand CDBG's scope beyond States affected by Katrina.

The legislation further limits the CDBG money by requiring States to spend nearly 20 percent on affordable rental housing. I believe it is a mistake to take community planning decisions out of the hands of local and State officials.

And there are other examples of States not affected by the hurricanes trying to obtain emergency funding. Everyone who has had some form of natural disaster in their State is trying to get a piece of the pie. I do not want to diminish the tragedy of any disaster, but the Federal budget process includes funding for these isolated events which were never intended to be funded with emergency spending.

For example, there were a series of bad storms in California in 2002 that flooded Los Angeles roadways and flooded buildings with hail. The legislation before us would provide $51 million for transportation repairs--repairs that the State of California has already paid for. That is right, this emergency bill contains money to repay States for natural disasters that occurred years ago. This is unacceptable.

I have long supported congressionally directed projects and am prepared to defend my projects in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills. As a member of the Budget Committee, I can tell you firsthand how important it is to set targets and plan ahead. That is how we maintain accountability.

We need to remember that every dollar we spend in this supplemental came from some hard-working American taxpayers. The American people deserve a Government that is careful with their money. That is why I will vote against this legislation.

I have also told the President I will support his veto of this legislation if it passes Congress above his $92-plus billion request. I believe we need to cut spending and work out a responsible plan that meets the needs of the war on terror and rebuilding in the gulf coast region.

I urge my colleagues to curb spending in this emergency spending bill. I ask for them to consider their vote and what will happen if we pass this legislation. I urge those who are on the fence or on the border or about not to vote for this bill, not to vote for it but if they do, to support the President's veto when it comes.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Rhonda Smith of Paducah, KY, for being recognized as one of Kentucky's most generous volunteers. I congratulate her for recently being awarded the President's Volunteer Service Award by the Department of Energy.

The President's Volunteer Service Award is issued by the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation on behalf of the President of the United States to recognize the best in American spirit and to encourage all Americans to improve their communities through volunteer service and civic participation. The award is given to individuals, families, and groups that have demonstrated outstanding volunteer service and civic participation over the course of a 12-month period.

Ms. Smith has served on the Paducah Site-Specific Advisory Board since 2003, was elected chair in 2005, and will begin serving her term later in 2006. During her tenure on the board, she has devoted over 100 hours of community service to the advisory board by tirelessly providing help with DOE's environmental restoration and waste management activities at the Paducah site.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Smith for her dedication and commitment to DOE and Kentucky. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have volunteers like Rhonda Smith in our communities and in our lives. She is Kentucky at its finest.

On rollcall vote No. 105, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote since it will not change the outcome.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about immigration reform. Over the past week, I have heard many of my colleagues describe the important contributions immigrants have made to American society and culture. Like my colleagues, I agree that the United States has a long and proud tradition of immigration. Immigrants have contributed in many ways to our Nation since its birth. Many Americans are descendants of immigrants who came to America seeking a better life. Unfortunately, today we have a huge illegal immigration problem that threatens our Nation's security and our economic security.

I was recently contacted about this issue by a constituent of mine. She is a young Irish-American woman whose parents emigrated from the Republic of Ireland to the Commonwealth of Kentucky over 20 years ago. When talking about her experience of immigration to the United States, this young woman stressed to me what a privilege immigration to our country truly is. She is right. Immigration is a privilege and not an entitlement. This distinct privilege of immigration is one which is unique to our great Nation and one which is currently being threatened by the flow of illegal immigrants into our society.

Like so many of my colleagues, I would like to see this country's traditions of immigration preserved. But it must be done in a way that does not reward those who broke our laws and came to this country illegally. Looking at immigration reform, I believe we must start with securing our borders, to stop those who illegally try to enter the United States.

Border security is the foundation on which we must build immigration reform. It is essential to our national security that we make it our No. 1 priority. We need to keep a close eye on who the people are who are entering this country and the purpose they have for coming here. The only way to do that is to make sure our Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement officials responsible for stopping illegal immigrants have the resources they need to protect our borders.

