[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 157 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14383-S14395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1999--Continued

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we can proceed, then, to our adoption of 
some amendments on which we have agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


Amendments Nos. 1722, as modified; 2530, as modified; 2546; 2749; 2750; 
 2758, as modified; 2768; 2772, as modified; 2528; 2664; and 2665, En 
                                  Bloc

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be considered en bloc, and modifications be 
considered agreed to, where noted, that the amendments be agreed to, en 
bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without 
intervening action or debate.
  I will give you the amendment Nos.: Amendment No. 1722 by Mr. Robb, 
as modified; amendment No. 2530 by Mr. Byrd, as modified; amendment No. 
2546 by Mr. Bennett; amendment No. 2749 by Mr. Feingold dealing with 
PACs; amendment No. 2750 by Mr. Feingold dealing with FEC fine; 
amendment No. 2758 by Mr, Roth and Mr. Moynihan, as modified--I will 
send that modification to the desk--amendment No. 2768 by Mr. Levin; 
amendment No. 2772 by Mr. Levin, as modified--that modification will be 
sent to the desk--amendment No. 2528 by Mr. Leahy; amendment No. 2664 
by Mr. Kohl; and amendment No. 2665 by Mr. Kohl. I send the 
modifications to the desk.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the last two are 
by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl; is that right?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1722, as modified; 2530, as modified; 2546; 
2749; 2750; 2758, as modified; 2768; 2772, as modified; 2528; 2664; and 
2665) were agreed to as follows:


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1722, AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To provide that duties of a trustee shall include providing 
  certain information relating to case administration, and for other 
                               purposes)

       On page 51, strike line 24 and insert the following:
     section (d); and
       ``(7) provide information relating to the administration of 
     cases that is practical to any not-for-profit entity which 
     shall provide information to parties in interest in a timely 
     and convenient manner, including telephonic and Internet 
     access, at no cost or a nominal cost.
     An entity described in paragraph (7) shall provide parties in 
     interest with reasonable information about each case on 
     behalf of the trustee of that case, including the status of 
     the debtor's payments to the plan, the unpaid balance payable 
     to each creditor treated by the plan, and the amount and date 
     of payments made under the plan. The trustee shall have no 
     duty to provide information under paragraph (7) if no such 
     entity has been established.''; and
                                  ____



                      AMENDMENT 2530, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To make an amendment with respect to credit card applications 
    and solicitations that are electronically provided to consumers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. PROVISION OF ELECTRONIC FTC PAMPHLET WITH 
                   ELECTRONIC CREDIT CARD APPLICATIONS AND 
                   SOLICITATIONS.

       Section 127(c) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1637(c)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Inclusion of federal trade commission pamphlet.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any application to open a credit card 
     account for any person under an open end consumer credit 
     plan, or a solicitation or an advertisement to open such an 
     account without requiring an application, that is 
     electronically transmitted to or accessed by a consumer shall 
     be accompanied by an electronic version (or an electronic 
     link thereto) of the pamphlet published by the Federal Trade 
     Commission relating to choosing and using credit cards.
       ``(B) Costs.--The card issuer with respect to an account 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be responsible for all 
     costs associated with compliance with that subparagraph.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2546

(Purpose: To amend certain banking and securities laws with respect to 
                          financial contracts)

       (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record 
     under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2749

    (Purpose: To clarify the bankruptcy jurisdiction over insolvent 
                         political committees)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. NO BANKRUPTCY FOR INSOLVENT POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

       Section 105 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following:
       ``(e) A political committee subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the Federal Election Commission under Federal election laws 
     may not file for bankruptcy under this title.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2750

 (Purpose: To make fines and penalties imposed under Federal election 
                         law nondischargeable)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. FEDERAL ELECTION LAW FINES AND PENALTIES AS 
                   NONDISCHARGEABLE DEBT.

       Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after paragraph (14A) the following:
       ``(14B) fines or penalties imposed under Federal election 
     law;''.
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 2758, AS MODIFIED

      (Purpose: To provide for tax-related bankruptcy provisions)

       Beginning on page 181, strike line 20 and all that follows 
     through page 203, line 17, and insert the following:

                  TITLE VII--BANKRUPTCY TAX PROVISIONS

     SEC. 701. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN LIENS.

       (a) Treatment of Certain Liens.--Section 724 of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``(other than to the extent that there is a 
     properly perfected unavoidable tax lien arising in connection 
     with an ad valorem tax on real or personal property of the 
     estate)'' after ``under this title'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``(except that such 
     expenses, other than claims for wages, salaries, or 
     commissions which arise after the filing of a petition, shall 
     be limited to expenses incurred under chapter 7 of this title 
     and shall not include expenses incurred under chapter 11 of 
     this title)'' after ``507(a)(1)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Before subordinating a tax lien on real or personal 
     property of the estate, the trustee shall--
       ``(1) exhaust the unencumbered assets of the estate; and
       ``(2) in a manner consistent with section 506(c), recover 
     from property securing an allowed secured claim the 
     reasonable, necessary costs and expenses of preserving or 
     disposing of that property.
       ``(f) Notwithstanding the exclusion of ad valorem tax liens 
     under this section and subject to the requirements of 
     subsection (e), the following may be paid from property of 
     the estate which secures a tax lien, or the proceeds of such 
     property:
       ``(1) Claims for wages, salaries, and commissions that are 
     entitled to priority under section 507(a)(4).
       ``(2) Claims for contributions to an employee benefit plan 
     entitled to priority under section 507(a)(5).''.
       (b) Determination of Tax Liability.--Section 505(a)(2) of 
     title 11, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) the amount or legality of any amount arising in 
     connection with an ad valorem tax on real or personal 
     property of the estate, if the applicable period for 
     contesting or redetermining that amount under any law (other 
     than a bankruptcy law) has expired.''.

     SEC. 702. TREATMENT OF FUEL TAX CLAIMS.

       Section 501 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) A claim arising from the liability of a debtor for 
     fuel use tax assessed consistent with the requirements of 
     section 31705 of title 49 may be filed by the base 
     jurisdiction designated pursuant to the International Fuel 
     Tax Agreement and, if so filed, shall be allowed as a single 
     claim.''.

     SEC. 703. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION OF TAXES.

       Section 505(b) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``at the address 
     and in the manner designated in paragraph (1)'' after 
     ``determination of such tax'';

[[Page S14384]]

       (2) by striking ``(1) upon payment'' and inserting ``(2)(A) 
     upon payment'';
       (3) by striking ``(A) such governmental unit'' and 
     inserting ``(i) such governmental unit'';
       (4) by striking ``(B) such governmental unit'' and 
     inserting ``(ii) such governmental unit'';
       (5) by striking ``(2) upon payment'' and inserting ``(B) 
     upon payment'';
       (6) by striking ``(3) upon payment'' and inserting ``(C) 
     upon payment'';
       (7) by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(2)''; and
       (8) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so designated, 
     the following:
       ``(b)(1)(A) The clerk of each district shall maintain a 
     listing under which a Federal, State, or local governmental 
     unit responsible for the collection of taxes within the 
     district may--
       ``(i) designate an address for service of requests under 
     this subsection; and
       ``(ii) describe where further information concerning 
     additional requirements for filing such requests may be 
     found.
       ``(B) If a governmental unit referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) does not designate an address and provide that address to 
     the clerk under that subparagraph, any request made under 
     this subsection may be served at the address for the filing 
     of a tax return or protest with the appropriate taxing 
     authority of that governmental unit.''.

     SEC. 704. RATE OF INTEREST ON TAX CLAIMS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 5 of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 511. Rate of interest on tax claims

       ``(a) If any provision of this title requires the payment 
     of interest on a tax claim or the payment of interest to 
     enable a creditor to receive the present value of the allowed 
     amount of a tax claim, the rate of interest shall be the rate 
     shall be determined under applicable nonbankruptcy law.
       ``(b) In the case of taxes paid under a confirmed plan 
     under this title, the rate of interest shall be determined as 
     of the calendar month in which the plan is confirmed.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     5 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 510 the following:

``511. Rate of interest on tax claims.''.

     SEC. 705. PRIORITY OF TAX CLAIMS.

       Section 507(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``for 
     a taxable year ending on or before the date of filing of the 
     petition'' after ``gross receipts'';
       (B) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``for a taxable year ending on or before 
     the date of filing of the petition''; and
       (ii) by inserting before the semicolon at the end, the 
     following: ``, plus any time during which the stay of 
     proceedings was in effect in a prior case under this title or 
     during which collection was precluded by the existence of 1 
     or more confirmed plans under this title, plus 90 days''; and
       (C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) assessed within 240 days before the date of the 
     filing of the petition, exclusive of--

       ``(I) any time during which an offer in compromise with 
     respect to that tax was pending or in effect during that 240-
     day period, plus 30 days; and
       ``(II) any time during which a stay of proceedings against 
     collections was in effect in a prior case under this title 
     during that 240-day period; plus 90 days.''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) An otherwise applicable time period specified in this 
     paragraph shall be suspended for--
       ``(i) any period during which a governmental unit is 
     prohibited under applicable nonbankruptcy law from collecting 
     a tax as a result of a request by the debtor for a hearing 
     and an appeal of any collection action taken or proposed 
     against the debtor; plus
       ``(ii) 90 days.''.

     SEC. 706. PRIORITY PROPERTY TAXES INCURRED.

       Section 507(a)(9)(B) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``assessed'' and inserting ``incurred''.

     SEC. 707. NO DISCHARGE OF FRAUDULENT TAXES IN CHAPTER 13.

       Section 1328(a)(2) of title 11, United States Code, as 
     amended by sections 105, 213, and 314 of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)(B), (1)(C),'' after ``paragraph''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``and in section 507(a)(8)(C)'' after 
     ``section 523(a)''.

     SEC. 708. NO DISCHARGE OF FRAUDULENT TAXES IN CHAPTER 11.

       Section 1141(d) of title 11, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the confirmation of a 
     plan does not discharge a debtor that is a corporation from 
     any debt for a tax or customs duty with respect to which the 
     debtor--
       ``(A) made a fraudulent return; or
       ``(B) willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat 
     that tax or duty.''.

     SEC. 709. STAY OF TAX PROCEEDINGS LIMITED TO PREPETITION 
                   TAXES.

       Section 362(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``, with respect to a tax liability for 
     a taxable period ending before the order for relief under 
     this title'' before the semicolon at the end.

     SEC. 710. PERIODIC PAYMENT OF TAXES IN CHAPTER 11 CASES.

       Section 1129(a)(9) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``deferred cash 
     payments, over a period not exceeding six years after the 
     date of assessment of such claim,'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subparagraph, and inserting ``regular 
     installment payments in cash--
       ``(i) of a total value, as of the effective date of the 
     plan, equal to the allowed amount of such claim;
       ``(ii) with interest thereon calculated at the rate 
     provided in section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986;
       ``(iii) over a period ending not later than 5 years after 
     the date of the entry of the order for relief under section 
     301, 302, or 303; and
       ``(iv) in a manner not less favorable than the most favored 
     nonpriority unsecured claim provided for in the plan (other 
     than cash payments made to a class of creditors under section 
     1122(b)); and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) with respect to a secured claim which would otherwise 
     meet the description of an unsecured claim of a governmental 
     unit under section 507(a)(8), but for the secured status of 
     that claim, the holder of that claim will receive on account 
     of that claim, cash payments, in the same manner and over the 
     same period, as prescribed in subparagraph (C).''.

     SEC. 711. AVOIDANCE OF STATUTORY TAX LIENS PROHIBITED.

       Section 545(2) of title 11, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``, except 
     in any case in which a purchaser is a purchaser described in 
     section 6323 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or in any 
     other similar provision of State or local law;''.

     SEC. 712. PAYMENT OF TAXES IN THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS.

       (a) Payment of Taxes Required.--Section 960 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Any''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) A tax under subsection (a) shall be paid on or before 
     the due date of the tax under applicable nonbankruptcy law, 
     unless--
       ``(1) the tax is a property tax secured by a lien against 
     property that is abandoned within a reasonable period of time 
     after the lien attaches by the trustee of a bankruptcy estate 
     under section 554 of title 11; or
       ``(2) payment of the tax is excused under a specific 
     provision of title 11.
       ``(c) In a case pending under chapter 7 of title 11, 
     payment of a tax may be deferred until final distribution is 
     made under section 726 of title 11, if--
       ``(1) the tax was not incurred by a trustee duly appointed 
     under chapter 7 of title 11; or
       ``(2) before the due date of the tax, an order of the court 
     makes a finding of probable insufficiency of funds of the 
     estate to pay in full the administrative expenses allowed 
     under section 503(b) of title 11 that have the same priority 
     in distribution under section 726(b) of title 11 as the 
     priority of that tax.''.
       (b) Payment of Ad Valorem Taxes Required.--Section 
     503(b)(1)(B)(i) of title 11, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``whether secured or unsecured, including 
     property taxes for which liability is in rem, in personam, or 
     both,'' before ``except''.
       (c) Request for Payment of Administrative Expense Taxes 
     Eliminated.--Section 503(b)(1) of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (a), a 
     governmental unit shall not be required to file a request for 
     the payment of an expense described in subparagraph (B) or 
     (C), as a condition of its being an allowed administrative 
     expense;''.
       (d) Payment of Taxes and Fees as Secured Claims.--Section 
     506 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or State statute'' 
     after ``agreement''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, including the 
     payment of all ad valorem property taxes with respect to the 
     property'' before the period at the end.

     SEC. 713. TARDILY FILED PRIORITY TAX CLAIMS.

       Section 726(a)(1) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``before the date on which the trustee 
     commences distribution under this section;'' and inserting 
     the following: ``on or before the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date that is 10 days after the mailing to 
     creditors of the summary of the trustee's final report; or
       ``(B) the date on which the trustee commences final 
     distribution under this section;''.

     SEC. 714. INCOME TAX RETURNS PREPARED BY TAX AUTHORITIES.

       Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``or 
     equivalent report or notice,'' after ``a return,'';
       (B) in clause (i)--

[[Page S14385]]

       (i) by inserting ``or given'' after ``filed''; and
       (ii) by striking ``or'' at the end; and
       (C) in clause (ii)--
       (i) by inserting ``or given'' after ``filed''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``, report, or notice'' after ``return''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following flush sentences:

     ``For purposes of this subsection, the term `return' means a 
     return that satisfies the requirements of applicable 
     nonbankruptcy law (including applicable filing requirements). 
     Such term includes a return prepared pursuant to section 
     6020(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or similar 
     State or local law, or a written stipulation to a judgment or 
     a final order entered by a nonbankruptcy tribunal, but does 
     not include a return made pursuant to section 6020(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a similar State or local 
     law.''.

     SEC. 715. DISCHARGE OF THE ESTATE'S LIABILITY FOR UNPAID 
                   TAXES.

       The second sentence of section 505(b) of title 11, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 703 of this Act, is 
     amended by inserting ``the estate,'' after 
     ``misrepresentation,''.

     SEC. 716. REQUIREMENT TO FILE TAX RETURNS TO CONFIRM CHAPTER 
                   13 PLANS.

       (a) Filing of Prepetition Tax Returns Required for Plan 
     Confirmation.--Section 1325(a) of title 11, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 213 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) if the debtor has filed all applicable Federal, 
     State, and local tax returns as required by section 1308.''.
       (b) Additional Time Permitted for Filing Tax Returns.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 13 of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1308. Filing of prepetition tax returns

       ``(a) Not later than the day before the date on which the 
     meeting of the creditors is first scheduled to be held under 
     section 341(a), the debtor shall file with appropriate tax 
     authorities all tax returns for all taxable periods ending 
     during the 4-year period ending on the date of the filing of 
     the petition.
       ``(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), if the tax returns 
     required by subsection (a) have not been filed by the date on 
     which the meeting of creditors is first scheduled to be held 
     under section 341(a), the trustee may hold open that meeting 
     for a reasonable period of time to allow the debtor an 
     additional period of time to file any unfiled returns, but 
     such additional period of time shall not extend beyond--
       ``(A) for any return that is past due as of the date of the 
     filing of the petition, the date that is 120 days after the 
     date of that meeting; or
       ``(B) for any return that is not past due as of the date of 
     the filing of the petition, the later of--
       ``(i) the date that is 120 days after the date of that 
     meeting; or
       ``(ii) the date on which the return is due under the last 
     automatic extension of time for filing that return to which 
     the debtor is entitled, and for which request is timely made, 
     in accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.
       ``(2) Upon notice and hearing, and order entered before the 
     tolling of any applicable filing period determined under this 
     subsection, if the debtor demonstrates by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the failure to file a return as 
     required under this subsection is attributable to 
     circumstances beyond the control of the debtor, the court may 
     extend the filing period established by the trustee under 
     this subsection for--
       ``(A) a period of not more than 30 days for returns 
     described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) a period not to extend after the applicable extended 
     due date for a return described in paragraph (2).
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `return' 
     includes a return prepared pursuant to section 6020 (a) or 
     (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a similar State 
     or local law, or a written stipulation to a judgment or a 
     final order entered by a nonbankruptcy tribunal.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 13 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1307 the 
     following:

``1308. Filing of prepetition tax returns.''.

       (c) Dismissal or Conversion on Failure To Comply.--Section 
     1307 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (f) and (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d), the following:
       ``(e) Upon the failure of the debtor to file a tax return 
     under section 1308, on request of a party in interest or the 
     United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the 
     court shall dismiss a case or convert a case under this 
     chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, whichever is 
     in the best interest of the creditors and the estate.''.
       (d) Timely Filed Claims.--Section 502(b)(9) of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period 
     at the end the following ``, and except that in a case under 
     chapter 13, a claim of a governmental unit for a tax with 
     respect to a return filed under section 1308 shall be timely 
     if the claim is filed on or before the date that is 60 days 
     after the date on which such return was filed as required''.
       (e) Rules for Objections to Claims and to Confirmation.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that the Advisory Committee on 
     Bankruptcy Rules of the Judicial Conference should, as soon 
     as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     propose for adoption amended Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 
     Procedure which provide that--
       (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 3015(f), in 
     cases under chapter 13 of title 11, United States Code, an 
     objection to the confirmation of a plan filed by a 
     governmental unit on or before the date that is 60 days after 
     the date on which the debtor files all tax returns required 
     under sections 1308 and 1325(a)(7) of title 11, United States 
     Code, shall be treated for all purposes as if such objection 
     had been timely filed before such confirmation; and
       (2) in addition to the provisions of Rule 3007, in a case 
     under chapter 13 of title 11, United States Code, no 
     objection to a tax with respect to which a return is required 
     to be filed under section 1308 of title 11, United States 
     Code, shall be filed until such return has been filed as 
     required.

     SEC. 717. STANDARDS FOR TAX DISCLOSURE.

       Section 1125(a)(1) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``including a discussion of the potential 
     material Federal tax consequences of the plan to the debtor, 
     any successor to the debtor, and a hypothetical investor 
     typical of the holders of claims or interests in the case,'' 
     after ``records''; and
       (2) by striking ``a hypothetical reasonable investor 
     typical of holders of claims or interests'' and inserting 
     ``such a hypothetical investor''.

     SEC. 718. SETOFF OF TAX REFUNDS.

       Section 362(b) of title 11, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 402 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (25), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (26), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (26) the following:
       ``(27) under subsection (a), of the setoff under applicable 
     nonbankruptcy law of an income tax refund, by a governmental 
     unit, with respect to a taxable period that ended before the 
     order for relief against an income tax liability for a 
     taxable period that also ended before the order for relief, 
     except that in any case in which the setoff of an income tax 
     refund is not permitted under applicable nonbankruptcy law 
     because of a pending action to determine the amount or 
     legality of a tax liability, the governmental unit may hold 
     the refund pending the resolution of the action, unless the 
     court, upon motion of the trustee and after notice and 
     hearing, grants the taxing authority adequate protection 
     (within the meaning of section 361) for the secured claim of 
     that authority in the setoff under section 506(a).''.

     SEC. 719. SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE TREATMENT OF 
                   STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Section 346 of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 346. SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE TREATMENT OF 
                   STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.

       ``(a) Whenever the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 provides 
     that a separate taxable estate or entity is created in a case 
     concerning a debtor under this title, and the income, gain, 
     loss, deductions, and credits of such estate shall be taxed 
     to or claimed by the estate, a separate taxable estate is 
     also created for purposes of any State and local law imposing 
     a tax on or measured by income and such income, gain, loss, 
     deductions, and credits shall be taxed to or claimed by the 
     estate and may not be taxed to or claimed by the debtor. The 
     preceding sentence shall not apply if the case is dismissed. 
     The trustee shall make tax returns of income required under 
     any such State or local law.
       ``(b) Whenever the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 provides 
     that no separate taxable estate shall be created in a case 
     concerning a debtor under this title, and the income, gain, 
     loss, deductions, and credits of an estate shall be taxed to 
     or claimed by the debtor, such income, gain, loss, 
     deductions, and credits shall be taxed to or claimed by the 
     debtor under a State or local law imposing a tax on or 
     measured by income and may not be taxed to or claimed by the 
     estate. The trustee shall make such tax returns of income of 
     corporations and of partnerships as are required under any 
     State or local law, but with respect to partnerships, shall 
     make said returns only to the extent such returns are also 
     required to be made under such Code. The estate shall be 
     liable for any tax imposed on such corporation or 
     partnership, but not for any tax imposed on partners or 
     members.
       ``(c) With respect to a partnership or any entity treated 
     as a partnership under a State or local law imposing a tax on 
     or measured by income that is a debtor in a case under this 
     title, any gain or loss resulting from a distribution of 
     property from such partnership, or any distributive share of 
     any income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partner or 
     member that is distributed, or considered distributed, from 
     such partnership, after the commencement of the case, is 
     gain, loss, income, deduction, or credit, as the case may be, 
     of the partner or member,

[[Page S14386]]

     and if such partner or member is a debtor in a case under 
     this title, shall be subject to tax in accordance with 
     subsection (a) or (b).
       ``(d) For purposes of any State or local law imposing a tax 
     on or measured by income, the taxable period of a debtor in a 
     case under this title shall terminate only if and to the 
     extent that the taxable period of such debtor terminates 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(e) The estate in any case described in subsection (a) 
     shall use the same accounting method as the debtor used 
     immediately before the commencement of the case, if such 
     method of accounting complies with applicable nonbankruptcy 
     tax law.
       ``(f) For purposes of any State or local law imposing a tax 
     on or measured by income, a transfer of property from the 
     debtor to the estate or from the estate to the debtor shall 
     not be treated as a disposition for purposes of any provision 
     assigning tax consequences to a disposition, except to the 
     extent that such transfer is treated as a disposition under 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(g) Whenever a tax is imposed pursuant to a State or 
     local law imposing a tax on or measured by income pursuant to 
     subsection (a) or (b), such tax shall be imposed at rates 
     generally applicable to the same types of entities under such 
     State or local law.
       ``(h) The trustee shall withhold from any payment of claims 
     for wages, salaries, commissions, dividends, interest, or 
     other payments, or collect, any amount required to be 
     withheld or collected under applicable State or local tax 
     law, and shall pay such withheld or collected amount to the 
     appropriate governmental unit at the time and in the manner 
     required by such tax law, and with the same priority as the 
     claim from which such amount was withheld or collected was 
     paid.
       ``(i)(1) To the extent that any State or local law imposing 
     a tax on or measured by income provides for the carryover of 
     any tax attribute from one taxable period to a subsequent 
     taxable period, the estate shall succeed to such tax 
     attribute in any case in which such estate is subject to tax 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(2) After such a case is closed or dismissed, the debtor 
     shall succeed to any tax attribute to which the estate 
     succeeded under paragraph (1) to the extent consistent with 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(3) The estate may carry back any loss or tax attribute 
     to a taxable period of the debtor that ended before the order 
     for relief under this title to the extent that--
       ``(A) applicable State or local tax law provides for a 
     carryback in the case of the debtor; and
       ``(B) the same or a similar tax attribute may be carried 
     back by the estate to such a taxable period of the debtor 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(j)(1) For purposes of any State or local law imposing a 
     tax on or measured by income, income is not realized by the 
     estate, the debtor, or a successor to the debtor by reason of 
     discharge of indebtedness in a case under this title, except 
     to the extent, if any, that such income is subject to tax 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Whenever the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 provides 
     that the amount excluded from gross income in respect of the 
     discharge of indebtedness in a case under this title shall be 
     applied to reduce the tax attributes of the debtor or the 
     estate, a similar reduction shall be made under any State or 
     local law imposing a tax on or measured by income to the 
     extent such State or local law recognizes such attributes. 
     Such State or local law may also provide for the reduction of 
     other attributes to the extent that the full amount of income 
     from the discharge of indebtedness has not been applied.
       ``(k)(1) Except as provided in this section and section 
     505, the time and manner of filing tax returns and the items 
     of income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit of any taxpayer 
     shall be determined under applicable nonbankruptcy law.
       ``(2) For Federal tax purposes, the provisions of this 
     section are subject to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     other applicable Federal nonbankruptcy law.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 728 of title 11, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (2) Section 1146 of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and by 
     redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (a) and 
     (b), respectively.
       (3) Section 1231 of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and by 
     redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (a) and 
     (b), respectively.

     SEC. 720. DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE TAX RETURNS.

       Section 521 of title 11, United States Code, as amended by 
     this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 
     if the debtor fails to file a tax return that becomes due 
     after the commencement of the case or to properly obtain an 
     extension of the due date for filing such return, the taxing 
     authority may request that the court enter an order 
     converting or dismissing the case.
       ``(2) If the debtor does not file the required return or 
     obtain the extension referred to in paragraph (1) within 90 
     days after a request is filed by the taxing authority under 
     that paragraph, the court shall convert or dismiss the case, 
     whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the 
     estate.''.
       On page 268, line 13, strike ``1231(d)'' and insert 
     ``1231(b)''.
       On page 280, strike lines 16 through 19.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2768

       (Purpose: To prohibit certain retroactive finance charges)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN RETROACTIVE FINANCE 
                   CHARGES.

       Section 127 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1637) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Prohibition on Retroactive Finance Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any credit card account 
     under an open end credit plan, if the creditor provides a 
     grace period applicable to any new extension of credit under 
     the account, no finance charge may be imposed subsequent to 
     the grace period with regard to any amount that was paid on 
     or before the end of that grace period.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `grace period' means a period during which the extension 
     of credit may be repaid, in whole or in part, without 
     incurring a finance charge for the extension of credit.''.
                                  ____



                    AMENDMENT NO. 2772, AS MODIFIED

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning credit 
                              worthiness)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve shall report 
     to the Banking Committee of Congress within 6 months of 
     enactment of this act as to whether and how the location of 
     the residence of an applicant for a credit cared is 
     considered by financial institutions in deciding whether an 
     applicant should be granted such credit card.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2528

    (Purpose: To ensure additional expenses and income adjustments 
 associated with protection of the debtor and the debtor's family from 
    domestic violence are included in the debtor's monthly expenses)

       On page 7, line 22, insert after the period the following:
       ``In addition, the debtor's monthly expenses shall include 
     the debtor's reasonably necessary expenses incurred to 
     maintain the safety of the debtor and the family of the 
     debtor from family violence as identified under section 309 
     of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 
     10408), or other applicable Federal law. The expenses 
     included in the debtor's monthly expenses described in the 
     preceding sentence shall be kept confidential by the court.''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2664

 (Purpose: To exclude employee benefit plan participant contributions 
                  and other property from the estate)

       On page 124, insert between lines 14 and 15 the following:

     SEC. 322. EXCLUDING EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN PARTICIPANT 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER PROPERTY FROM THE 
                   ESTATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 541(b) of title 11, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 903 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) any amount--
       ``(A) withheld by an employer from the wages of employees 
     for payment as contributions to--
       ``(i) an employee benefit plan subject to title I of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1001 et seq.); or
       ``(ii) a health insurance plan regulated by State law 
     whether or not subject to such title; or
       ``(B) received by the employer from employees for payment 
     as contributions to--
       ``(i) an employee benefit plan subject to title I of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1001 et seq.); or
       ``(ii) a health insurance plan regulated by State law 
     whether or not subject to such title;''.
       (b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by this 
     section shall not apply to cases commenced under title 11, 
     United States Code, before the expiration of the 180-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 2665

 (Purpose: To clarify the allowance of certain postpetition wages and 
                               benefits)

       On page 124, insert between lines 14 and 15 the following:

     SEC. 322. CLARIFICATION OF POSTPETITION WAGES AND BENEFITS.

       Section 503(b)(1)(A) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of 
     preserving the estate, including wages, salaries, or 
     commissions for services rendered after the commencement of 
     the case, and wages and benefits awarded as back pay 
     attributable to any period of time after commencement of the 
     case as a result of the debtor's violation of Federal or 
     State law, without regard to when the original unlawful act 
     occurred or to whether any services were rendered;''.


[[Page S14387]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa. He and I 
and the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, have been 
working to clear amendments throughout the day.
  Earlier today we cleared--what?--12, I believe, on this. We just 
cleared another large number. I mention this because Senators are 
coming to the floor offering amendments and clearing them. I commend 
those Senators who have been moving forward.
  I also thank the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut who 
has withheld his own debate so we could do this.
  I thank him for that and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                    Amendment No. 2532, As Modified

(Purpose: To provide for greater protection of children, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2532 and ask 
unanimous consent for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk to that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for those who are interested in following 
the amendment process, the modification is purely technical in nature 
to what I earlier offered. So it is just technical corrections.
  Mr. President, I am going to use some charts on this. I call up this 
amendment, as modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Ms. 
     Landrieu, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2532, as modified.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 7, line 15, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(ii)(I)''.
       On page 7, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(II) The expenses referred to in subclause (I) shall 
     include--
       ``(aa) taxes and mandatory withholdings from wages;
       ``(bb) health care;
       ``(cc) alimony, child, and spousal support payments;
       ``(dd) expenses associated with the adoption of a child, 
     including travel expenses, relocation expenses, and medical 
     expenses;
       ``(ee) legal fees necessary for the debtor's case;
       ``(ff) child care and the care of elderly or disabled 
     family members;
       ``(gg) reasonable insurance expenses and pension payments;
       ``(hh) religious and charitable contributions;
       ``(ii) educational expenses not to exceed $10,000 per 
     household;
       ``(jj) union dues;
       ``(kk) other expenses necessary for the operation of a 
     business of the debtor or for the debtor's employment;
       ``(ll) utility expenses and home maintenance expenses for a 
     debtor that owns a home;
       ``(mm) ownership costs for a motor vehicle, determined in 
     accordance with Internal Revenue Service transportation 
     standards, reduced by any payments on debts secured by the 
     motor vehicle or vehicle lease payments made by the debtor;
       ``(nn) expenses for children's toys and recreation for 
     children of the debtor;
       ``(oo) tax credits for earned income determined under 
     section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(pp) miscellaneous and emergency expenses.
       On page 83, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 225. TREATMENT OF TAX REFUNDS AND DOMESTIC SUPPORT 
                   OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) Property of the Estate.--Section 541 of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(5)(B) by inserting ``except as 
     provided under subsection (b)(7),'' before ``as a result''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) any--
       ``(A) refund of tax due to the debtor under subtitle A of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year to the 
     extent that the refund does not exceed the amount of an 
     applicable earned income tax credit allowed under section 32 
     of such Code for such year; and
       ``(B) advance payment of an earned income tax credit under 
     section 3507 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(7) the right of the debtor to receive alimony, support, 
     or separate maintenance for the debtor or dependent of the 
     debtor;
       ``(8) refund of a tax due to the debtor under a State 
     earned income tax credit; or
       ``(9) advance payment of a State earned income tax 
     credit.''.
       (b) Protection of Earned Income Tax Credit and Support 
     Payments Under Bankruptcy Repayment Plans in Chapter 12.--
     Section 1225(b)(2) of title 11, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 218 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``For purposes'';
       (2) by striking ``(A) for the maintenance'' and inserting 
     ``(i) for the maintenance'';
       (3) by striking ``(B) if the debtor'' and inserting ``(ii) 
     if the debtor''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) In determining disposable income the court shall not 
     consider amounts the debtor receives or is entitled to 
     receive from--
       ``(i) any refund of tax due to the debtor under subtitle A 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year to 
     the extent that the refund does not exceed the amount of an 
     applicable earned income tax credit allowed by section 32 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for such year;
       ``(ii) any advance payment for an earned income tax credit 
     described in clause (i); or
       ``(iii) child support, foster care, or disability payment 
     for the care of a dependent child in accordance with 
     applicable nonbankruptcy law.''.
       (c) Protection of Earned Income Tax Credit and Support 
     Payments Under Bankruptcy Repayment Plans in Chapter 13.--
     Section 1325(b)(2) of title 11, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 218 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``For purposes'';
       (2) by striking ``(A) for the maintenance'' and inserting 
     ``(i) for the maintenance'';
       (3) by striking ``(B) if the debtor'' and inserting ``(ii) 
     if the debtor''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) In determining disposable income the court shall not 
     consider amounts the debtor receives or is entitled to 
     receive from--
       ``(i) any refund of tax due to the debtor under subtitle A 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year to 
     the extent that the refund does not exceed the amount of an 
     applicable earned income tax credit allowed by section 32 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for such year;
       ``(ii) any advance payment for an earned income tax credit 
     described in clause (i); or
       ``(iii) child support, foster care, or disability payment 
     for the care of a dependent child in accordance with 
     applicable nonbankruptcy law.''.
       (d) Exemptions.--Section 522(d) of title 11, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 224 of this Act, is amended in 
     paragraph (10)--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by striking subparagraph (D); and
       (3) by striking ``(E)'' and inserting ``(D)''.
       On page 92, line 5, strike ``personal property'' and insert 
     ``an item of personal property purchased for more than 
     $3,000''.
       On page 93, line 19, strike ``property'' and insert ``an 
     item of personal property purchased for more than $3,000''.
       On page 97, line 10, strike ``if'' and insert ``to the 
     extent that''.
       On page 97, line 10, after ``incurred'' insert ``to 
     purchase that thing of value''.
       On page 98, line 1, strike ``(27A)'' and insert (27B)''.
       On page 107, line 9, strike ``and aggregating more than 
     $250'' and insert ``for $400 or more per item or service''.
       On page 107, line 11, strike ``90'' and insert ``70''.
       On page 107, line 13, after ``dischargeable'' insert the 
     following: ``if the creditor proves by a preponderance of the 
     evidence at a hearing that the goods or services were not 
     reasonably necessary for the maintenance or support of the 
     debtor''.
       On page 107, line 15, strike ``$750'' and insert 
     ``$1,075''.
       On page 107, line 17, strike ``70'' and insert ``60''.
       Beginning on page 109, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 111, line 15, and insert the following:

     SEC. 314. HOUSEHOLD GOOD DEFINED.

       Section 101 of title 11, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 106(c) of this Act, is amended by inserting before 
     paragraph (27B) the following:
       ``(27A) `household goods'--
       ``(A) includes tangible personal property normally found in 
     or around a residence; and
       ``(B) does not include motor vehicles used for 
     transportation purposes;''.
       On page 112, line 6, strike ``(except that,'' and all that 
     follows through ``debts)'' on line 13.
       On page 112, line 19, strike ``(2),''.

[[Page S14388]]

       On page 112, line 21, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 112, line 24, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 113, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (c) Exceptions to Discharge.--Section 523 of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by inserting ``(14A),'' after 
     ``(6),'' each place it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``(a)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``(a) (2) or (14A)''.
       On page 263, line 8, insert ``as amended by section 322 of 
     this Act,'' after ``United States Code,''.
       On page 263, line 11, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 263, line 12, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 263, line 13, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 263, line 14, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 263, line 16, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and Senator Landrieu, Senator Kennedy, and others who may be interested 
in joining in this particular effort.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment which I would hope would be 
adopted. I am sorry in a sense it is not being accepted because it goes 
to the very heart of what many of us have talked about and tried to 
accomplish over the years, since bankruptcy laws were first modernized 
and adopted almost a century ago in 1903. This amendment deals with 
families, with spouses, with child support issues, and where they come 
in the context of priorities when it comes to discharging 
responsibilities under the bankruptcy act.
  It is no great secret that in 1998, we learned that as much as $43 
billion in child support payments remained uncollected in the United 
States. It is a staggering sum of money and makes a huge difference to 
children growing up under adverse circumstances as they are. When you 
exclude the ability to receive the financial support necessary to make 
ends meet, the problem becomes even more pronounced.
  I raise that because last year this body voted on important 
legislation that would provide needed reform to our bankruptcy laws, 
while at the same time ensuring that children and families would remain 
unhindered in their efforts to collect domestic support from bankrupt 
debtors.
  Since 1903, our Nation's bankruptcy code has been guided by the firm 
principle that women and children must be first in the distribution 
line of available assets during bankruptcy proceedings. For almost a 
century, debt owed to children and families has been nondischargeable. 
Thus, if a head of household fails financially, whatever remaining 
assets he has could be used to spare his spouse or ex-spouse and his 
children from impoverishment. We do this because those who are most 
vulnerable in our society deserve the most protection.
  With this principle in mind, this body recently added another 
protection for domestic support obligations in bankruptcy. The 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 made children and families a priority 
unsecured creditors. This enabled women and children to receive 
payments on their claims before other creditors.
  Today's bill, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, would fundamentally 
alter this delicate balance achieved after almost a century of 
jurisprudence. We are altering the bankruptcy landscape for the benefit 
of the credit card industry without understanding what the consequences 
for families will be.
  Women and children will be disproportionately affected by this 
legislation, unless it is amended. Whether as debtors filing for 
bankruptcy themselves or as creditors, three quarters of a million 
women will be affected this year by the bankruptcy system, and it is 
estimated that as many as 1 million women will be affected in the 
coming year.
  I recognize the precipitous rise in bankruptcies in the last few 
years. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with. I agree with those 
of my colleagues who think the law needs to be reformed and tightened 
up. I also agree with Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House Judiciary 
Committee, that it is possible to enact legislation that is highly 
favorable to the credit card companies and tightens the laws without 
depriving debtors and their families of reasonably necessary living 
expenses.
  As the legislation is currently drafted, the credit card industry is 
protected. Unfortunately, families are not, in my view. Maybe that is 
why all the major family and children advocacy groups presently oppose 
this bill. Yet with the adoption of the amendment that Senator Landrieu 
and I have offered, we think we can bring substantial support to this 
bill.
  I have serious concerns about the bill, as it is presently drafted, 
because of its potential harm to children and to families. This bill 
presents obstacles to families both before, during, and after 
bankruptcy that leave the alarming potential for family support income 
to be dissipated and misdirected to credit card companies rather than 
to the families who need that help.
  First, I am greatly concerned about the means test, which requires 
the trustee in bankruptcy to review all individual Chapter 7 cases for 
ability to pay debts under a rigid IRS formula devised originally for 
delinquent taxpayers, now to be applied in bankruptcy proceedings. 
These standards neither take into account differences in the cost of 
living from region to region nor do they ascribe rational expenses to 
individual families. As such, the use of these standards will deprive 
children and families of reasonably necessary living expenses.
  Additionally, because the means test increases the potential for 
dismissing chapter 7 cases, this bill channels many debtors into 5-year 
chapter 13 repayment plans, even though we know for a fact two-thirds 
of such plans fail today. What will families live on during this time?
  I am also concerned about the provisions of the legislation that make 
certain credit card debt nondischargeable. While the recent family 
support provisions added to the legislation are positive improvements, 
they have not cured the problems caused by other provisions of the bill 
which give greater collection rights to credit card lenders and fewer, 
in my view, to families and children.
  This bill elevates credit card debt to a presumed nondischargeable 
status. If a debtor purchases items or services on credit from a single 
creditor within 90 days of bankruptcy and such items exceed $250 in 
value, these items would be presumed luxuries. This chart to my right 
explains it.
  Under current law, food, medicine, and clothing equal necessities. 
Under present law, if the amount is less than $1,075 per creditor and 
incurred within 60 days of the bankruptcy petition, then they are 
protected.
  Under the law as presently drafted, without amendment, food, 
medicine, and clothing are considered luxuries, if the amount is 
greater than $250 and incurred within 90 days of the bankruptcy 
petition. So if you have $251 of food, medicine, and clothing expense 
and it is incurred within the last 90 days, then you have to go to 
court and spend the money to prove these are not luxuries: food, 
medicine, and clothing.
  This point is one I find stunning in its potential implications. Let 
me emphasize, under current law, food, medicine, and clothing are 
considered necessities. If the amount is in excess or less than $1,075 
and incurred within 60 days, there is a presumption those are 
necessities. That is considered, by today's dollars, enough to 
accommodate a family.
  Here we are now saying food, medicine, and clothing, if it is in 
excess of $250 within 90 days, that is a luxury. So $251, you have to 
go to court. If you are a debtor and you are a woman with a family you 
are raising on your own, you go to bankruptcy court. You have to come 
up with the money now to prove because it is a rebuttable presumption 
that you have to overcome if it is $251. By the very factor that you 
are in bankruptcy court, how many resources are you going to have to 
hire a lawyer to go in and prove that $251 were necessities and not 
luxuries. If you are a creditor in this situation, a family, then 
obviously the problem is also difficult.
  If you go to a Kmart and buy clothes for your children, necessities 
they may need, that is considered a luxury if it is $251. A judgment 
could be entered by default, and then the debt survives. If you are a 
single woman as a creditor, then you must wait until your ex-husband 
tries or does not try to defend a similar purchase. And if he is 
unsuccessful, there will be less money for him to pay child support. So 
on either side of the equation, if you are a

[[Page S14389]]

woman raising children on your own, either as a debtor or a creditor, 
this places tremendous burdens on the family.
  If this stays in the bill as is, this is a huge blow to average 
families. There is no consideration of region of the country. I don't 
care where you live in the United States. Imagine some parts of the 
country where $251 in 90 days, that is 3 months, if you have three 
children, $251 is a luxury? You have to go to court and hire a lawyer 
to prove it wasn't a luxury. We are reforming the bankruptcy laws to 
try to protect people and families from hardships they can incur? I 
don't understand this.
  If this is sustained in the bill, I urge the President to veto this 
legislation regardless of what else is here. This would be a huge blow 
to families to allow this to persist in the legislation.
  The bill's proponents will tell us that this is really not the case. 
Child support is still the No. 1 priority. The reality is that this 
change will place kids and families first in line for nothing, since 
such assets are available to support families in less than 1 percent of 
the cases.
  In addition, this change may not place families above lenders if the 
lenders say their claims are secured by the debtor's property. For the 
first time, we have allowed these heretofore unsecured creditors to get 
into the bankruptcy courthouse. Currently, children and family support 
recipients, taxes, student loans were nondischargeable debts. For the 
first time in a century the proposed legislation would bring into this 
unique category these other creditors, i.e. credit card companies, who 
will make the competition for scarce assets that much fiercer.
  These creditors have historically been unsecured because they have 
received the benefit of high interest. Now they are becoming 
effectively secured creditors. Most household finance groups secure 
items of property with agreements. So if you have a television set, the 
household finance company will have a security interest in the TV 
obligation, and the company is a secured creditor. The same thing 
occurs with reaffirmation agreements, and indeed the bill increases the 
potential for these agreements. Creditors can ask debtors to reaffirm 
debts of have their property--often of little value--repossessed. These 
items may be of little value to creditors, but of tremendous value to 
families, enabling them to continue to survive with the bare 
necessities. And they too will be elevated into the same sort of status 
that we have had for children and families, which I think, again, goes 
beyond anything I think we intended.
  With those concerns in mind, the amendment Senator Landrieu and I and 
Senator Kennedy have offered tries to address these concerns in the 
bill. Let me address each of the provisions very quickly and turn to my 
colleague from Louisiana for any further comment she would like to make 
on this amendment.
  First of all, this amendment would modify the means test to provide 
greater flexibility and reasonableness when calculating the ability to 
pay. Allowable expenses would include family support, expenses 
associated with adoption of a child, child care, medical expenses, 
caring for elderly members of the family, education expenses, and other 
such critical areas that have been identified as those most families 
must make. Such expenses should be considered not ignored by the 
bankruptcy courts.
  Second, my amendment will ensure that support payments and other 
funds intended for the current needs of children do not become the 
property of the bankruptcy estate with the corollary potential of being 
distributed to creditors. Money for kids should go to kids, not to 
creditors.
  This amendment will also adopt the House definition of household 
goods, which enables debtors to keep, during bankruptcy, personal 
property normally found in and around the home, excluding automobiles. 
This will ensure that in a bankruptcy children and families are able to 
keep, without fear of repossession, certain household goods that 
typically have no resale value, such as toys, swing sets, VCRs, and 
other items used by parents to help raise their children.
  Finally, this amendment will ensure that debtors are not forced into 
bankruptcy court to seek to prove that food, diapers, school uniforms, 
toys, and the like are not luxury goods. It would do this by providing 
that items purchased with a credit card would be nondischargeable only 
if they were purchased within 70 days, not 90 days, of bankruptcy, have 
a value of $400 or more per item, and require the creditor to prove at 
a hearing that the items were not reasonably necessary for the 
maintenance and support of the debtor and her dependents--shifting the 
burden, if you will.
  Mr. President, I hope that these efforts will win broad support here 
as we try to again go back to what we have sustained for almost a 
century, recognizing the modern world we live in and the needs of 
families trying to see their way through the difficult period of a 
bankruptcy, which we are going to make far more difficult now for 
people to take under this law.
  I am not opposed at all to the idea of trying to restrain 
the proliferation of bankruptcy in the country. But as we are doing 
that, let's not do so in such a way that it places an undue hardship 
and burden on families trying to make ends meet and trying to keep 
themselves together. Let's go back to the notion that, since 1903, the 
bankruptcy code has protected families.

  When it comes to families, and women in particular, who could be so 
adversely affected by changing the means test here, placing the legal 
burdens on a family to go out and hire a lawyer to prove that $251 in 
goods over 90 days for a family is not a luxury item--nobody needs to 
be educated here about who has greater power. Credit card companies 
have teams of lawyers; they hire them on a permanent basis. But if you 
are some family out there who has gone through the agony of a 
bankruptcy, how many lawyers will take on the cases for $251 and try to 
prove that some items weren't luxury items? How many lawyers want to 
take on those cases? How long can you stay in court? How many motions 
can you argue back and forth? Such families are truly at a 
disadvantage. I am not talking about the poorest families in America; I 
am talking about middle income, hard-working families that find 
themselves in the dreadful position of all of a sudden having to 
readjust their lives because they have been hit by a financial 
disaster.
  I also know there are people out there who abuse the system, who are 
scam artists, who game the system and use the bankruptcy laws to take 
advantage of a situation. I know they exist. I am as angry as anybody 
else that there are people like that out there. But I also happen to 
believe that the overwhelming majority of people are not scam artists; 
they are good people, honest people, and they are trying to keep their 
families together.
  I noted last night that during this wonderful economic time we have 
been having, the top 20 percent of income earners have enjoyed a 115 
percent increase in earning power. The middle 20 percent has had a 9 
percent increase. The bottom 20 percent has had an 8 percent decline in 
earning power. While we all rave about the great economy, for middle 
income families and less than middle income families the times have 
still been tough.
  These are not evil people. The fact that they end up in a financial 
mess doesn't mean that their children ought to pay a price for it. If 
you want to be angry at the parent, don't take it out on a child who 
was born into a family that may face these kinds of financial crises. 
To say to them you are not going to be able to have access to basic 
household goods, things like toys, a VCR, and other basic necessities 
of raising a family, I think that goes too far. It is overreaching and 
it is unnecessary and it is harmful, and it hurts people. I don't know 
of anybody in this Chamber who wants to be a party to that.
  For those reasons, Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana and I, 
and others have offered this amendment. Hopefully, we can get broad and 
wide support for it to restore what, for 100 years, was basic policy. 
Families and children come first. Those who are the most vulnerable 
deserve the most protection. We ought to see to it in this bill that 
that fundamental principle is not changed. Whatever else we are doing 
with this law, children and families still come first in our minds, and 
we are not going to allow them to be hurt, intentionally or 
unintentionally, by provisions of this bill, as presently

[[Page S14390]]

written, which would do just that. For those reasons, we offer this 
amendment for the consideration of the Senate and hope our colleagues 
will support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Louisiana 
is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, 
which attempts to enhance a bill that is intended to do some good 
things to stop fraud and abuse. But this amendment attempts to take 
that bill and make it work for everyone and continue the tradition of 
protecting our children and our families, which is so important.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his great leadership and the 
way he has articulated this issue so well. Neither one of us is on the 
committee that considered this piece of legislation. I know there were 
many good Senators from the Republican side and many good Senators from 
the Democratic side who have come at this with the right intention--to 
eliminate fraud and abuse. But I thank him for his leadership because, 
frankly, without this amendment, this bill falls very short of those 
good intentions.
  We, in Louisiana--I know the people in Kansas are like this, too, and 
I know the people in Connecticut are like this--believe in paying our 
debts. We do not like freeloaders. We do not like people who are 
reckless with their finances, although every now and then sometimes we 
might be, in small instances or large. We do not like that. It is not a 
value we hold. We believe in being fiscally responsible. We believe in 
taking care of your own. We believe in taking care of our debts.
  So I certainly want to support a bill that would clamp down on fraud 
and abuse. If it was a poor person who was using fraud and being 
abusive of the system, they would certainly have to follow the same 
rules as a middle-class family or as the wealthiest person in my State. 
I am not asking, and neither is Senator Dodd, for any special privilege 
for any man or any woman. We do ask for special consideration for 
children. They are not the ones who are ``guilty.'' But we ask no 
special provision.
  This bill as it is currently written goes much too far. I also join 
Senator Dodd in asking the President, if this amendment is not 
adopted--and I do not know; it may be I will join him in asking the 
President to veto this bill because this would be a terrible blow to 
families, to children, and particularly single parents, many of whom 
are women but not all. There are some fathers who have custody of their 
children--one, two, three or four--who would fall under the same 
draconian terms of this bill.
  There is no denying, as I said, that there is need for reform of the 
current bankruptcy law and practice. However, it is important the final 
bill accurately reflect the needs of those most affected by bankruptcy. 
This amendment we offer does just that. It has four parts. I am going 
to speak briefly about only one.
  Over the past two decades we have witnessed a 400-percent increase in 
the use of bankruptcy courts in this country. That figure is alarming. 
That is why we are trying to see what is causing that and trying to 
offer some solutions. The figures show a rising number of those 
claiming bankruptcy, however, are single women. In fact, single women 
comprise the fastest growing group to file bankruptcy, surpassing men 
and married couples.
  In 1999, more than a half-million single women will file for 
bankruptcy, 10 times the number who filed in 1981. Despite the 
overwhelming number of women who find themselves in this untenable 
state of economic instability, S. 625, as written, does not at all 
reflect the needs of this population of debtors. This amendment simply 
revises necessary sections of the bill so it is more realistic, more 
flexible, and more reasonable in dealing with women and their children, 
single women and their children--sometimes one child, sometimes two, 
sometimes three, and in a few cases more than that.
  Our amendment does not ask that women with children be treated any 
differently under the law. It simply ensures the standards which apply 
to all debtors be sensitive to the very different situations which 
cause a person to file for bankruptcy. So, in our zest to curb the 
abuse of some, the rights and needs of others should not be ignored.
  S. 625, as currently written, makes it significantly easier for 
credit card debt to be considered nondischargeable, which is necessary 
in ending fraud and abuse. However, I think this bill inadvertently 
puts the claim of credit card companies at a distinct advantage over 
single mothers or single fathers who are trying to claim their child 
support. In most cases that is going to be a single mother.

