author: Justice Marshall Justice Scalia,

text:
    BEGIER, TRUSTEE v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
    No. 89-393.
    Argued March 27, 1990
    Decided June 4, 1990

      Marshall, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Connor, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 67.

      Paul J. Winterhalter argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

      Brian J. Martin argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Peterson, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, and Gary D. Gray.

   Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether a trustee in bankruptcy may “avoid” (i. e., recover) from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) payments of certain withholding and excise taxes that the debtor made before it filed for bankruptcy. We hold that the funds paid here were not the property of the debtor prior to payment; instead, they were held in trust by the debtor for the IRS. We accordingly conclude that the trustee may not recover the funds.

I

American International Airways, Inc. (AIA), was a commercial airline. As an employer, AIA was required to withhold federal income taxes and to collect Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes from its employees’ wages. 26 U. S. C. § 3402(a) (income taxes); § 3102(a) (FICA taxes). As an airline, it was required to collect excise taxes from its customers for payment to the IRS. § 4291. Because the amount of these taxes is “held to be a special fund in trust for the United States,” § 7501, they are often called “trust-fund taxes.” See, e. g., Slodov v. United States, 436 U. S. 238, 241 (1978). By early 1984, AIA had fallen behind in its payments of its trust-fund taxes to the Government. In February of that year, the IRS ordered AIA to deposit all trust-fund taxes it collected thereafter into a separate bank account. AIA established the account, but did not deposit funds sufficient to cover the entire amount of its trust-fund tax obligations. It nonetheless remained current on these obligations through June 1984, paying the IRS $695,000 from the separate bank account and $946,434 from its general operating funds. AIA and the IRS agreed that all of these payments would be allocated to specific trust-fund tax obligations.

On July 19, 1984, AIA petitioned for relief from its creditors under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq. (1982 ed.). AIA unsuccessfully operated as a debtor in possession for three months. Accordingly, on September 19, the Bankruptcy Court appointed petitioner Harry P. Begier, Jr., trustee, and a plan of liquidation in Chapter 11 was confirmed. Among the powers of a trustee is the power under § 547(b) to avoid certain payments made by the debtor that would “enabl[e] a creditor to receive payment of a greater percentage of his claim against the debtor than he would have received if the transfer had not been made and he had participated in the distribution of the assets of the bankrupt estate.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 177 (1977). Seeking to exercise his avoidance power, Begier filed an adversary action against the Government to recover the entire amount that AIA had paid the IRS for trust-fund taxes during the 90 days before the bankruptcy filing.

The Bankruptcy Court found for the Government in part and for the trustee in part. In re American International Airways, Inc., 83 B. R. 324 (ED Pa. 1988). It refused to permit the trustee to recover any of the money AIA had paid out of the separate account on the theory that AIA had held that money in trust for the IRS. Id., at 327. It allowed the trustee to avoid most of the payments that AIA had made out of its general accounts, however, holding that “only where a tax trust fund is actually established by the debtor and the taxing authority is able to trace funds segregated by the debtor in a trust account established for the purpose of paying the taxes in question would we conclude that such funds are not property of the debtor’s estate.” Id., at 329. The District Court affirmed. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-22-A-26. On appeal by the Government, the Third Circuit reversed, holding that any prepetition payment of trust-fund taxes is a payment of funds that are not the debtor’s property and that such a payment is therefore not an avoidable preference. 878 F. 2d 762 (1989). We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1017 (1990), and we now affirm.

H

>

Equality of distribution among creditors is a central policy of the Bankruptcy Code. According to that policy, creditors of equal priority should receive pro rata shares of the debt-or’s property. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 726(b) (1982 ed.); H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 177-178. Section 547(b) furthers this policy by permitting a trustee in bankruptcy to avoid certain preferential payments made before the debtor files for bankruptcy. This mechanism prevents the debtor from favoring one creditor over others by transferring property shortly before filing for bankruptcy. Of course, if the debtor transfers property that would not have been available for distribution to his creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding, the policy behind the avoidance power is not implicated. The reach of § 547(b)’s avoidance power is therefore limited to transfers of “property of the debtor.”

The Bankruptcy Code does not define “property of the debtor.” Because the purpose of the avoidance provision is to preserve the property includable within the bankruptcy estate—the property available for distribution to creditors — “property of the debtor” subject to the preferential transfer provision is best understood as that property that would have been part of the estate had it not been transferred before the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. For guidance, then, we must turn to § 541, which delineates the scope of “property of the estate” and serves as the postpetition analog to § 547(b)’s “property of the debtor.”

Section 541(a)(1) provides that the “property of the estate” includes “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” Section 541(d) provides:

“Property in which the debtor holds, as of the commencement of the case, only legal title and not an equitable interest . . . becomes property of the estate under subsection (a) of this section only to the extent of the debtor’s legal title to such property, but not to the extent of any equitable interest in such property that the debtor does not hold.”

Because the debtor does not own an equitable interest in property he holds in trust for another, that interest is not “property of the estate.” Nor is such an equitable interest “property of the debtor” for purposes of § 547(b). As the parties agree, then, the issue in this case is whether the money AIA transferred from its general operating accounts to the IRS was property that AIA had held in trust for the IRS.

B

We begin with the language of 26 U. S. C. § 7501, the Internal Revenue Code’s trust-fund tax provision: “Whenever any person is required to collect or withhold any internal revenue tax from any other person and to pay over such tax to the United States, the amount of tax so collected or withheld shall be held to be a special fund in trust for the United States.” The statutory trust extends, then, only to “the amount of tax so collected or withheld.” Begier argues that a trust-fund tax is not “collected or withheld” until specific funds are either sent to the IRS with the relevant return or placed in a segregated fund. AIA neither put the funds paid from its general operating accounts in a separate account nor paid them to the IRS before the beginning of the preference period. Begier therefore contends that no trust was ever created with respect to those funds and that the funds paid to the IRS were therefore property of the debtor.

We disagree. The Internal Revenue Code directs “every person receiving any payment for facilities or services” subject to excise taxes to “collect the amount of the tax from the person making such payment.” § 4291. It also requires that an employer “collec[t]” FICA taxes from its employees “by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid.” § 3102(a) (emphasis added). Both provisions make clear that the act of “collecting” occurs at the time of payment—the recipient’s payment for the service in the case of excise taxes and the employer’s payment of wages in the case of FICA taxes. The mere fact that AIA neither placed the taxes it collected in a segregated fund nor paid them to the IRS does not somehow mean that AIA never collected the taxes in the first place.

The same analysis applies to taxes the Internal Revenue Code requires that employers “withhold.” Section 3402(a) (1) requires that “every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages [the employee’s federal income tax].” (Emphasis added.) Withholding thus occurs at the time of payment to the employee of his net wages. S. Rep. No. 95-1106, p. 33 (1978) (“[A]ssume that a debtor owes an employee $100 for salary on which there is required withholding of $20. If the debtor paid the employee $80, there has been $20 withheld. If, instead, the debtor paid the employee $85, there has been withholding of $15 (which is not property of the debtor’s estate in bankruptcy)”). See Slodov, 436 U. S., at 243 (stating that “[t]here is no general requirement that the withheld sums be segregated from the employer’s general funds,” and thereby necessarily implying that the sums are “withheld” whether or not segregated). The common meaning of “withholding” supports our interpretation. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2627 (1981) (defining “withholding” to mean “the act or procedure of deducting a tax payment from income at the source”) (emphasis added).

Our reading of § 7501 is reinforced by § 7512, which permits the IRS, upon proper notice, to require a taxpayer who has failed timely “to collect, truthfully account for, or pay over [trust-fund taxes],” or who has failed timely “to make deposits, payments, or returns of such tax,” § 7512(a)(1), to “deposit such amount in a separate account in a bank . . . and . . . keep the amount of such taxes in such account until payment over to the United States,” § 7512(b). If we were to read § 7501 to mandate segregation as a prerequisite to the creation of the trust, § 7512’s requirement that funds be segregated in special and limited circumstances would become superfluous. Moreover, petitioner’s suggestion that we read a segregation requirement into § 7501 would mean that an employer could avoid the creation of a trust simply by refusing to segregate. Nothing in § 7501 indicates, however, that Congress wanted the IRS to be protected only insofar as dictated by the debtor’s whim. We conclude, therefore, that AIA created a trust within the meaning of § 7501 at the moment the relevant payments (from customers to AIA for excise taxes and from AIA to its employees for FICA and income taxes) were made.

C

Our holding that a trust for the benefit of the IRS existed is not alone sufficient to answer the question presented by this case: whether the particular dollars that AIA paid to the IRS from its general operating accounts were “property of the debtor.” Only if those particular funds were held in trust for the IRS do they escape characterization as “property of the debtor.” All § 7501 reveals is that AIA at one point created a trust for the IRS; that section provides no rule by which we can decide whether the assets AIA used to pay the IRS were assets belonging to that trust.

In the absence of specific statutory guidance on how we are to determine whether the assets transferred to the IRS were trust property, we might naturally begin with the common-law rules that have been created to answer such questions about other varieties of trusts. Unfortunately, such rules are of limited utility in the context of the trust created by § 7501. Under common-law principles, a trust is created in property; a trust therefore does not come into existence until the settlor identifies an ascertainable interest in property to be the trust res. G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 111 (rev. 2d ed. 1984); 1A W. Fratcher, Scott on Trusts § 76 (4th ed. 1987). A § 7501 trust is radically different from the common-law paradigm, however. That provision states that “the amount of [trust-fund] tax . . . collected or withheld shall be held to be a special fund in trust for the United States.” (Emphasis added.) Unlike a common-law trust, in which the settlor sets aside particular property as the trust res, § 7501 creates a trust in an abstract “amount”—a dollar figure not tied to any particular assets —rather than in the actual dollars withheld. Common-law tracing rules, designed for a system in which particular property is identified as the trust res, are thus unhelpful in this special context.

Federal law delineating the nature of the relationship between the § 7501 trust and preferential transfer rules is limited. The only case in which we have explored that topic at any length is United States v. Randall, 401 U. S. 513 (1971), a case dealing with a postpetition transfer of property to discharge trust-fund tax obligations that the debtor had accrued prepetition. There, a court had ordered a debtor in possession to maintain a separate account for its withheld federal income and FICA taxes, but the debtor did not comply. When the debtor was subsequently adjudicated a bankrupt, the United States sought to recover from the debtor’s general assets the amount of withheld taxes ahead of the expenses of the bankruptcy proceeding. The Government argued that the debtor held the amount of taxes due in trust for the IRS and that this amount could be traced to the funds the debtor had in its accounts when the bankruptcy petition was filed. The trustee maintained that no trust had been created because the debtor had not segregated the funds. The Court declined directly to address either of these contentions. Id., at 515. Rather, the Court simply refused to permit the IRS to recover the taxes ahead of administrative expenses, stating that “the statutory policy of subordinating taxes to costs and expenses of administration would not be served by creating or enforcing trusts which eat up an estate, leaving little or nothing for creditors and court officers whose goods and services created the assets.” Id., at 517.

