[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4769-S4772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CHARITABLE DONATION PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1244) to amend title 11, United States Code, to 
     protect certain charitable contributions, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported 
from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment to strike all 
after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Religious Liberty and 
     Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1998''.

     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). Any claim by any person to 
     recover a transferred contribution described in the preceding 
     sentence under Federal or State law in a Federal or State 
     court shall be preempted by the commencement of the case.''.
       (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.).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 10 minutes 
equally divided on each side.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1244, The 
Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act, which I 
introduced in October of last year.
  When I held hearings on this bill before my subcommittee, I learned 
that churches and charities around the country are experiencing a spate 
of lawsuits by bankruptcy trustees trying to undo tithes or charitable 
donations. Under provisions of the Bankruptcy Code originally designed 
to fight fraudulent transfers of assets or money on the eve of 
bankruptcy, bankruptcy trustees have begun to sue churches when one of 
their parishioners declares bankruptcy, charging that tithes are fraud.
  Of course, this puts the fiscal health of many churches at serious 
risk. Most churches and charities don't have big bank accounts. Having 
to pay back money that has been received and already spent is a real 
hardship for churches which often live on a shoe-string budget. S. 1244 
will protect against that.
  Protecting churches and charities from baseless bankruptcy lawsuits 
will protect key players in the delivery of services to the poor. What 
do churches do with tithes? What do charities do with contributions?
  They feed the poor with soup kitchens. They collect used clothing and 
help provide shelter for the homeless. And they do it with a minimal 
amount of Government assistance. In this day and age, where Congress is 
seeking to trim the Federal Government to its appropriately limited 
role, we must protect the important work of churches and charities. Mr. 
President, S. 1244 is a giant step in that direction.
  This bill doesn't amend Section 548(A)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. 
This means that any transfer of assets on the eve of bankruptcy which 
is intended to hinder, delay or defraud anyone is still prohibited. 
Only genuine charitable contributions and tithes are protected by S. 
1244. Accordingly, a transfer of assets which looks like a tithe or a 
charitable donation, but which is actually fraud, can still be set 
aside. For example, if someone who is about to declare bankruptcy gives 
away all of his assets in donations of less than 15 percent of his 
income, that would be strong evidence of real fraud and real fraud 
can't be tolerated.
  Mr. President, my legislation also permits debtors in chapter 13 
repayment plans to tithe during the course of their repayment plan. 
Under current law, people who declare bankruptcy under chapter 13 must 
show that they are using all of their disposable income to repay their 
creditors. The term disposable income has been interpreted by the 
courts to allow debtors to have a reasonable entertainment budget 
during their repayment period. But these

[[Page S4770]]

same courts won't let people tithe. So, a debtor could budget money for 
movies or meals at restaurants, but they couldn't use that same money 
to tithe to their church. This is a direct and outrageous assault on 
religious freedom. And I think it's quite clearly contrary to Congress' 
intent in enacting chapter 13. I doubt anyone would have supported the 
idea that debtors could pay money  to a gambling casino for 
entertainment but could not give the same money to a church as a tithe.

  Mr. President, S. 1244 is necessary at this time because the Supreme 
Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as 
unconstitutional last summer. A badly-divided panel of the Eighth 
Circuit Court of Appeals has recently ruled that RFRA protects tithes, 
even after the Supreme Court case. But that decision is being appealed 
to the Supreme Court. No matter what the Court does, we need to pass 
this bill now, and to subject churches to uncertainty and harassment by 
bankruptcy trustees.
  Mr. President, I think it's important to remember that my bill 
protects donations to churches as well as other types of nonprofit 
charities. I did this because many well-respected constitutional 
scholars believe that protecting only religiously-motivated donations 
from the reach of the Bankruptcy Code would violate the establishment 
clause of the first amendment.
  Now a concern was recently raised that S. 1244 doesn't protect 
unincorporated churches. That just isn't so. Professor Douglas Laycock, 
perhaps the leading scholar on religious freedom, has written to me on 
this topic and has concluded that unincorporated churches would in fact 
be protected. I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the 
Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See 
exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to close on this note. When 
I chaired a hearing on tithing and bankruptcy before my subcommittee 
late last year, I heard from the pastor of Crystal Free Evangelical 
Church. This church is the one fighting right now in the Eighth Circuit 
Court of Appeals to keep the bankruptcy court out of its church 
coffers. Pastor Goold testified in a very compelling way about the 
practical difficulties his church has faced because of the Bankruptcy 
Code. As Pastor Goold put it, when there's a conflict between the 
bankruptcy laws and the laws of God, we should change the bankruptcy 
laws because God's laws aren't going to change.
  Whether someone believes in tithing or not, it's clear that many 
Americans feel that tithing is an act of worship, required by divine 
law. It's completely unacceptable to have the bankruptcy code undo an 
act of worship.