Right now, our Border Patrol agents do not have enough funds to secure our borders effectively. Often, people have the ability to just walk across the unguarded border without question.

We need to provide the Border Patrol agents with the best resources, the most up-to-date technology, and, most importantly, the manpower they need to successfully do their job.

Just this past week, the FBI busted a smuggling ring organized by the terrorist group Hezbollah. They had some of their members cross the Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the United States. Securing our borders is no longer an option, it is a necessity. It is essential to securing our national safety, the safety of our citizens, and the safety of future American citizens.

We must also find a commonsense solution to dealing with those individuals who are already here illegally. While there currently are several options on the table, I believe amnesty in any form is not an option. I was disappointed to see this in the Specter amendment. We must find a solution that meets the needs of employers, while also protecting American jobs.

I think this could be done through some kind of program that would require illegal immigrants to return home to their country of origin after a set period of time. Once home, these workers could then apply to get on the path to come back as a temporary resident and maybe even apply for citizenship. But in no way should amnesty for illegal immigrants be an option. If these folks want to come back as citizens, they need to go back to their country and get in line behind the almost 3 million people who have already begun following the law and waiting patiently to enter the United States legally. No one should be allowed to cut in line.

As many of you know, Kentucky has a very proud and rich history in agriculture. From our tobacco farms, to our dairy farms, Kentucky's economy relies on its agricultural industries. As someone who is from an agricultural State, I understand the need for temporary workers. Any guest worker program needs to be simple to use for both the employer and the employee. Employers must be provided with the proper tools to verify the immigration status of their employees. Those tools need to be easy for our Nation's employers to access and to use. This is essential to any type of immigration reform and to our national security. We need to know who is being employed,

where they came from, and how long they are allowed to stay.

Congress must act on immigration reform. I hope partisan politics does not prevent action on an issue that is so important to our Nation. I would like to once again reflect back on the words of my Irish- American constituent and urge my colleagues, this week, to help keep immigration a privilege of our great Nation.

I urge my colleagues to help put integrity back into the immigration process. While our country does have a rich tradition of immigration, we do not have a rich tradition of rewarding those who break our laws. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both Democrats and Republicans, to remember the principles upon which our great Nation was founded. While we always have been and still are a land of opportunity, we also are a land of laws.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I hope this big problem that we have facing our Nation is given a chance to be solved on the floor of the Senate this week.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Dr. Keon Chi on his retirement from the political science department at Georgetown College in Georgetown, KY.

Since 1970, Dr. Chi has helped to enrich and prepare the students of Georgetown College. His keen insight into American and global political systems did much to give his students an idea of how people are governed.

Dr. Chi is a gifted academic. Some of his best work has been on the subject of privatization of state government functions. Because of this expertise, he was selected to serve on advisory panels and commissions on privatization for both the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Federal Government.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Chi for his dedication and commitment to teaching and academics. In order for our society to continue to advance in the right direction, we must have professors like Keon Chi in our institutions of higher learning, in our communities, and in our lives. He is Kentucky at its finest.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the PATRIOT Act. I support the reauthorization of this law. It is vital we reauthorize it and make it permanent. Finally, we will be able to move this reauthorization forward with a series of votes this week. It has been lingering out there too long, especially since the House passed it over 2 months ago.

The Senate needs to be taken seriously in the domestic fight against terrorism. Two months is too long to wait. I fear our delays have sent the wrong message to our antiterrorism investigators and prosecutors as well as those who would do us harm.

In this body I hear a lot of critics of the President and his efforts to fight terrorism. Those critics always have problems but rarely do they have any solutions other than to do nothing. Doing nothing led us to 9/11, and we would be foolish to go back.

The PATRIOT Act was one of the first things we did after September 11 to make sure something like that never happens again. It passed the Senate 98 to 1. This Chamber can be pretty partisan at times, but at that time 98 Senators thought it went far enough to protect civil liberties.

