[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 92 (Monday, July 17, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7006-S7007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PRESCRIPTION DRUG AMENDMENT ON THE MARRIAGE PENALTY RECONCILIATION BILL

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment 
that I submitted on Friday to the marriage penalty bill, which the 
Senate will take up and vote on later today. My amendment, which is 
cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Graham and Bryan, follows up on a 
similar proposal I offered in April to the Senate budget resolution 
that would have required Congress to enact a new Medicare prescription 
drug benefit before considering any massive tax cuts. While a 
procedural hurdle prevented that amendment from passing, fifty-one 
senators voted to waive a budget point of order, indicating they 
favored it, and sending the American people a strong signal that a 
majority of the U.S. Senate thought we should put the needs of our 
nation's seniors before excessive tax cuts.
  The majority, however, has moved in the opposite direction since 
then. This past Friday, we passed a large tax bill that would phase out 
the tax on the estates of those seniors who die, but did nothing to 
provide needed prescription drugs that can preserve the lives of those 
seniors who are living. Because I had cosponsored earlier legislation 
to ease the estate tax burden in order to preserve family farms and 
small businesses, I voted for this bill. Even though all of our 
Democratic amendments were defeated--and look forward to crafting more 
equitable legislation to address these same concerns after the 
President vetoes the bill we passed Friday.
  The bill before the Senate now, however, is very different. Under the 
guise of eliminating the ``marriage penalty,'' the majority has brought 
a bill to the floor that would devote over half of its benefits to 
people who either aren't married, or who are actually receiving right 
now a tax benefit, or ``bonus,'' for being married. As I have stated 
previously, Mr. President, this takes a lot of chutzpah.
  Mr. President, I believe we ought to eliminate the marriage penalty 
for those who actually suffer the marriage penalty and need the relief 
most. With all the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about 
eliminating the marriage penalty, one might think that they'd share my 
view, and want to pass a bill that would actually focus on the penalty.
  But a closer examination of the Republican bill reveals that it isn't 
quite what it's described to be. Mr. President, there are in fact 65 
provisions in the current tax code that contain a marriage penalty, 
including Social Security. The bill reported from the Finance Committee 
on a straight party-line vote takes care of one marriage penalty 
provision completely and two others partially, and leaves the other 62 
marriage penalties untouched. The Democratic bill addresses all 65 
provisions, and takes care of the entire penalty for almost everyone.
  Mr. President, it's time that we set our priorities straight. We 
ought not to be devoting billions of dollars of the surplus to 
individuals who currently suffer no marriage penalty whatever when 
we've done nothing to help those that suffer from the ``senior 
citizens' drug penalty''--the high prices our nation's seniors are 
forced to pay for prescription drugs.
  The amendment that I've offered would force Congress to address these 
priorities. It simply says that the tax bill before the Senate today 
won't take effect until Congress has also fulfilled its responsibility 
to enact a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit. My amendment 
won't prevent Congress from enacting marriage penalty relief this year, 
nor will it keep a single married couple from enjoying the tax benefits 
in this bill. What it will do is ensure that we don't backtrack from 
the Senate's vote to enact a prescription drug benefit before we do 
major tax cuts.
  Let me say, Mr. President, that this isn't just rhetoric. The 
problems faced by our nation's seniors in affording prescription drugs 
are immediate and real. I'd like to remind the Senate of a story I 
heard from a physician in my state recently about a patient who was 
splitting her doses of Tamoxifin--a breast cancer drug--with two of her 
friends who also had breast cancer, but couldn't afford the medication. 
As a result, all three women had inadequate doses of the medication.
  Or consider the story of a disabled father of three from Pennington 
Gap, Virginia, who broke his neck several years ago, and went from 
making $50,000 a year to $800 a month in disability benefits. While he 
qualifies for Medicare, he's forced to choose each month between 
spending nearly half of his disability benefit on prescription drugs, 
or helping out his family, because Medicare offers no coverage for his 
medications.
  These Virginians are not alone in their troubles. The average 
Medicare beneficiary will spend $1100 on prescription drugs this year. 
Most of them won't have adequate prescription drug coverage to help 
them cover these crushing costs. And the numbers of those that do have 
coverage are dropping rapidly.
  Despite the suggestions of some of my colleagues, this problem isn't 
limited solely to the poor. One in four Medicare beneficiaries with a 
high income--defined as $45,000 a year for a couple--has no coverage 
for prescription drugs. And while some seniors do have coverage, nearly 
half of them lack coverage for the entire year, making them extremely 
vulnerable to catastrophic drug costs.
  Complicating this matter for the elderly is the ``senior citizens' 
drug penalty'' that seniors without drug coverage are forced to pay. 
Most working Americans who are insured through the private sector pay 
less than the full retail price for prescription drugs. This is because 
insurers generally contract with private sector entities that negotiate 
better prices for drugs, and pass on the power of group purchasing to 
their customers.
  Seniors lack this option, however, and must still pay full price for 
their drugs. One recent study showed that seniors without drug coverage 
typically pay 15 percent more than people

[[Page S7007]]

with coverage. And the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries without 
drug coverage who report not being able to afford a needed drug is 
about 5 times higher than those with coverage.
  This ``senior citizens' drug penalty,'' in my view, is 
unconscionable. Senior citizens are more reliant on drugs, and have 
higher drug costs, than any other segment of the population. They 
deserve to have the same bargaining power that benefits other 
Americans.
  Mr. President, in April, the other side spoke against my budget 
amendment, claiming that there was already adequate language in the 
Republican budget resolution to ensure that we pass a prescription drug 
benefit this year. At the time, they pointed to the $40 billion reserve 
fund which was included in the budget resolution that the Committee had 
reported, arguing that this would provide ample money to enact a 
prescription drug benefit and offer tax relief.
  Republicans asked, in essence, that we trust them that the Senate 
won't put tax cuts before our nation's seniors. Let me say that I do 
trust my good friends on the other side of the aisle. But to borrow a 
line from Ronald Reagan, I believe we should trust--but verify. That 
requires deeds as well as words.
  Mr. President, our nation's seniors deserve better than this. In 
April, at least fifty-one senators felt the same way. I urge every one 
of them, as well as senators who opposed my amendment then because they 
thought the $40 billion reserve fund would guarantee a prescription 
drug benefit, to support my amendment now. With its passage, we'll be 
able to eliminate both the true ``marriage penalty'' and the ``senior 
citizens' drug penalty.''
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. I believe under the previous order I will be recognized 
to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.

                          ____________________