[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10293-S10295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERREY:
  S. 1242. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the nonrefundable personal credits, the standard deduction, and the 
deduction for personal exemptions in determining alternative minimum 
tax liability; to the Committee on Finance.


             alternative minimum tax liability legislation

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
ensure that families are not denied the tax relief we promised them 
under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  What we promised under the Taxpayer Relief Act was a child credit to 
help families raise their kids and an education credit to help make 
higher education more affordable. As it turns out, the reality may be 
far different. What we may be doing is throwing middle-class families 
into the alternative minimum tax [AMT] simply because they take 
advantage of the new child and education credits. This will happen 
because under current law, individuals pay the greater of their regular 
tax owed minus nonrefundable tax credits or the AMT which cannot be 
reduced by these nonrefundable credits.
  Under current law, the child credit and the education credit won't be 
allowed under the AMT. As a result, average-sized families with 
children are more likely to be thrown into the AMT simply by using 
these credits. Believe me, this is not the place we want to be sending 
them.
  The bill I am introducing today is identical to one that was 
introduced last week by Congresswoman Kennelly of Connecticut. By her 
calculations, in 2002, a full 2 million families will be in the AMT 
because of the family credit alone. For illustrative purposes, I will 
give you just one example of the kinds of people who will get hurt: A 
two-parent family with a gross income of $67,700 and three children, 
including one in college, would fall into the AMT and lose nearly 
$1,500 of the $2,500 in combined child and education credits that we 
promised them.
  The legislation I am introducing today is simple. It would allow 
taxpayers to take the nonrefundable personal credits--the dependent 
care credit, the child credit, and the education credit under the AMT. 
It would also make the standard deduction and the personal exemptions 
deductible under the AMT.
  As Congresswoman Kennelly has noted, ``The AMT was meant to ensure 
that sophisticated taxpayers couldn't zero out their taxes. It was 
never intended that your children would throw you into the AMT.'' We 
need to deliver on the family tax relief promises we made in the 
Taxpayer Relief Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY:
  S. 1243, A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to enhance 
safety on two-lane rural highways; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


                      the rural highway safety act

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I recently introduced the Highway Safety 
Priority Act which proposed to make safety a primary consideration in 
highway investments.
  Traffic accidents are part of a national health epidemic responsible 
for the loss of 1.2 million preretirement years of life a year; more 
than is lost to cancer or heart disease. It is the leading cause of 
death for Americans between the ages of 15 and 24. Last year, more than 
41,900 Americans died from this epidemic and more than 3 million 
suffered serious injury. In Nebraska traffic accidents claimed 293 
lives in 1996 up from 254 the year before. Most tragic, is the fact 
that this epidemic is almost 100 percent preventable.
  To address this problem, the Congress must focus resources where they 
will do the most good. Throughout America there are two lane, two way 
roads which expose drivers to an unacceptably high level of risk. These 
high risk ``killer roads'' suffer from poor engineering, poor pavement, 
narrow shoulders and increasing levels of traffic. Because these roads 
are often in rural areas, feeding into the larger arteries, they are 
frequently overlooked by State and local roads departments in favor of 
the larger more modern and inherently safe portions of the National 
Highway System.
  If we are to be serious about reducing death and accidents on 
America's roads, we need to pay greater attention to the roads which 
feed into the National Highway System. The Lincoln Journal Star 
reported in May that 70 percent of all Nebraska accidents occur on 
rural roads.
  Today, I introduce legislation which proposes an aggressive efforts 
to make

[[Page S10294]]

killer roads safer. This legislation, like the Highway Safety Priority 
Act was prepared with significant assistance of Dr. Jerry Donaldson, of 
Advocates for Highway Safety. Dr. Donaldson is one of the Nation's pre-
eminent highway safety experts.
  As the Senate prepares to consider the new highway bill, I urge my 
colleagues to consider and support the Rural Road Safety Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the ordered to be printed in the Record, as 
follows:

                                S. 1243

       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 ``Rural Highway Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. RURAL 2-LANE HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 162. Rural 2-lane highway safety program