In 1978, Congress fundamentally restructured bankruptcy law by passing the new Bankruptcy Code. Among the changes Congress decided to make was a modification of the rule this Court had enunciated in Randall under the old Bankruptcy Act. The Senate bill attacked Randall directly, providing in § 541 that trust-fund taxes withheld or collected prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition were not “property of the estate.” See S. Rep. No. 95-1106, at 33. See also ibid. (“These amounts will not be property of the estate regardless of whether such amounts have been segregated from other assets of the debtor by way of a special account, fund, or otherwise, or are deemed to be a special fund in trust pursuant to provisions of applicable tax law”) (footnote omitted). The House bill did not deal explicitly with the problem of trust-fund taxes, but the House Report stated that “property of the estate” would not include property held in trust for another. See H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 368. Congress was unable to hold a conference, so the Senate and House floor managers met to reach compromises on the differences between the two bills. See 124 Cong. Rec. 32392 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Edwards); Klee, Legislative History of the New Bankruptcy Law, 28 DePaul L. Rev. 941, 953-954 (1979). The compromise reached with respect to the relevant portion of § 541, which applies to postpetition transfers, was embodied in the eventually enacted House amendment and explicitly provided that “in the case of property held in trust, the property of the estate includes the legal title, but not the beneficial interest in the property.” 124 Cong. Rec., at 32417 (remarks of Rep. Edwards). Cf. id., at 32363 (text of House amendment). Accordingly, the Senate language specifying that withheld or collected trust-fund taxes are not part of the bankruptcy estate was deleted as “unnecessary since property of the estate does not include the beneficial interest in property held by the debtor as a trustee. Under [§ 7051], the amounts of withheld taxes are held to be a special fund in trust for the United States.” Id., at 32417 (remarks of Rep. Edwards).

Representative Edwards discussed the effects of the House language on the rule established by Randall, indicating that the House amendment would supplant that rule:

“[A] serious problem exists where ‘trust fund taxes’ withheld from others are held to be property of the estate where the withheld amounts are commingled with other assets of the debtor. The courts should permit the use of reasonable assumptions under which the Internal Revenue Service, and other tax authorities, can demonstrate that amounts of withheld taxes are still in the possession of the debtor at the commencement of the case.” Ibid.

The context of Representative Edwards’ comment makes plain that he was discussing whether a postpetition payment of trust-fund taxes involved “property of the estate.” This focus is not surprising given that Randall, the case Congress was addressing, involved a postpetition demand for payment by the IRS. But Representative Edwards’ discussion also applies to the question whether a pre petition payment is made from “property of the debtor.” We have explained that “property of the debtor” is that property that would have been part of the estate had it not been transferred before the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. Supra, at 58. The same “reasonable assumptions” therefore apply in both contexts.

The strict rule of Randall thus did not survive the adoption of the new Bankruptcy Code. But by requiring the IRS to “demonstrate that amounts of taxes withheld are still in the possession of the debtor at the commencement of the case [i. e., at the filing of the petition],” 124 Cong. Rec., at 32417 (remarks of Rep. Edwards), Congress expected that the IRS would have to show some connection between the § 7501 trust and the assets sought to be applied to a debtor’s trust-fund tax obligations. See United States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U. S. 198, 205, n. 10 (1983) (IRS cannot exclude funds from the estate if it cannot trace them to § 7501 trust property). The question in this case is how extensive the required nexus must be. The Bankruptcy Code provides no explicit answer, and Representative Edwards’ admonition that courts should “permit the use of reasonable assumptions” does not add much. The House Report does, however, give sufficient guidance regarding those assumptions to permit us to conclude that the nexus requirement is satisfied here. That Report states:

“A payment of withholding taxes constitutes a payment of money held in trust under Internal Revenue Code § 7501(a), and thus will not be a preference because the beneficiary of the trust, the taxing authority, is in a separate class with respect to those taxes, if they have been properly held for payment, as they will have been if the debtor is able to make the payments.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 373.

Under a literal reading of the above passage, the bankruptcy trustee could not avoid any voluntary prepetition payment of trust-fund taxes, regardless of the source of the funds. As the House Report expressly states, the limitation that the funds must “have been properly held for payment” is satisfied “if the debtor is able to make the payments.” The debtor’s act of voluntarily paying its trust-fund tax obligation therefore is alone sufficient to establish the required nexus between the “amount” held in trust and the funds paid.

We adopt this literal reading. In the absence of any suggestion in the Bankruptcy Code about what tracing rules to apply, we are relegated to the legislative history. The courts are directed to apply “reasonable assumptions” to govern the tracing of funds, and the House Report identifies one such assumption to be that any voluntary prepetition payment of trust-fund taxes out of the debtor’s assets is not a transfer of the debtor’s property. Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code or its legislative history casts doubt on the reasonableness of that assumption. Other rules might be reasonable, too, but the only evidence we have suggests that Congress preferred this one. We see no reason to disregard that evidence.