  I concede the language clearly is written in the bill that states 
women and children are the ``first in priority.'' The practical 
reality, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, as it is 
currently drafted, is they are first in line for nothing. Given their 
circumstances of bankruptcy and their lack of resources, how would they 
ever find the money to hire a lawyer or get the professional services 
they need to compete in this legal, cumbersome, complicated, time-
consuming, and actually spirit-breaking system we are attempting to 
create here.
  Let me demonstrate with an example. I think if people can see an 
example they might understand this. For the purposes of this argument, 
let's take Doris, who is a divorced mother of three children ranging in 
age from 3 to 13 years old. She works at a job earning more than 
minimum wage but not much. Her ex-husband is 5 months behind in child 
support--not atypical, given the millions and billions of dollars that 
are owed. If this bill passes, this is what will happen.
  In September of this year, she goes to Kmart where she purchases 
food, clothing, and other essential items for her family totaling $260. 
I go to Kmart and Wal-Mart. That is not an unreasonable bill. It is 
hard to support a family with food and clothing and essentials for much 
less than that. Actually, I spend more than that in a month. But she 
spends only $260, trying to be frugal.
  In November, she comes to grips with the reality that her income will 
not get her through the winter. She files for bankruptcy. Under the 
bill this Senate is about ready to pass, she is going to have to hire a 
lawyer and go to court to prove that her Kmart purchases were necessary 
for her family and were not made in an attempt to defraud the system.
  I could not under any circumstances vote for a bill that would ask 
any of my constituents who live in Louisiana, or any who live in 
Connecticut or any place, to hire a lawyer to go to court to claim that 
the orange juice, milk, diapers, cookies, some snacks for school, maybe 
part of a school uniform, is a luxury item. When they come knocking at 
my door, saying, Senator, why does the law say this, I am going to say 
we made a terrible mistake. But I didn't make the mistake because we 
were on the floor trying to explain this to people. Hopefully, they are 
listening.
  Our amendment makes a simple change to this process. Rather than 
putting the burden on proving the necessity of the purchase on a single 
mother who has no money, a lot of heartache, a lot of children to take 
care of, it just puts the onus on the credit card companies to prove 
these purchases were unnecessary. As the Senator has pointed out, they 
already have lawyers; they are a credit card company. They have 
accountants and lawyers to see, perhaps, if something does look amiss. 
Perhaps if the charges are quite large, they most certainly should be 
able to pull them into court and make sure the judge would take the 
proper action.
  Credit card companies, as I said, have these investigators to check 
fraud. The people in my State of Louisiana, in that situation, I 
promise you, they do not.
  Under our system of justice, a person is innocent until proven 
guilty. Under S. 625, as it stands right now, a woman is guilty of 
fraud unless she can prove her innocence. This is not what we want to 
do. I am positive this is not what this President of the United States 
wants to support. It is unacceptable. If our amendment does not get on 
this bill, I am going to vote against it. There may be some other 
amendments that we need to put on, but this clearly is one.

  I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership in this piece of legislation 
and will only add this to this discussion: One of the wonderful things 
I like about being a Senator is I learn something new

[[Page S14391]]

every day. I guess my colleagues here feel that way, and I hope the 
staff does, because it is one of the most interesting things about this 
job.
  I got, today, the gross monthly income schedule for the IRS. I have 
never had to file for bankruptcy. I don't think I have ever owed any 
taxes where I had to go according to this schedule. So this would be 
the first time I will have seen something like this. I am not a lawyer.
  I want to say how surprised I am that our Government would have a 
schedule that basically says if you make $830 or less a month, and you 
owe taxes to the Federal Government, that you get to eat $170 worth of 
food. But if you are wealthy and you owe taxes to the Government, you 
get to eat $456 worth of food every month.
  If you have children, if you have one child who happens to be in 
diapers, you get to buy $71 a month at the store. But if you are 
wealthy and you have a child--not wealthy but you make $5,000 a month, 
which would be fairly wealthy--and have one child, you get to buy 
almost $350 worth of diapers and apparel or services at the store.
  My husband and I have a 2-year-old. I spend more than $40 a month on 
diapers alone--diapers. I don't want anyone in my State to have to hire 
a lawyer to prove that the expenses they have on their credit card to 
purchase food or clothing or diapers or milk or formula for their 
children is not a luxury.
  I urge Members who might not have ever looked at this schedule that 
indicates, when you owe taxes, how much you get to keep--it has no 
mention of children, no educational expenses. I guess the IRS just 
assumes children should stop going to school while their parents pay 
back their taxes.
  This is the same schedule I think the Senator from Connecticut has 
pointed out. I wish I had it blown up because I think people in America 
would have a hard time believing this.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will.
  Mr. DODD. This is a question for my colleague. The relevance of this 
is that under the bill as presently written, this is the schedule. This 
is not interesting subject matter because it is an IRS schedule for tax 
purposes. This is what has been adopted as part of the bankruptcy 
bill. So this is your schedule, this is what you know you are going to 
be limited to; is that correct?

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Correct. That is my understanding. Under the current 
bill, we are adopting an IRS schedule that, in my opinion--and I 
imagine a majority of people in Louisiana will feel that way--this is 
an inappropriate schedule for that purpose. It most certainly is an 
inappropriate schedule for bankruptcy since nowhere on the schedule 
does it even mention the word ``child'' or children's needs. It does 
not mention medicine. It does not mention some of the essential things, 
as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will further yield, nor does it mention any 
geography distinction. This is a standard price whether you live in 
Louisiana, Connecticut, California, New York City, Washington, DC--this 
is the same schedule for every person, regardless of where they live in 
the country; is that correct?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That is correct. As we know, the cost-of-living 
escalates and is very different from place to place and region to 
region. This chart is quite deficient.
  After this debate, I will be looking at ways the IRS should improve 
their own schedule.
  For the purposes of this debate, we most certainly do not want to 
take a schedule that is flawed for the purposes of collecting taxes and 
then apply it to a bankruptcy which is an equally difficult situation 
in which our families find themselves.
  In conclusion, I realize there is fraud and abuse, and I will be the 
first one to step up and vote for a bill that will clamp down on it. No 
one deserves special privileges, whether they are poor, middle income 
or wealthy. This bill, as written, goes too far, and we will be sorry 
if we do not adopt some amendments to fix it and make it more fair. Let 
us fight hard for our families. Many of them are having a tough time 
already. Let's not have the children pay the price for us trying to 
expedite a bill that does not work for them or for their parents. I 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. The Senator from Louisiana may want to do this. It is 
worthwhile. I ask unanimous consent that the IRS schedule be printed in 
the Record so our colleagues have the benefit of looking at the 
rigidity of this schedule and the paucity of information and items one 
would normally, reasonably conclude a family might need in order to 
sustain itself during a period of bankruptcy, such as we suggested.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Collection Financial Standards--Clothing and Other 
                             Items--IRS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Gross Monthly Income--
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Item                         Less than     $831 to     $1,250 to    $1,670 to    $2,500 to    $3,330 to    $4,170 to   $5,830  and
                                                      $830        $1,249       $1,669       $2,449       $3,329       $4,169       $5,829        over
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One Person:
    Food........................................          170          198          214          257          270          325          428          456
    Housekeeping supplies.......................           18           20           21           26           27           29           35           43
    Apparel and services........................           43           52           75          120          127          129          168          334
    Personal care products and services.........           14           21           23           24           30           37           42           58
    Miscellaneous...............................          100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................          345          391          433          527          554          620          773          991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Gross Monthly Income--
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Item                         Less than     $831 to     $1,250 to    $1,670 to    $2,500 to    $3,330 to    $4,170 to   $5,830  and
                                                      $830        $1,249       $1,669       $2,449       $3,329       $4,169       $5,829        over
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Persons:
    Food........................................          228          277          351          365          424          438          515          635
    Housekeeping supplies.......................           23           27           28           40           46           51           57           74
    Apparel and services........................           71           72           98          121          128          167          202          335
    Personal care products and services.........           19           24           28           34           46           40           58           66
    Miscellaneous...............................          125          125          125          125          125          125          125          125
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................          466          525          630          685          769          830          957        1,235
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Gross Monthly Income--
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Item                         Less than     $831 to     $1,250 to    $1,670 to    $2,500 to    $3,330 to    $4,170 to   $5,830  and
                                                      $830        $1,249       $1,669       $2,449       $3,329       $4,169       $5,829        over
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Persons:
    Food........................................          272          326          390          406          444          488          545          737
    Housekeeping supplies.......................           24           28           29           42           47           55           58           77
    Apparel and services........................          110          114          134          143          175          205          206          368
    Personal care products and services.........           23           28           34           41           47           50           59           67
    Miscellaneous...............................          150          150          150          150          150          150          150          150
        Total...................................          579          646          737          781          863          948        1,018        1,393
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S14392]]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Gross Monthly Income--
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Item                               Less than     $831 to     $1,250 to    $1,670 to    $2,500 to    $3,330 to    $4,170 to
                                                                   $830        $1,249       $1,669       $2,499       $3,329       $4,169       $5,829
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four Persons:
    Food.....................................................          374          376          406          416          472          574          629
    Housekeeping supplies....................................           36           37           38           46           49           57           60
    Apparel and services.....................................          114          145          146          147          179          206          244
    Personal care products and services......................           27           29           35           46           49           51           62
    Miscellaneous............................................          175          175          175          175          175          175          175
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total................................................          726          762          800          830          924        1,063        1,170
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Gross Monthly Income--
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Item                               Less than     $831 to     $1,250 to    $1,670 to    $2,500 to    $3,330 to    $4,170 to
                                                                   $830        $1,249       $1,669       $2,499       $3,329       $4,169       $5,829
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Than Four Persons:
    For each additional person, add to four-person total               125          135          145          155          165          175          185
     allowance...............................................
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DODD. Lastly, as I mentioned, virtually all the advocacy groups 
involved with children and families are in support of this amendment. 
There is a letter that comes from many of them, including the YWCA, 
Women Work, Women Employed, Older Women's League, Equal Rights 
Advocates, who issued a nice letter in support of this.
  The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights also has a letter in 
support of this amendment, along with several other amendments. It 
specifically mentioned this amendment. I ask unanimous consent both of 
these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 November 5, 1999.
       Dear Senator: The undersigned women's and children's 
     organizations write to urge you to support Senator Dodd's 
     amendment to S. 625, the ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999,'' 
     to protect income dedicated to the support of children and 
     families.
       S. 625 puts economically vulnerable women and children--
     those who are forced into bankruptcy, and those who are owed 
     support by men who file for bankruptcy--at greater risk. By 
     increasing the rights of many creditors, including credit 
     card companies, finance companies, auto lenders and others, 
     the bill would set up a competition for scarce resources 
     between parents and children owed child support and 
     commercial creditors both during and after bankruptcy. And 
     single parent facing financial crises--often caused by 
     divorce, nonpayment of support, loss of a job, uninsured 
     medical expenses, or domestic violence--would find it harder 
     to regain their economic stability through the bankruptcy 
     process. The bill would make it harder for these parents to 
     meet the filing requirements; harder, once in bankruptcy, to 
     save their homes, cars, and essential household items; and 
     harder to meet their children's needs after bankruptcy 
     because many more debts would survive.
       Senator Dodd's amendment would address several of the 
     problems the bill would create for women and their families.
       The means test provision would reduce some of the harsh and 
     arbitrary barriers to accessing the bankruptcy process that 
     are part of S. 625. S. 625 requires that a rigid means test, 
     devised by the IRS for use with delinquent taxpayers, be 
     applied to individuals and families that file for bankruptcy 
     under Chapter 7 liquidation. The test is used to determine 
     whether the debtor can repay some debt and will be forced 
     into a Chapter 13 repayment plan. The Dodd amendment would 
     make the test more reasonable as applied to families with 
     children by including more family expenditures as allowable 
     expenses, including costs of child care and the care of 
     elderly and disabled family members, health care expenses; 
     spousal and child support payments; expenses associated with 
     adoption; and expenses for children's toys, among others.
       The provision on household goods and property of the estate 
     would provide more protection for essential household goods 
     and income intended for the support of children during 
     bankruptcy. In S. 625, only a very limited and specific list 
     of household goods are protected from repossession or threat 
     of repossession: one radio, one television, one VCR per 
     household. Tape players and CD players are not on the list. A 
     personal computer is protected, but only if it is used 
     primarily for minor children; older children who use a 
     computer for research and parents who do some work at home 
     are out of luck. Senator Dodd's amendment, like the household 
     goods provision in the House-passed bill, would allow each 
     situation to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and would 
     allow debtors to keep tangible property normally found in and 
     around a residence.
       The provision concerning property of the bankruptcy estate 
     (assets that may be distributed to creditors during the 
     bankruptcy) would ensure that child support payments, and 
     Earned Income Tax Credit refunds available to low-income 
     working families, are not subject to the claims of creditors.
       The nondischargeability provision of Senator Dodd's 
     amendment would reduce the competition between credit card 
     companies, and women and children owed support, after 
     bankruptcy. Under current law, child support and alimony are 
     among the few debts that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. 
     S. 625 would elevate many credit card debts to 
     nondischargeable status. This would increase the competition 
     between credit card companies and women and children owed 
     support after bankruptcy, and make it harder for hard-pressed 
     families with children to get a ``fresh start'' through the 
     bankruptcy process. S. 625 provides that if a person, within 
     90 days of bankruptcy, purchases items on a single credit 
     card that total $250, they are presumed to be 
     nondischargeable. S. 625 does give the debtor the right to 
     show that the charges were for necessities, not for luxuries. 
     But debtors will have to bear the burden and expense of going 
     into court to prove that the $251 spent over three months for 
     food, and clothing, and school supplies, were not luxuries.
       Senator Dodd's nondischargeability provision would provide 
     that credit card purchases would be nondischargeable only if: 
     they are for $400 or more per item or service; they were made 
     within 70 days of filing; and the creditor proves at a 
     hearing that the items are not reasonably necessary for the 
     maintenance and support of the debtor.
       This amendment would not address all of the problems with 
     S. 625. But it would ameliorate some of the harshest effects 
     of the legislation on women and their families.
           Sincerely,
         National Women's Law Center, National Partnership for 
           Women & Families, ACES, Association for Children for 
           Enforcement of Support, American Association of 
           University Women, Business and Professional Women/USA, 
           Center for the Advancement of Public Policy, Coalition 
           of Labor Union Women (CLUW), Equal Rights Advocates, 
           Feminist Majority, National Association of Commissions 
           for Women, National Center for Youth Law, National 
           Organization for Women, Northwest Women's Law Center, 
           NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Older Women's 
           League (OWL), Women Employed, Women Work!, YWCA of the 
           USA.
                                  ____

                                             Leadership Conference


                                              on Civil Rights,

                                 Washington, DC, November 9, 1999.
     Re: The ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999''.

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the Leadership Conference on 
     Civil rights (LCCR), a coalition of 180 national 
     organizations representing people of color, women children, 
     organized labor, persons with disabilities, older Americans, 
     major religious groups, gays and lesbians and civil liberties 
     and human rights groups, we urge you to oppose S. 625, the 
     ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999.''
       As you know, bankruptcy reform has not been, per se, an 
     issue of traditional concern to the LCCR. However, S. 625 
     poses significant concerns for the civil rights of all 
     working persons in the United States.
       While the LCCR does not support the comprehensive 
     legislation of S. 625, we do support three amendments to the 
     bill. First, we support the ``Children and Families 
     amendment,'' which will be offered jointly by Senators Dodd, 
     Landrieu and Kennedy. Second, we support the ``Predatory 
     Leading Amendment,'' which Senator Durbin will offer. Third, 
     we support the Minimum Wage Amendment which will be offered 
     by Senator Kennedy. Each of these amendments is important to 
     balanced and effective bankruptcy reform; and we strongly 
     urge you to support them.
       The ``Children and Families Amendment'' is designed to 
     ensure that child and espousal support payments and earned 
     income tax credits are not property of the bankruptcy estate. 
     The legislation will replace the current definition of 
     household goods with the House of Representative's definition 
     to allow debtors to keep personal property found in and 
     around the residence. Finally, the amendment will modify the 
     means test to allow more flexibility when there are special 
     expenses related to the care and support of children.
       The ``Predatory Lending Amendment'' is designed to 
     discourage abusive lending practices. The Durbin amendment 
     targets lenders

[[Page S14393]]

     that violate current Truth in Lending Act standards. The 
     amendment simply says if an individual violates current law 
     they lose their claim in bankruptcy.
       The Mimimum Wage Amendment is especially important and we 
     strongly urge you to support it. It will help over 12 million 
     Americans--mostly adult workers trying to support their 
     families. By increasing the earnings of workers who are paid 
     hourly from $5.15 to $5.65 an hour in 1999 and to $6.15 in 
     2000, we will be making it easier for these working families 
     to provide the essentials for their children. Given that 
     bankruptcy is particularly hard on low wage workers, this 
     modest increase in the minimum wage is an especially fair 
     element to any bankruptcy reform measure.


                               Background

       As a general matter, every economic discrimination suffered 
     by disadvantaged groups in our society is reflected in the 
     bankruptcy courts. Last year nearly 1.4 million families 
     filed for bankruptcy, a record number. Most of the families 
     that used the bankruptcy system were those middle class 
     Americans who are most vulnerable economically:


                   Single parents and their children

       In 1997, about 300,000 bankruptcy cases involved child 
     support and alimony orders.\1\ For about half, women were 
     creditors seeking payments from their ex-husbands following a 
     divorce. In addition, nearly 400,000 women heads-of-
     households filed for bankruptcy to stabilize their economic 
     conditions. Many dealt with debts incurred during marriage, 
     including debts their ex-husbands had been ordered to pay but 
     for which the wives remained legally responsible when their 
     ex-husbands did not pay. Without bankruptcy, these women 
     would have been forced to choose between spending their now-
     reduced family incomes on rent, groceries and utilities or on 
     past-due credit card bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Endnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For women, the cumulative effects of lower wages, reduced 
     access to health insurance, the devastating economic 
     consequences of divorce, and the disproportionate financial 
     strain of rearing children alone is reflected in why women 
     heads of households find themselves in bankruptcy 
     courthouses.


                            Older Americans

       About 280,000 Americans aged 50 and older filed for 
     bankruptcy during 1997.\2\ Older Americans are more 
     vulnerable to the consequences of a job loss; someone pushed 
     out of a job at age 54 has a very hard time coming back 
     economically. Medical coverage is limited just as their 
     medical needs increase. Among Americans older than 65, about 
     a third explained that medical bills not covered by medicare 
     has pushed them to economic collapse. Altogether, more than 
     two-thirds of older Americans attributed their financial 
     problems to uninsured medical bills and job losses.


           African American and Hispanic American Homeowners

       About 650,000 homeowners filed for bankruptcy last year 
     trying to save their homes.\3\ For all homeowners, bankruptcy 
     gave them a chance to stabilize economically and focus their 
     incomes on paying their mortgages to save their homes. 
     However, the economic struggle for Hispanic American and 
     African American homeowners is harder than for any other 
     group. While 68% of whites own their own homes, only 44% of 
     African Americans and Hispanic Americans own their own homes. 
     Both African American and Hispanic American families are 
     likely to commit a larger fraction of their take-home pay for 
     their mortgages, and their homes represent virtually all of 
     their family wealth. It is no surprise, then, that African 
     American and Hispanic American homeowners are six hundred 
     percent more likely to seek bankruptcy protection when a 
     period of unemployment or uninsured medical loss puts them at 
     risk for losing their homes.
       Industry consultants estimate that credit card companies 
     could cut their bankruptcy losses by more than 50% if they 
     would institute mimimal credit screening.\4\ Instead, the 
     credit issuers have spent a reported $40 million last year on 
     lobbyists and lawyers to urge Congress to become the 
     collection agent for their bad loans--even as their profits 
     reach into the billions of dollars.
       We strongly believe that the underlying provisions of S. 
     625 would disproportionately affect working families and the 
     constituencies that comprise the Leadership Conference on 
     Civil Rights. While the LCCR does not support the overall 
     bankruptcy reform bill, we fully support the ``Children and 
     Families Amendment;'' the ``Predatory Lending Amendment;'' 
     and the Minimum Wage Amendment. Each of these amendments is 
     important to balanced and effective bankruptcy reform. We 
     strongly believe that no bill should be enacted that does not 
     include these three amendments that are crucial to the 
     livelihood of all working Americans.
       Thank you for consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Wade Henderson,
                                               Executive Director.

                               end notes

     \1\ The reported data are from Health and Human Services 
     (support data) and Teressa A. Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren, Jay 
     Lawrence Westbrook, ``Bankruptcy and the Family,'' 21 
     Marriage and Family Review 193 (Haworth Press 1995).
     \2\ Teresa Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Westbrook, 
     ``From Golden Years to Bankrupt Years,'' Norton Bankruptcy 
     Law Adviser 1 (July 1998). Teresa Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren, 
     and Jay Lawrence Westbrook, ``Baby Boomers and the Bankruptcy 
     Boom,'' Norton Bankruptcy Law Adviser 1 (April 1993).
     \3\ Teresa Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Westbrook, The 
     Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Financial Crisis 
     (forthcoming Yale University Press 1999); Teresa Sullivan, 
     Elizabeth Warren and Jay Westbrook, As We Forgive Our 
     Debtors; Bankruptcy and Consumers Credit in America 128-144 
     (Oxford University Press 1989).
     \4\ August, Fair, Isaac & Co. Released a new/bankruptcy 
     predictor that it says can eliminate 54% of bankruptcy losses 
     by eliminating potential nonpayers from the bottom 10% of 
     credit car holders. ``Credit Cards: Fight for Bankruptcy Law 
     Reform Masks Truth,'' 162 Am. Banker 30 (September 8, 1997).
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not know what the schedule is for this. 
I know we are not going to vote this evening, obviously. I ask 
unanimous consent that prior to a vote on this amendment the proponents 
and opponents will have at least a couple of minutes on either side to 
explain this amendment to our colleagues, since it is a bit 
complicated. There are pieces to it. Two minutes may not be enough; 
maybe 3 minutes on a side to explain what is in this amendment prior to 
the vote, whenever that occurs, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I know other colleagues want to be heard. I thank the 
indulgence of my colleagues on the floor for listening to this debate.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, one of the provisions of the bill before 
the Senate today would ``amend the Federal Reserve Act to broaden the 
range of discount window loans which may be used as collateral for 
Federal Reserve notes.'' This legislation was considered by the House 
Banking Committee and has been referred to the Senate Banking 
Committee. It is now being offered as an amendment to the bankruptcy 
bill to expedite its enactment prior to the adjournment of the 
Congress.
  The currency collateral legislation would expand the field of assets 
that the Federal Reserve may use to collateralize Federal Reserve 
notes. All currency in circulation must be backed by specific assets, 
but much of the collateral that the Federal Reserve accepts for 
discount window loans is ineligible under current law for use to back 
the currency. The changes put in place by this legislation will allow 
the Federal Reserve to apply all eligible discount loan assets to 
collateralize the currency.
  This legislation poses some risks unless adequate safeguards are in 
place. The Federal Reserve applies a discount to each type of asset 
used as collateral. Broadening the scope of eligible assets makes it 
even more imperative that strict and aggressive discounting be applied 
to any assets used to back U.S. currency. The Federal Reserve should 
discount aggressively these assets through an objective and clearly 
defined process that leaves no room for doubt that our currency is 
fully backed by reliable assets. At the most basic level, when valuing 
these assets this should be our general rule: when in doubt, discount.
  Failure to discount collateral assets aggressively would do more than 
threaten the safety and soundness of the Federal Reserve's balance 
sheet; it would threaten the U.S. economy and all economies that rely 
on a stable dollar. Many countries around the world recently have 
learned a painful lesson on the value of a sound currency.
  We must remember that any country can engage in monetary 
mismanagement, and most have at some point in time. The United States 
must avoid that path. With a currency that is considered a stable 
medium by U.S. citizens and a store of value by both domestic and 
foreign investors, the Federal Reserve must hold sound money paramount 
as it implements this important change in currency collateral 
requirements. It has taken nearly two decades to rebuild the reputation 
of the dollar after the inflation of the Carter years. Today, ``sound 
as a dollar'' has meaning here and all over the world. We must do 
nothing to undermine it.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise to clarify my two votes today on 
amendments to the bankruptcy reform legislation to increase the minimum 
wage by $1.00, from $5.15 to $6.15 per hour. Let me begin by saying 
that I preferred the approach taken by Senator Kennedy's amendment to 
increase the minimum wage in two increments over the next fourteen 
months.

[[Page S14394]]

  As my colleagues are aware, an increase in the minimum wage is needed 
for our Nation's workers. At our current minimum wage of $5.15 per 
hour, many of our workers are unable to support themselves and their 
families. In response to this need, I voted against a motion to table 
the Kennedy amendment because I believe workers should receive the 
increase over fourteen months, as opposed to the twenty-nine months 
proposed in the Domenici amendment. I also preferred the Kennedy 
approach because the business tax incentives offered in the amendment 
were fully paid for. On the other hand, the Domenici amendment provided 
$75 billion in business tax incentives to be funded by projected budget 
surpluses which may, or may not, materialize. Nevertheless, to its 
credit, the Domenici amendment offered provisions related to health 
insurance deductibility, and the permanent extension of the Work 
Opportunity Tax Credit--two important legislative items.
  It is no secret that our economy is strong. Inflation is low and the 
economic arguments against raising the minimum wage are attempts not 
particularly persuasive. In fact, a recent editorial in the Providence 
Journal stated that ``. . . higher wages often mean greater loyalty and 
effort on the part of employees. Thus, whatever the increment of a 
higher minimum wage, that cost could be more than offset by higher 
revenue and profits from increased productivity and reduced turnover, 
hiring, and training costs. . . . Congress ought to do it.''
  However, when the Kennedy amendment was tabled, I thought it was 
important to have, at the very least, some version of a minimum wage 
package approved by the Senate. Thus, I then voted in favor of the 
Domenici amendment. Although it is not an ideal package, I am hopeful 
that an agreement can be reached on a sensible, bipartisan approach to 
raising the minimum wage once the House passes its own version of the 
legislation. I urge my colleagues find that common ground, which in the 
end, will help our economy and our working families. We ought to do it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment I will offer requires the 
Federal Reserve to submit a report to the Senate and House Banking 
Committees concerning: (1) whether the location of the residence of an 
applicant for a credit card is considered by a financial institution in 
determining whether the applicant should be granted such card; and (2) 
the purposes for which such location is taken into consideration by 
such institution.
  Mr. President, an individual's credit worthiness should be judged on 
his or her own credit history and not on where that individual happens 
to live. The stereotyping of consumers based on where they live is a 
social evil with very negative social consequences. The Congress has 
been instrumental in formulating legislation that seeks equal credit 
opportunity for all. If creditworthy persons can be rejected on account 
of his or her place of residence, our work is incomplete. Credit 
applicants should be considered on the basis of their individualized 
creditworthiness and not on the basis of place of residence.
  Mr. President, this amendment requires that the Federal Reserve 
report be submitted not later than six months after the date of 
enactment of this act. I understand that the committee has no 
obligation to this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
my amendment be printed following my remarks. The amendment is as 
follows:


                              section 415

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I want to discuss a measure that 
will deal with a problem with the pension limits in section 415 of the 
Tax Code as they relate to multiemployer pension plans. This is a 
problem I have been trying to fix for years.
  Section 415, as it currently stands, deprives working people of the 
pensions they deserve. In 1996, Congress addressed part of the problem 
by relieving public employees from the limits of section 415. It is 
only proper that Congress does the same for private workers covered by 
multiemployer plans.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How does the current language of section 415 deprive 
workers of the pensions they earn?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is a good question. It is a difficult issue that 
points to the complexity of the current Tax Code. Section 415 
negatively impacts employees who have had various employers. Currently, 
the pension level is set at the employee's highest consecutive 3-year 
average salary. With fluctuations in industry, often times employees 
have up and down years rather than steady increases in their wages. 
This is especially true for those in the construction industries and 
other sectors that fluctuate with the local economic conditions. 
Fluctuations in work and income from year-to-year can skew the 3-year 
salary average for the employee, resulting in a lower pension when the 
worker retires.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senior Senator from Alaska have any examples 
of how section 415 negatively impacts workers in multiemployer plans?
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Budget Committee chairman for asking about 
section 415's real impact. An example of section 415's impact 
illustrates how unfairly the current law treats working people in 
multiemployer plans. Take, for instance, a woman who held two jobs 
before retiring. Upon leaving her first job she had accrued a monthly 
retirement benefit of $474 per month. In her second job she was 
employed for 15 years by a local union and her highest annual salary 
was $15,600. When she retires she applies for pension benefits from the 
two plans by which she was covered. She had earned a monthly benefit of 
$1,000 from the one plan and combined this with the monthly benefit of 
$474 from the second plan for a total monthly income of $1,474 or 
$17,688 per year. She looked forward to receiving this full amount 
throughout her retirement. However, the benefits had to be reduced by 
$202 per month, or about $2,400 per year to match her highest annual 
salary of $15,600. The so-called ``compensation based limit'' of 
section 415 of the Tax Code did not to take into account disparate 
benefits, but intended only to address people with a single employer 
likely to receive steady increases in salary.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does this affect all retirees with pension plans?
  Mr. STEVENS. No. Section 415 treats public employees differently from 
workers in multiemployer plans. If she had been a public employee 
covered by a public plan, her pension would not be cut. This is because 
public pensions plans are not restricted by the compensation-based 
limit language of section 415. This robs employees in multiemployer 
plans of the money they have earned simply because they were not public 
employees.

  Mr. DOMENICI. How does the current treatment of section 415 comport 
with recent efforts to increase pension education and to encourage 
people to save for retirement?
  Mr. STEVENS. We do look for ways to encourage people to save for 
retirement and we try to educate people of the fact that relying on 
Social Security alone will not be enough. Yet the law may penalize many 
private sector employees in multiemployer plans by arbitrarily limiting 
the amount of pension benefits they can receive. It is wrong, and it 
should be fixed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How would the proposed changes to section 415 impact 
the treasury?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last year that 
the changes adopted by the Senate on July 30th and included in my 
proposal would result in a tax expenditure of $4 million in the first 
year, $26 million over 5 years and $69 million over 10 years. It is a 
modest price to pay to ensure that people who have worked all their 
life can get the retirement benefits they are entitled to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is not a new issue, is it?
  Mr. STEVENS. No. It is an issue I have been involved with since the 
mid-1980's. Since that time we have seen thousands of working people in 
multiemployer plans retire with benefits below what they actually 
earned. I cosponsored S. 1209 with Senator Murkoswki in this session to 
address the problems of section 415. The provisions of that bill were 
accepted by the Senate Finance Committee and were included in section 
346 of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 passed by the Senate. That 
provision would have:
  (1) Eliminated the application of the 100 percent of compensation 
defined benefit plan limit for multiemployer plans;
  (2) Not allowed multiemployer plans to be aggregated with other plans

[[Page S14395]]

maintained by an employer contributing to the multiemployer plan in 
applying the limits on contributions and benefits except in applying 
the define benefit plan dollar limitation;
  (3) Applied the special rules for defined benefit plans of 
governmental employers to multiemployer plans, thus eliminating the 
high-three-year average limitation; and
  (4) Increased reductions of the dollar limit prior to age 62 for 
defined benefit plans of governmental employers and tax-exempt 
organizations, qualified Merchant Marine plans and multiemployer plans 
from $75,000 to 80 percent of the defined benefit dollar limit.
  In addition, measures to relieve the inequity of applying the three 
year high average had been passed three times prior to the passage of 
the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 by the Senate, most recently in the 
1997 Taxpayer Relief Act.
  The provisions contained in the Domenici Amendment to the bankruptcy 
bill would:
  (1) Increase the limit for defined benefit plans from $90,000 to 
$160,000;
  (2) Increase the limit to be adjusted before the Social Security 
retirement age from $90,000 to $160,000; and
  (3) Increase contribution limits from $30,000 to $40,000.
  While these proposals are important to ensuring retirees get the 
benefits they deserve, they do not go far enough to create parity 
between retirees in multiemployer plans and retirees in public plans.
  Mr. NICKLES. Note that the Senate Finance Committee approved most of 
the provisions outlined by Senator Stevens and later all of the 
provisions in his proposal were included in the Senate version of the 
Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 that passed the Senate on July 30th. The 
problems for working people in multiemployer plans associated with 
section 415 concern me and I understand the Budget Chairman will join 
me in working to secure the provisions described by Senator Stevens.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. The assistant majority leader is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the distinguished budget chairman and the 
assistant majority leader.

                          ____________________