But now we hear how the PATRIOT Act is bad. The conference report we received in December makes permanent most of the expiring provisions of the existing law but with additional protections for civil liberties. But that was not enough, and 47 Senators filibustered the bill. So here we are today, 2 months later, about to pass some changes to the conference report and finally send something to the President.

Now, do not get me wrong. I think the improvements in the conference report are positive. We absolutely should write protections into the law where they do not tie the FBI's hands in stopping terrorist attacks. But the FBI was not using the PATRIOT Act to bother law- abiding Americans. We did not need to delay the law for 2 months. And we do not need to rewrite it from scratch, as some of my colleagues in the body are suggesting.

It is important to protect Americans' civil liberties, and the original PATRIOT Act and the updated one do this. But I think some Senators are missing the point. Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead. And that is what the PATRIOT Act is about: stopping us from ending up dead at the hands of terrorists.

Some Senators make the PATRIOT Act sound like some huge expansion of law enforcement powers. That is simply not true. The PATRIOT Act brought our laws up to date with modern technology. It gave antiterrorist investigators the same tools as other investigators, and it tore down the artificial wall between intelligence and law enforcement. In other words, it removed the legal barriers that kept us from being able to prevent things like the September 11 attacks.

As Senators, it is our job to fix the laws when they put Americans in danger. It is sad that it took September 11 for those problems to be exposed. But it is even sadder still that some want to second-guess those changes and turn our antiterror laws into a partisan issue. But the safety of Americans is not a partisan issue. We have to do everything we can within the Constitution to protect Americans from both foreign and domestic threats. We all swore an oath to do so when we joined this body.

The PATRIOT Act is critical to protecting Americans, and now is the time to pass this bill once and for all.

Just last week, we were reminded that there are those in America who want to do us harm. Three men in Ohio were indicted for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism, including trying to make bomb vests that could be used on the battlefield in Iraq or in a shopping mall in America. The enemy is not sleeping, and now is not the time for us to lose our resolve.

Under the PATRIOT Act, we have captured over 400 terrorist suspects. That is a lot of people who want to do us harm. Over 200 terrorists have been convicted or pled guilty in investigations helped by the PATRIOT Act.

Using the PATRIOT Act, our investigators have seized cash and drugs being used to fund terrorism. They have also captured weapons and broke up plans to smuggle weapons into the country, including antiaircraft missiles.

Home-grown terrorists have been caught, also. The list of successes goes on and on. There are terrorists behind bars instead of advancing plots against us because of the PATRIOT Act tools and, more importantly, there are many Americans alive who may be dead if those terrorists were successful in carrying out their plots.

We need the PATRIOT Act. We need to get it reauthorized and signed into law. Our terrorist investigators need their tools to be permanent. This gives them certainty. We need to send a strong message to the terrorists that we will come after them with everything we can.

I urge my colleagues to support these bills and to drop their obstruction so we can do our job to protect all Americans.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony on current and future worldwide threats to the national security of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the evaluation of the administration's FY 07 Budget for the Federal Transmit Administration.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on February 28, 2006, at 10 a.m. on USF Contributions.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on February 28, 2006, at 2:45 p.m., on Security of Terminal Operations at U.S. Ports.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 28 at 10 a.m.

The purpose of this hearing is to review the proposed FY 2007 Forest Service Budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority II'' on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The witness list is attached.

Witnesses

The Honorable R. James Woolsey, Vice President Global Strategic Security Division, Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, VA; Harold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT; Ken Gormley, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA; Douglas W. Kmiec, Professor, Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, CA; Bruce Fein, Fein & Fein, Washington, DC; Robert F. Turner, Associate Director, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; Robert Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, CATO Institute, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to mark up an original bill to make the legislative process more transparent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, to hear the legislative presentation of the Disabled American Veterans.

The hearing will take place in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Enhancing Educational and Economic Opportunity in the District of Columbia.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 28 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Bureau of Reclamation's Reuse and Recycling Program (title XVI of P.L. 102-575).

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate Ms. Sara J.

Kieffner for being selected as one of the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper's Women of the Year.

The Enquirer has done well to bestow this honor on Ms. Kieffner. Among her many causes, she has done much for the St. Elizabeth Medical Center Foundation. She has also devoted herself to promoting breast health awareness and to raising funds for the Fischer Homes Breast Center. If that weren't enough, she is also active with the Redwood Rehabilitation Center, the American Cancer Society's Northern Kentucky chapter, United Ministries, and her church, Gloria Dei Lutheran.

Since The Enquirer's Women of the Year program was started in 1968, over 350 women in Greater Cincinnati and northern Kentucky have been singled out for their efforts to improve the community for everyone.

Ms. Kieffner has certainly deserved this citation. As a Senator and a member of her community, I am proud of her dedication. Her accomplishments serve as an example to all citizens of the Commonwealth.

Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation that will have an impact on many of the hospitals in my State, along with hundreds of hospitals in other States. This legislation deals specifically with the Medicare payments for Direct Graduate Medical Education--also known as DGME.

I am pleased that Congressman Ron Lewis from Kentucky's Second District is the lead sponsor of a companion bill already introduced in the House of Representatives.

Medicare pays teaching hospitals for its share of the cost of training new physicians. These payments are known as DGME payments. Teaching hospitals initially reported their direct costs to the Department of Health and Human Services in the mid-1980s. These reported amounts are now the basis for which each teaching hospital is reimbursed.

Unfortunately, there was a disparity in the types of costs each hospital reported, which has lead to large disparities in payments between hospitals. Hospitals are also being reimbursed on data that is 20 years old, at this point.

To help rectify this problem, in 1999 Congress established a floor for calculating Medicare payments for DGME at 70 percent of the national average. In 2001, Congress raised the floor to 85 percent of the national average.

The legislation I am introducing today would bring all of Medicare's DGME hospitals up 100 percent of the national average. This is an important change that would help many teaching hospitals in Kentucky and across the Nation be fairly reimbursed for training our young doctors.

For example, there are 19 hospitals in Kentucky that currently receive reimbursements below the national average. This means that Kentucky hospitals lose more than two million a year because of the lower reimbursement rate. Across the country, there are about 600 hospitals being reimbursed below the national average.

This legislation takes an important step to ensure that Medicare's payment policy for teaching hospitals are fair and that these institutions can continue to do the important work they do. I hope my colleagues will take a close look at the bill and can support it.

Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation that will have an impact on many of the hospitals in my State, along with hundreds of hospitals in other States. This legislation deals specifically with the Medicare payments for Direct Graduate Medical Education--also known as DGME.

I am pleased that Congressman Ron Lewis from Kentucky's Second District is the lead sponsor of a companion bill already introduced in the House of Representatives.

Medicare pays teaching hospitals for its share of the cost of training new physicians. These payments are known as DGME payments. Teaching hospitals initially reported their direct costs to the Department of Health and Human Services in the mid-1980s. These reported amounts are now the basis for which each teaching hospital is reimbursed.

Unfortunately, there was a disparity in the types of costs each hospital reported, which has lead to large disparities in payments between hospitals. Hospitals are also being reimbursed on data that is 20 years old, at this point.

To help rectify this problem, in 1999 Congress established a floor for calculating Medicare payments for DGME at 70 percent of the national average. In 2001, Congress raised the floor to 85 percent of the national average.

The legislation I am introducing today would bring all of Medicare's DGME hospitals up 100 percent of the national average. This is an important change that would help many teaching hospitals in Kentucky and across the Nation be fairly reimbursed for training our young doctors.

For example, there are 19 hospitals in Kentucky that currently receive reimbursements below the national average. This means that Kentucky hospitals lose more than two million a year because of the lower reimbursement rate. Across the country, there are about 600 hospitals being reimbursed below the national average.

This legislation takes an important step to ensure that Medicare's payment policy for teaching hospitals are fair and that these institutions can continue to do the important work they do. I hope my colleagues will take a close look at the bill and can support it.