[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.
____________________