                               Exhibit 1

                                    University of Texas at Austin,


                                                School of Law,

                                          Austin, TX, May 6, 1998.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: The question has arisen whether S. 
     1244 and H.R. 2604 would protect unincorporated churches. The 
     answer is yes; unincorporated churches would be protected.
       These bills protect organizations defined in Sec. 170(c)(2) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code, which includes any 
     ``corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or 
     foundation'' organized and operated exclusively for 
     charitable, religious, or other listed purposes. The Internal 
     Revenue Code defines ``corporation'' to include an 
     ``association.'' 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(3). An unincorporated 
     association may also be a ``fund.''
       The language of Sec. 170(c)(2) dates to shortly after World 
     War I. Related sections drafted more recently use the word 
     ``organization,'' which more obviously includes 
     unincorporated associations. See, e.g., Sec. 170b and 
     Sec. Sec. 502-511. The implementing regulations under 
     Sec. 170 and Sec. 501(c)(3) also used the word 
     ``organization.'' 26 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 1.170 and 1.501. 
     ``Organization'' does not appear to be a defined term. But 
     Treasury Regulations define ``articles of organization'' in 
     inclusive terms: ``The term articles of organization or 
     articles includes the trust instrument, the corporate 
     charter, the articles of association, or any other written 
     instrument by which an organization is created.'' 26 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 1.501(c)(3)(b)(2) (emphasis added) ``Articles of 
     association'' clearly seems designed to include 
     unincorporated associations.
       The clearest statement from the Internal Revenue Service 
     appears to be Revenue Procedure 82-2 (attached), which sets 
     out certain rules for different categories of tax exempt 
     organizations. Section 3.04 provides a rule for 
     ``Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations.'' This Procedure 
     treats the question as utterly settled and noncontroversial.
       Tax scholars agree that Sec. 170 includes unincorporated 
     associations. The conclusion appears to be so universally 
     accepted that there has been no litigation and no need to 
     elaborate the explanation. The leading treatise on tax-exempt 
     organizations states: ``An unincorporated association or 
     trust can qualify under this provision, presumably as a fund 
     or foundation or perhaps, as noted, as a corporation.'' Bruce 
     R. Hopkins, The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations Sec. 4.1 at 
     52 (7th ed. 1997).
       Borris Bittker of Yale and Lawrence Lokken of NYU says: 
     ``Since the term corporation includes associations and fund 
     or foundation as used in IRC Sec. 501(c)(3) is construed to 
     include trusts, the technical form in which a charitable 
     organization is clothed rarely results in disqualification.'' 
     Boris I. Bittker & Lawrence Lokken, 4 Federal Taxation of 
     Income, Estates and Gifts para.100.1.2 at 100-6 (2d ed. 
     1989).
       Closely related provisions of the Code expressly cover 
     churches. I.R.C. Sec. 170(b)(1) states special rules for a 
     subset of organizations defined in Sec. 170(c), including ``a 
     church, or a convention or association of churches.'' I.R.C. 
     Sec. 508(c)(1) provides that ``churches, their integrated 
     auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches'' do 
     not have to apply for tax exemption. These provisions plainly 
     contemplate that churches are covered; they also prevent the 
     accumulation of IRS decisions granting tax exempt status to 
     unincorporated churches. These churches are simply presumed 
     to be exempt.
       There are tens of thousands of unincorporated churches in 
     America. I am not aware that any of these churches has ever 
     had difficulty with tax exemption or tax deductibility of 
     contributions because of their unincorporated status. I work 
     with many church lawyers and religious leaders, and none of 
     them has ever mentioned such a problem. There are no reported 
     cases indicating litigation over such a problem. If 
     unincorporated churches were having this problem, Congress 
     would have heard demands for constituent help or corrective 
     legislation.
       The fact is that legitimate unincorporated churches that 
     otherwise qualify for tax deductibility under Sec. 170 and 
     for tax exemption under Sec. 501(c)(3) are not rendered 
     ineligible by their failure to incorporate. There is so 
     little doubt about that that neither Congress, the IRS, nor 
     the courts has ever had to expressly elaborate on the rule 
     that everyone knows. This is a question that can be safely 
     dealt with in legislative history affirming Congress's 
     understanding that unincorporated associations are included 
     in Sec. 170(c)(2) and Congress's intention that they be 
     protected by these bills.
       I consulted informally with Deirdre Halloran, the expert on 
     tax exempt organizations at the United States Catholic 
     Conference, and with tax professors here and elsewhere, who 
     confirmed these conclusions. Ms. Halloran would be happy to 
     respond to inquiries from your office if you need a second 
     opinion.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Douglas Laycock.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa and the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois for their work on this bill.
  This is called the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donations Act of 
1998, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for its passage.
  S. 1244 will help spell out the safe harbors for tithe-payers or 
others who contribute to charitable organizations and then find 
themselves in bankruptcy. It will work, together with the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act in this area, to relieve burdens on often 
strained organizations that provide important services to our society. 
It will relieve an untenable burden on the religious rights of tithe-
payers throughout America.
  Mr. President, the issue of the status of tithes paid to churches by 
religiously motivated Americans who find themselves in bankruptcy 
proceedings has vexed tithe-payers and our courts for a number of years 
now. Vigilant, and some might say over-zealous, bankruptcy trustees 
have tried to recover tithes paid to churches as fraudulent conveyances 
under the bankruptcy code. Hundreds, if not thousands, of such claims 
for recovery against churches have been filed over the last few years. 
This has imperiled many churches, which operate on the offerings they 
receive as they come in. By the time a bankruptcy claim is filed, the 
money has been spent feeding the poor or otherwise serving the needs of 
the congregation. Many churches find it very difficult to make up money 
that has already been spent, and when they can, it weakens their 
ability to do the charitable and spiritual work that is part of the 
grand tradition of religious charity in America.

