S74 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

Treasury under section 118 of the Emergency 

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. 

(e) MODIFICATIONS TO PROGRAM.—The 

Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation may make any modification to 

the program established under subsection (a) 

that the Chairperson determines are appropriate for the purpose of maximizing the 

number of foreclosures prevented. 

(f) REPORT.—Before the end of the 6-month 

period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall 

submit a progress report to the Congress 

containing such findings and such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Chairperson may determine to be appropriate. 

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, 

Mr. VITTER, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. 

CORNYN, and Mr. ENSIGN): 

S. 74. A bill to provide permanent tax 

relief from the marriage penalty. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the 

marriage penalty—the most egregious, 

anti-family provision in the tax code. 

One of my highest priorities in the 

United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden. 

We have made important strides to 

eliminate this unfair tax and provide 

marriage penalty relief by raising the 

standard deduction and enlarging the 

15 percent tax bracket for married 

joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were 

changed, 42 percent of married couples 

paid an average penalty of $1,400. 

Enacting marriage penalty relief was 

a giant step for tax fairness, but it may 

be fleeting. Even as married couples 

use the money they now save to put 

food on the table and clothes on their 

children, a tax increase looms in the 

future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was 

restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 

2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a 

taxable event and a significant number 

of married couples will again pay more 

in taxes unless we act decisively. Given 

the challenges many families face in 

making ends meet, we must make sure 

we do not backtrack on this important 

reform. 

The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk 

down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and 

should not be discouraged by the IRS. 

Children living in a married household 

are far less likely to live in poverty or 

to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less 

likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in 

married families, and married mothers 

are less likely to be victims of domestic violence. 

We should celebrate marriage, not 

penalize it. The bill I am offering 

would make marriage penalty relief 

permanent, because marriage should 

not be a taxable event. I call on the 

Senate to finish the job we started and 

make marriage penalty relief permanent today. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 74 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Permanent 

Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET ON MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF. 

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax 

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to 

sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not 

apply to— 

(1) sections 301, 302, and 303 of such Act (relating to marriage penalty relief), and 

(2) sections 101(b) and 101(c) of the Working 

Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (relating to 

marriage penalty relief in the standard deduction and 15-percent income tax bracket, 

respectively). 

By Mr. KOHL: 

S. 75. A bill to amend title XVIII of 

the Social Security Act to require the 

use of generic drugs under the Medicare part D prescription drug program 

when available unless the brand name 

drug is determined to be medically necessary; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the Generics First 

Act. This legislation requires the Federal Government’s Medicare Part D 

prescription drug program to use generic drugs whenever available, unless 

a brand-name drug is determined to be 

medically necessary by a physician. 

Modeled after similar provisions in 

many state-administered Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the 

high costs of the new prescription drug 

program and keep seniors from reaching the current coverage gap, or 

‘‘donut hole,’’ by guiding beneficiaries 

toward cost-saving generic drug alternatives. 

We know that the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive, placing a financial strain on seniors, families, and 

businesses that are struggling to pay 

their health care bills. According to 

the National Bureau of Economic Research, spending on prescription drugs 

totaled $227.5 billion in 2007. People 

need help now and we must respond by 

expanding access to generic drugs. 

Generics, which on average cost 60 percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the solution 

to health care costs that are spiraling 

out of control. 

Generic drugs that are approved by 

the FDA must meet the same rigorous 

standards for safety and effectiveness 

as brand-name drugs. In addition to 

being safe and effective, the generic 

must have the same active ingredient 

or ingredients, be the same strength, 

and have the same labeling for the approved uses as the brand-name drug. In 

other words, generics perform the same 

medicinal purposes as their respective 

brand-name product. 

We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of 

dollars and curb health spending for 

the Federal Government, employers, 

and families. Every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This legislation is just 

one part of a larger agenda I’m pushing 

to remove the obstacles that prevent 

generics from getting to market, and I 

urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 75 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Generics 

First Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. REQUIRED USE OF GENERIC DRUGS 

UNDER THE MEDICARE PART D PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–2(e)(2) of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w– 

102(e)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 

following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(C) NON-GENERIC DRUGS UNLESS CERTAIN

REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term does not include a drug that is a nongeneric drug unless— 

‘‘(I) no generic drug has been approved 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act with respect to the drug; or 

‘‘(II) the nongeneric drug is determined to 

be medically necessary by the individual prescribing the drug and prior authorization for 

the drug is obtained from the Secretary. 

‘‘(ii) DEFINITIONS.—In this subparagraph: 

‘‘(I) GENERIC DRUG.—The term ‘generic 

drug’ means a drug that is the subject of an 

application approved under subsection (b)(2) 

or (j) of section 505 of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for which the Secretary has made a determination that the 

drug is the therapeutic equivalent of a listed 

drug under section 505(j)(7) of such Act. 

‘‘(II) NONGENERIC DRUG.—The term ‘nongeneric drug’ means a drug that is the subject of an application approved under— 

‘‘(aa) section 505(b)(1) of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or 

‘‘(bb) section 505(b)(2) of such Act and that 

has been determined to be not therapeutically equivalent to any listed drug.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by subsection (a) shall apply to drugs 

dispensed on or after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

By Mr. INOUYE: 

S. 76. A bill to amend the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act 

to revise and extend that Act; to the 

Committee on Indian Affairs. 

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise 

today, again, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health 

Care Improvement Act. Senator AKAKA

joins me in sponsoring this measure. 

The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law in 

1988, and has been reauthorized several 

times throughout the years. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE