89–010 

NOTICE: In lieu of a star print, errata are printed to indicate corrections to the original report. 

Calendar No. 208 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 111–110 

ERRATA 

DECEMBER 17, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1490] 

CORRECTIONS 

The report (111–110) failed to include the following Supplemental Views. They should follow the Minority Views in the report. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATORS SESSIONS, 

GRASSLEY, AND COBURN 

PERSONAL DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009 

In addition to the concerns expressed by Senators Sessions and 

Kyl in the minority views of the report on the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2009, we are concerned about Section 104, 

which amends the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer 

Protection Act (Bankruptcy Act). Section 104 was added by Senator 

Whitehouse during consideration of a substantially similar bill during the 110th Congress, and the provision remains in this version 

of the bill. This section adjusts the ‘‘means test’’ in the Bankruptcy 

Act to exempt debtors who are the victims of identity theft if they 

meet at least one of the following minimal requirements: the identity theft either results in at least $20,000 in debt in one year, 50 

percent of the debtor’s bankruptcy claims, or 25 percent of the 

debtor’s gross income for a 12-month period. Contrary to the majority’s assertions, the provision does not specify that a debtor will be 

exempted from the means test only if they are in bankruptcy due 

to identity theft. In fact, a debtor with significant resources could 

satisfy one of these three requirements, exempting them from the 

means test unnecessarily. In addition, the language of the section 

states that a debtor may be exempt from the means test if they 

merely assert that a fraud was ‘‘attempted’’ against them; the provision requires no proof of this attempt beyond mere testimony. 

Consequently, any debtor could claim identity theft has occurred 

and escape the means test. This provision is also unnecessary because debtors already have a defense against claims arising from 

identity theft, namely that they did not incur the debt. Finally, this 

provision is nongermane to data security and notification and is 

structurally unnecessary. Senator Grassley, the lead sponsor of the 

Bankruptcy Act, noted during the markup of this bill in the 110th 

Congress that the ‘‘special circumstances’’ language already contained in the Bankruptcy Act contemplates just this kind of situation, obviating the need for this language. 

For these reasons, during the markup, Senator Coburn offered 

an amendment to S. 1490 that would have stripped this provision 

from the bill. In response, Senator Whitehouse offered to work with 

Senator Coburn on the language of this provision, and based on 

those assurances, Senator Coburn withdrew his amendment. We 

intend to continue working with Senator Whitehouse to alleviate 

our concerns with this provision prior to consideration by the full 

Senate. 

CHUCK GRASSLEY. 

TOM COBURN. 

JEFF SESSIONS. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS