[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.
____________________