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 2-lane 
     rural highway safety program (referred to in this section as 
     the `program') to ensure the systematic reconstruction of 
     rural 2-lane arterial and collector highways of substantial 
     length that are not on the National Highway System.
       ``(2) Principles.--Reconstruction under the program shall 
     be carried out in accordance with state-of-the-art principles 
     of--
       ``(A) safe alignment and cross-section design;
       ``(B) safe roadside conditions;
       ``(C) safety appurtenances;
       ``(D) durable and safe pavement design (especially long-
     term skid resistance);
       ``(E) grade crossing safety; and
       ``(F) traffic engineering.
       ``(3) Cooperation with states and private sector.--The 
     Secretary shall carry out the program in cooperation with 
     State highway departments and private sector experts in 
     highway safety design, including experts in highway safety 
     policy.
       ``(b) Apportionment.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall apportion--
       ``(1) 50 percent of the amount made available under 
     subsection (e) to the States in the ratio that--
       ``(A) the number of miles in the State of rural 2-lane 
     arterial and collector surface roads that are not on the 
     National Highway System; bears to
       ``(B) the number of miles in all States of rural 2-lane 
     arterial and collector surface roads that are not on the 
     National Highway System; and
       ``(2) 50 percent of the amount made available under 
     subsection (e) to the States in the ratio that--
       ``(A) the percentage of the population of the State that 
     resides in rural areas; bears to
       ``(B) the percentage of the population of all States that 
     resides in rural areas.
       ``(c) Selection of Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The States shall select projects to 
     receive funding under the program based on--
       ``(A) criteria established in cooperation with the 
     Secretary and other persons that give priority to highways 
     associated with persistently high rates of fatal and non-
     fatal injuries due to accidents; and
       ``(B) to the maximum extent practicable, value engineering 
     and life-cycle cost analysis.
       ``(2) Compatibility with management systems.--To the extent 
     that a State selects projects in accordance with a 
     functioning safety, pavement, bridge, or work zone management 
     system, projects selected under the program shall be 
     compatible with each management system.
       ``(3) Statewide transportation planning.--The selection of 
     projects by a State under the program shall be carried out in 
     a manner consistent with the statewide transportation 
     planning of the State under section 135.
       ``(d) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2003, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the results of 
     the program.
       ``(2) Contents.--The report shall include--
       ``(A) detailed travel and accident data by class of vehicle 
     and roadway; and
       ``(B) an evaluation of the extent to which specific safety 
     design features and accident countermeasures have resulted in 
     lower accident rates, including reduced severity of injuries.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $125,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1999, $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $100,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2001, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and 
     $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``162. Rural 2-lane highway safety program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Sessions): S. 1244. A bill 
        to amend title 11, United States Code, to protect certain 
        charitable contributions, and for other purposes; to the 
        Committee on the Judiciary.


     THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CHARITABLE DONATIONS PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Religious 
Liberty and Charitable Donations Protection Acts. This bill represents 
a giant step forward in protecting the religious freedom of many 
Americans who tithe. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Ron 
Packard will today introduce a companion measure. I ask consent that 
the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