III

We hold that AIA’s payments of trust-fund taxes to the IRS from its general accounts were not transfers of “property of the debtor,” but were instead transfers of property held in trust for the Government pursuant to § 7501. Such payments therefore cannot be avoided as preferences. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in the judgment.

Representative Edwards, the House floor manager for the bill that enacted the Bankruptcy Code, said on the floor that “[t]he courts should permit the use of reasonable assumptions” regarding the tracing of tax trust funds. 124 Cong. Rec. 32417 (1978). We do not know that anyone except the presiding officer was present to hear Representative Edwards. Indeed, we do not know for sure that Representative Edwards’ words were even uttered on the floor rather than inserted into the Congressional Record afterwards. If Representative Edwards did speak these words, and if there were others present, they must have been surprised to hear him talking about the tracing of 26 U. S. C. § 7501 tax trust funds, inasmuch as the bill under consideration did not relate to the Internal Revenue Code but the Bankruptcy Code, and contained no provision even mentioning trust-fund taxes. Only the Senate bill, and not the House proposal, had mentioned trust-fund taxes—and even the former had said nothing whatever about the tracing of tax trust funds. See S. 2266, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., § 541 (1978). Only the Senate Committee Report on the unenacted provision of the Senate bill had discussed that subject. See S. Rep. No. 95-1106, p. 33 (1978).

Nonetheless, on the basis of Representative Edwards’ statement, today’s opinion concludes that “[t]he courts are directed” (presumably it means directed by the entire Congress, and not just Representative Edwards) “to apply ‘reasonable assumptions’ to govern the tracing of funds.” Ante, at 67 (emphasis added). I do not agree. Congress conveys its directions in the Statutes at Large, not in excerpts from the Congressional Record, much less in excerpts from the Congressional Record that do not clarify the text of any pending legislative proposal.

Even in the absence of direction to do so, however, I certainly think we should apply reasonable assumptions to govern the tracing of funds. Unfortunately, that still does not answer the question before us here. One “traces” a fund only after one identifies the fund in the first place. The problem here is not “following the res” of the tax trust, but identifying the res to begin with. Seeking to come to grips with this point, the Court once again resorts to legislative history, this time even further afield. It relies upon the House Report on what later became 11 U. S. C. § 547, which says:

“A payment of withholding taxes constitutes a payment of money held in trust under Internal Revenue Code § 7501(a), and thus will not be a preference because the beneficiary of the trust, the taxing authority, is in a separate class with respect to those taxes, if they have been properly held for payment, as they will have been if the debtor is able to make the payments.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 373 (1977).

The Court decides this case by “adopting” “a literal reading” of the above language. Ante, at 66. I think it both demeaning and unproductive for us to ponder whether to adopt literal or not-so-literal readings of Committee Reports, as though they were controlling statutory text. Moreover, even applying the lax legislative-history standards of recent years, this Committee Report should not be considered relevant. If a welfare bill conditioned benefits upon a certain maximum level of “income,” courts might well (regrettably) regard as authoritative the Committee Report’s statement that “income” means “income as computed under the Internal Revenue Code”; but surely they would not regard as authoritative its statement that a particular class of receipt constitutes income under the Internal Revenue Code. Authoritativeness oh the latter sort of point is what the Court accepts here. The proposed (and ultimately enacted) provision of law to which this Committee Report pertained was the general provision of the Bankruptcy Code setting forth the five conditions for a voidable preference, reading in part as follows:

“Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the trustee may avoid any transfer of property of the debtor —
“(1) to or for the benefit of a creditor;
“(2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made;
“(3) made while the debtor was insolvent;
“(4) made . . . on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition . . . ; and
“(5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such creditor would receive [under a chapter 7 bankruptcy distribution].” H. R. 8200, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., § 547(b) (1977); see 11 U. S. C. § 547(b).

The Committee Report’s discussion of withholding taxes paid during the preference period presumably clarifies the meaning of the phrase “property of the debtor” in this text. If that is authoritative concerning the construction and effect of § 7501, imagine what other laws concerning “property of the debtor” could also have been enacted through discussion in this Committee Report. The matter seems to me plainly too far beyond the immediate focus of the legislation to be deemed resolved by the accompanying Committee Report. It was certainly thoughtful of whoever drafted the report to try to clear up the issue of what kind of an estate, legal or equitable, the debtor possesses in trust-fund taxes that are paid, but that discussion is a kind of legislative-history “rider” that even the most ardent devotees of legislative history should ignore.

If the Court had applied to the text of the statute the standard tools of legal reasoning, instead of scouring the legislative history for some scrap that is on point (and therefore ipso facto relevant, no matter how unlikely a source of congressional reliance or attention), it would have reached the same result it does today, as follows: Section 7501 obviously intends to give the United States the advantages of a trust beneficiary with respect to collected and withheld taxes. Unfortunately, it does not always succeed in doing so. A trust without a res can no more be created by legislative decree than can a pink rock-candy mountain. In the nature of things no trust exists until a res is identified. Ordinarily the res is identified by the settlor of the trust; in the case of § 7501 it is initially identified (if at all) by the statute, subject (as I shall discuss) to later reidentification by the taxpayer. Where the taxes subject to the trust-fund provision of § 7501 are collected taxes, the statute plainly identifies the res: it is the collections. There may be difficulty in tracing them, but there is no doubt that they exist. Where, however, the taxes subject to the trust-fund provision are withheld taxes, the statute provides no clear identification. When I pay a worker $90 there is no clearly identifiable locus of the $10 in withheld taxes that I do not pay him. Indeed, if my total assets at the time of the payment are $90 there is no conceivable locus.

We may have to grapple at some later date with the question whether the lack of immediate identification means that no trust arises, or rather that § 7501 creates some hitherto unheard-of floating trust in an unidentified portion of the taxpayer’s current or later-acquired assets. We do not have to reach that question today, because even though identification was not made by the statute immediately, it was made by the taxpayer when it wrote a check upon a portion of a designated fund to the Government. (It is clear from the statutory scheme that the taxpayer has the power to identify which portion of its assets constitutes the trust fund; indeed, 26 U. S. C. § 7512 permits the Government to compel such identification where it has not been made.) Even if no trust existed before that check was written, it is clear that a trust existed then. See 1 W. Fratcher, Scott on Trusts § 26.5 (4th ed. 1987) (promise to create trust becomes effective when settlor transfers or otherwise designates res as trust property).

The designation here, however, occurred within the 90-day preference period. Ordinarily, the debtor’s alienation of his equitable interest by declaring a trust would constitute a preference. It seems to me, however, that one must at least give this effect to § 7501’s clearly expressed but sometimes ineffectual intent to create an immediate trust: If and when the trust res is identified from otherwise unencumbered assets, the trust should be deemed to have been in existence from the time of the collection or withholding. Thus, the designation of res does not constitute a preference, and the funds paid were not part of the debtor’s estate.

For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

       This case is governed by 11 U. S. C. § 547(b) (1982 ed.), which reads:
      “Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the trustee may avoid any transfer of property of the debtor—
      “(1) to or for the benefit of a creditor;
      “(2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made;
      “(3) made while the debtor was insolvent;
      “(4) made—
      “(A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition; or
      “(B) between 90 days and one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor, at the time of such transfer—
      “(i) was an insider; and
      “(ii) had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent at the time of such transfer; and
      “(5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such creditor would receive if—
      “(A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title;
      “(B) the transfer had not been made; and

        “(C) such creditor received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the provisions of this title.”
      The statute has been amended to replace “property of the debtor” with “an interest of the debtor in property.” See n. 3, infra. The old version of § 547(b) applies to this case, however, because AIA filed its bankruptcy petition before the effective date of the amendment.

       No other Court of Appeals has decided a case that presents the precise issue we decide here. The Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits have, however, resolved against the taxing authorities cases presenting related issues. See In re R & T Roofing Structures & Commercial Framing, Inc., 887 F. 2d 981, 987 (CA9 1989) (rejecting the Government’s argument that assets the IRS seized from a debtor to satisfy a trust-fund tax obligation before the debtor filed its bankruptcy petition were assets held in trust for the Government under 26 U. S. C. § 7501, and therefore deciding that the transfer effected by the seizure involved “property of the debtor” and was not exempt from avoidance); Drabkin v. District of Columbia, 263 U. S. App. D. C. 122, 125, 824 F. 2d 1102, 1105 (1987) (reaching a similar conclusion with respect to a voluntary payment of withheld District of Columbia employee income taxes in a case governed by a provision of local law that “essentially mirror[ed]” § 7501).

       To the extent the 1984 amendments to § 547(b) are relevant, they confirm our view that § 541 guides our analysis of what property is “property of the debtor” for purposes of § 547(b). Among the changes was the substitution of “an interest of the debtor in property” for “property of the debtor.” 11 U. S. C. § 547(b) (1988 ed.). Section 547(b) thus now mirrors § 541's definition of “property of the estate” as certain “interests of the debtor in property.” 11 U. S. C. § 541(a)(1) (1988 ed.). The Senate Report introducing a predecessor to the bill that amended § 547(b) described the new language as a “clarifying change.” S. Rep. No. 98-65, p. 81 (1983). We therefore read both the older language (“property of the debtor”) and the current language (“an interest of the debtor in property”) as coextensive with “interests of the debtor in property” as that term is used in 11 U. S. C. § 541(a)(1) (1988 ed.).

       The general common-law rule that a trust is not created absent a designation of particular property obviously does not invalidate § 7501's creation of a trust in the “amount” of withheld taxes. The common law of trusts is not binding on Congress.

       Because of the absence of a conference and the key roles played by Representative Edwards and his counterpart floor manager Senator DeConcini, we have treated their floor statements on the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 as persuasive evidence of congressional intent. See, e. g., Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, 471 U. S. 343, 351 (1985). Cf. 124 Cong. Rec. 32391 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Rousselot) (expressing view that remarks of floor manager of the Act have “the effect of being a conference report”).

       Petitioner’s claim that this legislative history is irrelevant because the House Bill was not enacted is in error. The exact language to which the quoted portion of the House Report refers was enacted into law. Compare §647(b) with H. R. 8200, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., § 547(b) (1977). The version of § 541 that was eventually enacted is different from the original House bill, but only in that it makes explicit rather than implicit that “property of the estate” does not include the beneficiary’s equitable interest in property held in trust by the debtor. Compare § 541(d) with H. R. 8200, supra, § 541(a)(1).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Blackmun

license: Public Domain

text:
    ENGLISH v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
    No. 89-152.
    Argued April 25, 1990
    Decided June 4, 1990

      Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      M. Travis Payne argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Arthur M. Schiller.

      Christopher J. Wright argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Deputy Solicitor General Roberts, Allen H. Feldman, Steven J. Mandel, and Jeffrey A. Hennemuth.

      Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Rex E. Lee, Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr., Philip A. Lacovara, and Barton A. Smith.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Attorney General of North Carolina et al. by Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, pro se, John C. Brooks, pro se, Donnell Van Noppen III, and Michael G. Okun; for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Benna Ruth Solomon; and for the Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association by J. Michael McGuinness and Paul Tobias.

        Nicholas S. Reynolds and Richard K. Walker filed a brief for the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc., as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
      Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Government Accountability Project by Louis A. Clark; and for the National Whistleblower Center by Stephen M. Kohn and Michael D. Kohn.

   Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the particular context of this case we must decide whether federal law pre-empts a state-law cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit is brought by an employee of a nuclear-fuels production facility against her employer and arises out of actions by the employer allegedly taken in retaliation for the employee’s nuclear-safety complaints.

I

Petitioner Vera M. English was employed from 1972 to 1984 as a laboratory technician at the nuclear-fuels production facility operated by respondent General Electric Company (GE) in Wilmington, N. C. In February 1984, petitioner complained to GE’s management and to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about several perceived violations of nuclear-safety standards at the facility, including the failure of her co-workers to clean up radioactive material spills in the laboratory.

Frustrated by the company’s failure to address her concerns, petitioner on one occasion deliberately failed to clean a work table contaminated with a uranium solution during a preceding shift. Instead, she outlined the contaminated areas with red tape so as to make them conspicuous. A few days later, petitioner called her supervisor’s attention to the marked-off areas, which still had not been cleaned. As a result, work was halted while the laboratory was inspected and cleaned.

Shortly after this episode, GE charged petitioner with a knowing failure to clean up radioactive contamination and temporarily assigned her to other work. On April 30, 1984, GE’s management informed petitioner that she would be laid off unless, within 90 days, she successfully bid for a position in an area of the facility where she would not be exposed to nuclear materials. On May 15, petitioner was notified of the company’s final decision affirming the disciplinary action taken against her. Petitioner did not find another position by July 30, and her employment was terminated.

In August, petitioner filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor charging GE with violating § 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as added, 92 Stat. 2951, 42 U. S. C. § 5851(a) (1982 ed.), which makes it unlawful for an employer in the nuclear industry to

“discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee . . .
“(1) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to commence or cause to be commenced a proceeding under, this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
“(2) testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or;
“(3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding . . . or in any other action to carry out the purposes of this Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.”

In her charge, petitioner alleged that GE’s actions constituted unlawful employment discrimination in retaliation for her nuclear-safety complaints to GE’s management and to the NRC. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to whom the matter was referred found that GE had violated § 210(a) when it transferred and then discharged petitioner. The Secretary, however, dismissed the complaint as untimely because it had not been filed, as required by § 210(b)(1), within 30 days after the May 15 notice of the company’s final decision.

In March 1987, petitioner filed a diversity action against GE in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Petitioner in four counts raised two claims, one for wrongful discharge and one for intentional infliction of emotional distress. With respect to the latter, petitioner alleged that she was suffering from severe depression and emotional harm as a result of GE’s “extreme and outrageous conduct.” App. 20. Petitioner alleged that, in addition to transferring and ultimately firing her, GE (1) had removed her from the laboratory position under guard “as if she were a criminal,” id., at 14; (2) had assigned her to degrading “make work” in her substitute assignment, ibid.; (3) had derided her as paranoid; (4) had barred her from working in controlled areas; (5) had placed her under constant surveillance during working hours; (6) had isolated her from coworkers, even during lunch periods; and (7) had conspired to charge her fraudulently with violations of safety and criminal laws. Id., at 14-17. Petitioner sought punitive as well as compensatory damages.

Although the District Court concluded that petitioner had stated a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law, it nonetheless granted GE’s motion to dismiss. 683 F. Supp. 1006, 1017-1018 (1988). The court did not accept GE’s argument that petitioner’s claim fell within the field of nuclear safety, a field that, according to GE, had been completely pre-empted by the Federal Government. The court held, however, that petitioner’s claim was pre-empted because it conflicted with three particular aspects of § 210: (1) a provision that bars recovery under the section to any employee who “deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of [the Energy Reorganization Act,] or of the Atomic Energy Act,” § 210(g); (2) the absence of any provision generally authorizing the Secretary to award exemplary or punitive damages; and (3) the provisions requiring that a whistle-blower invoking the statute file an administrative complaint within 30 days after the violation occurs, and that the Secretary resolve the complaint within 90 days after its filing. See §§ 210(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A). In the court’s view, Congress enacted this scheme to foreclose all remedies to whistle-blowers who themselves violate nuclear-safety requirements, to limit exemplary damages awards against the nuclear industry, and to guarantee speedy resolution of allegations of nuclear-safety violations— goals the court found incompatible with the broader remedies petitioner sought under state tort law.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s emotional distress claim on the basis of the District Court’s reasoning. 871 F. 2d 22, 23 (1989). That court concluded that Congress had intended to foreclose nuclear whistle-blowers from pursuing state tort remedies and stated its belief that the District Court “correctly identified and applied the relevant federal and state law.” Id., at 23. Because of an apparent conflict with a decision of the First Circuit, see Norris v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 881 F. 2d 1144 (1989), we granted certiorari. 493 U. S. 1055 (1990).