[[Page S4771]]

  Not only are the churches themselves imperiled, but many believers 
are told by the government that they can no longer pay tithes once they 
have been in bankruptcy, even if a believing debtor wishes to forgo 
allowable entertainment expenses to pay the tithing they believe God 
requires of them. This is an unsupportable interposition of Uncle Sam 
and the bankruptcy system between believing Americans and God.
  I believe we fixed the problem in 1993, when we passed the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act (``RFRA''), which gave greater protections to 
religious activities across the board than the courts were affording at 
that time. An early bankruptcy case under that law, however, and the 
position the Clinton Justice Department took in that case, risked 
undermining those protections. Under pressure from me and others in 
Congress, the Justice Department reversed itself on direct orders from 
the President. And, luckily, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals applied 
RFRA`s stronger protections to the case. When that decision was 
appealed to the Supreme Court, however, it was vacated and remanded by 
the Supreme Court for further proceedings in light of the Court's 
decision in City of Boerne v. Flores,--U.S.--,117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997), 
in which it held that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the 
states. Upon the review of the Young case, I filed an amicus brief in 
the 8th Circuit, arguing with others that Boerne had no effect on 
questions of federal law such as bankruptcy, and so RFRA was 
constitutional and should apply in the bankruptcy context. I am pleased 
to report that the case of Christians v. Crystal Evangelical Free 
Church, 1998 WL 166642 (8th Cir. (Minn.)), decided last month, held 
RFRA to be constitutional for federal law purposes and protective of 
tithes in bankruptcy proceedings.
   The uncertainty caused by Boerne accelerated the challenging of 
tithes as fraudulent conveyances, and in turn spurred our efforts to 
clarify the law. I am glad that RFRA will continue to be of service in 
this area, but I am also pleased that we will have targeted legislation 
to clear up any remaining confusion without undue confusion during 
further litigation. S. 1244 will help spell out the safe harbors or 
tithe payers or others who contribute to charitable organizations and 
then find themselves in bankruptcy. It will relieve burdens on often-
strained organizations that provide important services in our society, 
and relieve an untenable burden on the religious rights of tithe payers 
across America.
  Let me thank all of those who worked on this legislation, especially 
Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin, who are leaders on bankruptcy 
issues on the Judiciary Committee, and, in the case of at least Senator 
Grassley and I believe Senator Durbin, are strong supporters of the 
religious rights of our people. I thank both of them for the work in 
this area. We have worked to make this legislation useful and 
efficacious. So I urge all of our colleagues to vote for its passage.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the 
Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1998. It is 
an honor to work with my good friend from Iowa on this important piece 
of legislation, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