  As my colleagues may know, bankruptcy judges across the country have 
been ordering churches to refund large sums of money when a parishioner 
declares bankruptcy. This causes serious hardship to churches and is a 
frontal assault on religious freedom of worship. After the Supreme 
Court's recent decision striking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
[RFRA] down as unconstitutional, I believe that Congress has a 
responsibility to act now to protect religious freedom. Because I chair 
the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts--which has 
primary jurisdiction over bankruptcy--I have an obligation to respond 
to this renewed threat to religious liberty.
  Of course, there are other areas where Congress needs to protect 
religious freedom, and I look forward to assisting Chairman Hatch--who 
is a strong leader in protecting religious liberty--in these efforts.
  But in the context of tithing and bankruptcy, I feel the time to act 
is now. The Supreme Court just vacated and remanded a case from the 
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which had ruled that RFRA protected 
churches from bankruptcy lawsuits seeking the return of money given as 
a tithe. This is a particular concern to me, since my home State of 
Iowa is in the eighth circuit and will be affected by this court case. 
The pastor of the church involved in this case, Pastor Steven Goold of 
the Crystal Free Evangelical Church, testified before my subcommittee 
as to the difficulties his church has faced in trying to protect itself 
from bankruptcy judges, including the huge legal costs associated with 
fighting the bankruptcy judge's ruling. Pastor Goold supports this 
legislation, as does Americans United for Separation of Church and 
State. So, the bill has broad support from many diverse sectors of our 
society.
  In addition to preventing Federal judges from ordering churches to 
pay refunds of previous tithes, the legislation I'm introducing today 
will protect postbankruptcy tithing in chapter 13 cases. As currently 
interpreted, chapter 13, which permits debtors to repay their creditors 
at a discounted rate, also allows debtors to budget a moderate amount 
of money for entertainment expenses. But, several courts have said that 
debtors can't budget money to tithe to their church. In other words, if 
you're in chapter 13 bankruptcy, you can budget money for a hamburger 
and a movie, but you can't take that same money and give it to your 
church--even if you believe your faith requires that.
  This is an obvious assault on the freedom of religion. Would our 
founding fathers have wanted a Federal judge to tell a citizen that 
he's not allowed to tithe to his church? Obviously not. Such a 
situation is antithetical to the American tradition of liberty and 
separation of church from State.
  As a result of my hearing, I have made several minor changes to 
accommodate various concerns that have been raised about possible 
unintended consequences. I hope that the legislation as now drafted 
will receive the support of every Member of Congress who is concerned 
about protecting freedom generally and restoring freedom of religion--
our first freedom--to its rightful place in American society.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1244

       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 ``Religious Liberty and 
     Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1997''.

[[Page S10295]]

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 548(d) of title 11, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) In this section, the term `charitable contribution' 
     means a charitable contribution, as that term is defined in 
     section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if that 
     contribution--
       ``(A) is made by a natural person; and
       ``(B) consists of--
       ``(i) a financial instrument (as that term is defined in 
     section 731(c)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); 
     or
       ``(ii) cash.
       ``(4) In this section, the term `qualified religious or 
     charitable entity or organization' means--
       ``(A) an entity described in section 170(c)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(B) an entity or organization described in section 
     170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF PRE-PETITION QUALIFIED CHARITABLE 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 548(a) of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
       (2) by striking ``(1) made'' and inserting ``(A) made'';
       (3) by striking ``(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(B)(i);
       (4) by striking ``(B)(i)'' and inserting ``(ii)(I)'';
       (5) by striking ``(ii) was'' and inserting ``(II) was'';
       (6) by striking ``(iii)'' and inserting ``(III)''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) A transfer of a charitable contribution to a 
     qualified religious or charitable entity or organization 
     shall not be considered to be a transfer covered under 
     paragraph (1)(B) in any case in which--
       ``(A) the amount of that contribution does not exceed 15 
     percent of the gross annual income of the debtor for the year 
     in which the transfer of the contribution is made; or
       ``(B) the contribution made by a debtor exceeded the 
     percentage amount of gross annual income specified in 
     subparagraph (A), if the transfer was consistent with the 
     practices of the debtor in making charitable 
     contributions.''.
       (b) Trustee as Lien Creditor and as Successor to Certain 
     Creditors and Purchasers.--Section 544(b) of title 11, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The trustee'' and inserting ``(b)(1) 
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), the trustee''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a transfer of a 
     charitable contribution (as that term is defined in section 
     548(d)(3)) that is not covered under section 548(a)(1)(B), by 
     reason of section 548(a)(2).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 546 of title 11, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``548(a)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``548(a)(1)(B)''; and
       (B) by striking ``548(a)(1)'' and inserting 
     ``548(a)(1)(A)'';
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``548(a)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``548(a)(1)(B)''; and
       (B) by striking ``548(a)(1)'' and inserting 
     ``548(a)(1)(A)''; and
       (3) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``section 548(a)(1)'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``section 548(a)(1)(A)''; and
       (b) by striking ``548(a)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``548(a)(1)(B)''.

     SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF POST-PETITION CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) Confirmation of Plan.--Section 1325(b)(2)(A) of title 
     11, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``, including charitable 
     contributions (that meet the definition of `charitable 
     contribution' under section 548(d)(3)) to a qualified 
     religious or charitable entity or organization (as that term 
     is defined in section 548(d)(4)) in an amount not to exceed 
     15 percent of the gross income of the debtor for the year in 
     which the contributions are made''.
       (b) Dismissal.--Section 707(b) of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In 
     making a determination whether to dismiss a case under this 
     section, the court may not take into consideration whether a 
     debtor has made, or continues to make, charitable 
     contributions (that meet the definition of `charitable 
     contribution' under section 548(d)(3)) to any qualified 
     religious or charitable entity or organization (as that term 
     is defined in section 548(d)(4)).''.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
     any case brought under an applicable provision of title 11, 
     United States Code, that is pending or commenced on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in the amendments made by this Act is intended to 
     limit the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration 
     Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2002bb et seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Reid and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1247. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the 
amount of recoupment from veterans' disability compensation that is 
required in the case of veterans who have received special separation 
benefits from the Department of Defense; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.


        THE SPECIAL SEPARATION BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Special 
Separation Benefits [SSB] Improvement Act of 1997. This legislation 
would address the unfair provision that double-taxes veterans who 
participate in the special separation benefits downsizing program run 
by the Department of Defense [DOD].
  Since 1991, in an effort by the DOD to downsize the armed services, 
certain military personnel have been eligible for a special separation 
benefit [SSB]. However, since the inception of this program recipients 
who are subsequently determined to have a service-connected disability 
must offset the full SSB amount paid to that individual through the 
withholding of disability compensation by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs [VA]. Because of these cost cutting provisions, veterans who 
participate in the DOD's downsizing by selecting an SSB lump sum 
payment are forced to pay back the full, pre-tax amount in disability 
compensation--offsetting money that the disabled veteran would never 
see. This is a gross injustice to veterans by double taxing their hard 
earned benefits.
  My bill would ease this double taxation for all members who accept an 
SSB package, and make these alterations retroactive to December 5, 
1991. Thus, service members not able to receive payment concurrently 
since 1991 will be reimbursed for their lost compensation portion that 
was taxed. The near-term costs of this bill were estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office to be less than $500,000 through the year 
2000 and about $2 million in 2002 --barely a fraction of a percentage 
of our annual spending on compensation and benefits for former military 
personnel.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting the 
double-taxing of veterans' benefits by the Government.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor 
to the Special Separation Benefits [SSB] Improvement Act of 1997. 
Offered by my colleague on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs--
Senator Jeffords, this legislation will correct a current injustice 
where service connected disabled veterans, who participate in the 
special separation benefits program [SSB], are wrongly doubled taxed on 
their benefits.
  In 1991, the Department of Defense [DOD], in an effort to downsize 
the armed services, established the SSB, which gives military personnel 
a lump sum payment to retire. However, for those veterans who are 
subsequently determined to have a service-connected disability, their 
SSB benefit amount is offset by withholding the veteran's disability 
compensation from the VA. A veteran only receives the SSB benefits 
after taxes are withheld. At the same time, disability compensation is 
not taxed. The injustice is that the veteran must repay with his or her 
disability compensation the pre-tax amount of the SSB payment--in 
effect double taxing the veteran's benefits.
  The Special Separation Benefits [SSB] Improvement Act of 1997 eases 
the double taxation for all members who participated in the SSB program 
retroactively to December 5, 1991. These servicemembers will receive 
payment for their lost compensation portion that was taxed. According 
to the Congress Budget Office [CBO], the near term costs are estimated 
to be less than $500,000 through the year 2000. For this small amount, 
Congress has the opportunity to correct an injustice against our 
veterans who have given so much.
  I hope that my colleagues can join me in cosponsoring this 
legislation.

                          ____________________