  In an important 1970 Supreme Court case upholding tax exemptions for 
churches, Chief Justice Burger spoke of the Government's relationship 
with religion as being a relationship of ``benevolent neutrality''. It 
seems more and more that the Government's ``benevolent neutrality'' is 
becoming harder to discern, often being replaced with what appears to 
be ``outright hostility''.
  A good example of this is found in Federal bankruptcy law. In the 
1995 case of ``In re Tessier,'' a couple filed for bankruptcy under 
Chapter 13. Out of their net monthly income of $1,610, they proposed to 
continue making contributions to their church in the amount of $100 per 
month. This couple had deeply-held religious convictions about donating 
to the church as part of the exercise of their religious faith. They 
proposed spending only $200 per month on food, and nothing on 
entertainment, recreation, health insurance, life insurance, cable 
television, telephone, or even electrical utility service. 
Nevertheless, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that during the 5 year 
duration of their Chapter 13 plan, this couple could not make the 
proposed contributions to their church. This was in spite of the fact 
that the Court would probably have allowed them to spend that sum of 
money on entertainment or recreational expenses.
  The matter of pre-bankruptcy contributions to a church or charity is 
also a matter of much concern. Several courts have actually interpreted 
the bankruptcy law to require churches to refund donations made to them 
in the year prior to a debtor filing bankruptcy. In making such 
rulings, the courts hold that donations to the church are ``fraudulent 
conveyances''--that is, by giving the money to the church without 
(according to the courts) receiving something economically valuable in 
return, they are defrauding their creditors. In reality, there is no 
fraud involved. And of course you can imagine the potential burden on 
small churches that may be just getting by financially--churches that 
have done nothing wrong--to find that they are required to repay a 
year's worth of contributions received from a faithful contributor.
  The Grassley-Sessions bill is a commonsense bill that would clarify 
the Bankruptcy law to ensure that our courts will no longer make the 
sort of rulings that I have described.
  Under our bill, contributions of up to 15% of a person's income, or a 
higher amount that is consistent with an individual's past practice of 
giving, will not be considered fraudulent when made during the year 
prior to filing bankruptcy. Consequently, innocent churches and 
charities would not have to repay such contributions.
  Secondly, our bill will allow debtors under Chapter 13 repayment 
plans to make charitable contributions of up to 15% of their income. If 
bankruptcy law allows for spending on recreational expenses while under 
a Chapter 13 repayment plan, it should also allow an individual to 
tithe to their church or make reasonable charitable contributions.
  Mr. President, this is an important bill which will help to restore 
the Government to its rightful position of benevolent neutrality toward 
religion. It will provide necessary legislative guidance in an area of 
bankruptcy law that has gotten off track. I urge my colleagues to join 
with me in support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I am honored to support this legislation. Senator 
Grassley has done an excellent job in identifying an unfair component 
of the Bankruptcy Act. If an individual pays money to a nightclub, a 
casino, or to any other recreational activity whatsoever, that person 
who received the money does not have to give it back to the bankruptcy 
court. If they had given money to a charitable enterprise or a church, 
they could be required to give it back. And in chapter 13 where an 
individual pays out their debts on a regular basis, the courts have 
denied them the right to give money to charitable institutions as part 
of their regular payments while at the same time allowing them 
substantial amounts of money for recreational expenditures. We think 
that is unfair. We think this bill is a sound way to correct that 
problem.
  I am honored to work with Senator Grassley and support him in this 
effort.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to stand in support of 
this legislation. Senator Grassley and I have worked on it, but I want 
to give him the lion's share of the credit because this was his notion, 
his concept, and he has developed it into a very good piece of 
legislation.
  We work closely together on these bankruptcy issues, and for those 
who are interested in bankruptcy stay tuned; there is more to follow. 
But I think you will find this bill noncontroversial and certainly one 
everyone should be able to support.
  The bottom line here is whether or not you are dealing with a 
fraudulent conveyance. Someone in anticipation of bankruptcy may give 
away money and it is said by the court that you cannot do that; if you 
are going to give money away for nothing, then we are

[[Page S4772]]

going to come back later on in the bankruptcy court and recover it. But 
Senator Grassley has pointed out, I think appropriately, the situation 
where people give money to a charity or a church, and he says that 
should be considered in a different category. And I agree. As he has 
mentioned in the opening statement, there is a limitation in the law of 
15 percent of your annual income that can be given in this fashion. So 
we don't anticipate any type of abuse in this area.
  I thank Senator Grassley. It is a pleasure to serve with him and work 
with him. We have more to follow on the bankruptcy issue, but I am 
anxious to encourage my Democratic colleagues today to join with us in 
voting for this legislation.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I am prompted by something the ranking member of the 
subcommittee said which leads me to put an inquiry to him and to 
Senator Grassley.
  There are a number of bankruptcy districts in the country that are 
facing very serious problems in handling their caseload. I have been in 
frequent communication with the subcommittee about this, and obviously 
my district is one of them. It has consistently now, for 4 or 5 years, 
ranked at the very top of case overload of all bankruptcy districts in 
the United States. Every study that has been made has recommended 
additional bankruptcy judges, and I note for a fact that the existing 
bankruptcy judges in my district are severely overworked. This is 
denying economic justice to both creditors and debtors. It is a matter 
which needs to be addressed. It is a pressing crisis.
  Now, the House sent over to us some time ago legislation providing 
for some additional judges based on comprehensive studies undertaken by 
the Administrative Office of the Courts and by others. This session is 
moving along. If we don't get some relief, we are going to continue to 
have this extraordinary situation which exists in quite a number of 
districts across the country in terms of reducing their backlog. It is 
a very severe problem in a number of districts.
  I am prompted by Senator Durbin's reference, and Senator Grassley's 
assent to it, as I understood it, there is more to follow. So I just 
put the inquiry whether this is one of the matters to follow. I would 
certainly hope so.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might say in response to my friend, 
the Senator from Maryland, I agree with him completely. We now know 
that the caseload in bankruptcy courts has been growing every single 
year. It really taxes the system, and if not in this legislation, in 
the following bill I hope we will provide the resources to make sure 
the bankruptcy courts can respond.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator 
Grassley's bill, S. 1244, which exempts individual tithes to churches 
from bankruptcy proceedings. The exemption is up to 15 percent of 
income to prevent abuse.
  This problem was brought to my attention by the Crystal Evangelical 
Free Church in Minnesota, which prompted my cosponsor of this important 
legislation. The Church was sued and required to repay tithes given to 
it by individuals who had declared bankruptcy. Churches depend on 
tithes for their income to operate effectively. They should not be 
liable for debt repayment of their parishioners.
  This legislation is needed to protect churches from this kind of 
abuse. It is the right thing to do. I commend the Senator from Iowa for 
his effective leadership on this issue.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second? There seems to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the committee 
amendment is agreed to and the bill is read the third time. The 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
       Kohl
       
  The bill (S. 1244), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill passed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

                          ____________________