II

A

The sole question for our resolution is whether the Federal Government has pre-empted petitioner’s state-law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Our cases have established that state law is pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, in three circumstances. First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments pre-empt state law. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 95-98 (1983). Preemption fundamentally is a question of congressional intent, see Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U. S. 293, 299 (1988), and when Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is an easy one.

Second, in the absence of explicit statutory language, state law is pre-empted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively. Such an intent may be inferred from a “scheme of federal regulation . . . so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it,” or where an Act of Congress “touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947). Although this Court has not hesitated to draw an inference of field pre-emption where it is supported by the federal statutory and regulatory schemes, it has emphasized: “Where . . . the field which Congress is said to have pre-empted” includes areas that have “been traditionally occupied by the States,” congressional intent to supersede state laws must be “‘clear and manifest.’” Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977), quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S., at 230.

Finally, state law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Thus, the Court has found pre-emption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements, see, e. g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941). See also Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 747 (1981).

It is undisputed that Congress has not explicitly preempted petitioner’s state-law tort action by inserting specific pre-emptive language into any of its enactments governing the nuclear industry. The District Court and apparently the Court of Appeals did not rest their decisions on a field preemption rationale either, but rather on what they considered an actual tension between petitioner’s cause of action and the congressional goals reflected in § 210. In this Court, respondent seeks to defend the judgment both on the lower courts’ rationale and on the alternative ground that petitioner’s tort claim is located within a field reserved for federal regulation—the field of nuclear safety. Before turning to the specific aspects of § 210 on which the lower courts based their decisions, we address the field pre-emption question.

B

This is not the first case in which the Court has had occasion to consider the extent to which Congress has pre-empted the field of nuclear safety. In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm’n, 461 U. S. 190 (1983), the Court carefully analyzed the congressional enactments relating to the nuclear industry in order to decide whether a California law that conditioned the construction of a nuclear powerplant on a state agency’s approval of the plant’s nuclear-waste storage and disposal facilities fell within a pre-empted field. Although we need not repeat all of that analysis here, we summarize briefly the Court’s discussion of the actions Congress has taken in the nuclear realm and the conclusions it drew from these actions.

Until 1954, the use, control, and ownership of all nuclear technology remained a federal monopoly. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2011 et seq. (1982 ed.), stemmed from Congress’ belief that the national interest would be served if the Government encouraged the private sector to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes under a program of federal regulation and licensing. The Act implemented this policy decision by opening the door to private construction, ownership, and operation of commercial nuclear-power reactors under the strict supervision of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 63 (1978). The AEC was given exclusive authority to license the transfer, delivery, receipt, acquisition, possession, and use of all nuclear materials. As was observed in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 550 (1978): “The [Federal Government’s] prime area of concern in the licensing context . . . [was] national security, public health, and safety.” With respect to these matters, no significant role was contemplated for the States.

In 1959, Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act in order to “clarify the respective responsibilities . . . of the States and the [Federal Government] with respect to the regulation of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials,” 42 U. S. C. § 2021(a)(1) (1982 ed.), and generally to increase the States’ role. The 1959 amendments authorized the AEC, by agreements with state governors, to discontinue the Federal Government’s regulatory authority over certain nuclear materials under specified conditions. State regulatory programs adopted under the amendment were required to be “coordinated and compatible” with those of the AEC. § 2021(g).

In 1974, Congress passed the Energy Reorganization Act, 88 Stat. 1233, 42 U. S. C. § 5801 et seq. (1982 ed.), which abolished the AEC and transferred its regulatory and licensing authority to the NRC. § 5841(f). The 1974 Act also expanded the number and range of safety responsibilities under the NRC’s charge. As was observed in Pacific Gas, the NRC does not purport to exercise its authority based upon economic considerations, but rather is concerned primarily with public health and safety. See 461 U. S., at 207. Finally, in 1978, Congress amended both the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act. Pub. L. 95-601, 92 Stat. 2947. Among these amendments is § 210, 42 U. S. C. § 5851 (1982 ed.), which, as discussed above, encourages employees to report safety violations and provides a mechanism for protecting them against retaliation for doing so.

After reviewing the relevant statutory provisions and legislative history, the Court in Pacific Gas concluded that “the Federal Government has occupied the entire field of nuclear safety concerns, except the limited powers expressly ceded to the States.” 461 U. S., at 212. Although we ultimately determined that the California statute at issue there did not fall within the pre-empted field, we made clear our view that Congress intended that only “the Federal Government should regulate the radiological safety aspects involved in the construction and operation of a nuclear plant.” Id., at 205. In the present dispute, respondent and petitioner disagree as to whether petitioner’s tort action falls within the boundaries of the pre-empted field referred to in Pacific Gas.

Respondent maintains that the pre-empted field of “nuclear safety” is a large one, and that §210 is an integral part of it. Specifically, respondent contends that because the Federal Government is better able to promote nuclear safety if whistle-blowers pursue the federal remedy, the whole area marked off by § 210 should be considered part of the pre-empted field identified in Pacific Gas. Accordingly, respondent argues that all state-law remedies for conduct that is covered by § 210 are pre-empted by Congress’ decision to have the Federal Government exclusively regulate the field of nuclear safety.

Petitioner and the United States as amicus curiae, on their part, contend that petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not pre-empted because the Court made clear in Pacific Gas that state laws supported by nonsafety rationales do not lie within the pre-empted field. They argue that since the state tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is supported by a nonsafety rationale— namely, the State’s “substantial interest in protecting its citizens from the kind of abuse of which [petitioner] complain[s],” see Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U. S. 290, 302 (1977)—petitioner’s cause of action must be allowed to go forward.

We think both arguments are somewhat wide of the mark. With respect to respondent’s contention, we find no “clear and manifest” intent on the part of Congress, in enacting § 210, to pre-empt all state tort laws that traditionally have been available to those persons who, like petitioner, allege outrageous conduct at the hands of an employer. Indeed, acceptance of respondent’s argument would require us to conclude that Congress has displaced not only state tort law, which is at issue in this case, but also state criminal law, to the extent that such criminal law is applied to retaliatory conduct occurring at the site of a nuclear employer. For example, if an employer were to retaliate against a nuclear whistle-blower by hiring thugs to assault the employee on the job (conduct literally covered by § 210), respondent’s position would imply that the state criminal law prohibiting such conduct is within the pre-empted field. We simply cannot believe that Congress intended that result. Instead, we think the District Court was essentially correct in observing that while § 210 obviously bears some relation to the field of nuclear safety, its “paramount” purpose was the protection of employees. See 683 F. Supp., at 1013. Accordingly, we see no basis for respondent’s contention that all state-law claims arising from conduct covered by the section are necessarily included in the pre-empted field.

Nor, however, can we accept petitioner’s position, or the reading of Pacific Gas on which it is based. It is true that the holding in that case was premised, in part, on the conclusion that the California ban on nuclear construction was not motivated by safety concerns. Indeed, the majority of the Court suggested that a “state moratorium on nuclear construction grounded in safety concerns falls squarely within the prohibited field.” 461 U. S., at 213. In other words, the Court defined the pre-empted field, in part, by reference to the motivation behind the state law. This approach to defining the field had some support in the text of the 1959 amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, which provided, among other things, that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect the authority of any State or local agency to regulate activities for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards.” 42 U. S. C. § 2021(k) (1982 ed.) (emphasis added). But the Court did not suggest that a finding of safety motivation was necessary to place a state law within the pre-empted field. On the contrary, it took great pains to make clear that state regulation of matters directly affecting the radiological safety of nuclear-plant construction and operation, “even if enacted out of nonsafety concerns, would nevertheless [infringe upon] the NRC’s exclusive authority.” 461 U. S., at 212. Thus, even as the Court suggested that part of the pre-empted field is defined by reference to the purpose of the state law in question, it made clear that another part of the field is defined by the state law’s actual effect on nuclear safety.

Because it is clear that the state tort law at issue here is not motivated by safety concerns, the former portion of the field argument is not relevant. The real issue, then, is whether petitioner’s tort claim is so related to the “radiological safety aspects involved in the . . . operation of a nuclear [facility],” see id., at 205, that it falls within the pre-empted field. In addressing this issue, we must bear in mind that not every state law that in some remote way may affect the nuclear safety decisions made by those who build and run nuclear facilities can be said to fall within the pre-empted field. We have no doubt, for instance, that the application of state minimum wage and child labor laws to employees at nuclear facilities would not be pre-empted, even though these laws could be said to affect tangentially some of the resource allocation decisions that might have a bearing on radiological safety. Instead, for a state law to fall within the pre-empted zone, it must have some direct and substantial effect on the decisions made by those who build or operate nuclear facilities concerning radiological safety levels. We recognize that the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress at issue here may have some effect on these decisions, because liability for claims like petitioner’s will attach additional consequences to retaliatory conduct by employers. As employers find retaliation more costly, they will be forced to deal with complaints by whistle-blowers by other means, including altering radiological safety policies. Nevertheless, we believe that this effect is neither direct nor substantial enough to place petitioner’s claim in the pre-empted field.

This result is strongly suggested by the decision in Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238 (1984). The Court there held that a claim for punitive damages in a state tort action arising out of the escape of plutonium from a federally licensed nuclear facility did not fall within the pre-empted field discussed in Pacific Gas. The Court reached this result notwithstanding the “tension between the conclusion that [radiological] safety regulation is the exclusive concern of the federal law and the conclusion that a State may nevertheless award damages [including punitive damages] based on its own law of liability” governing unsafe working conditions. 464 U. S., at 256. Although the decision in Silkwood was based in substantial part on legislative history suggesting that Congress did not intend to include in the pre-empted field state tort remedies for radiation-based injuries, see id., at 251-256, we think it would be odd, if not irrational, to conclude that Congress intended to include tort actions stemming from retaliation against whistle-blowers in the pre-empted field but intended not to include tort actions stemming from radiation damage suffered as a result of actual safety violations. Potential liability for the kind of claim at issue in Silkwood will affect radiological safety decisions more directly than will potential liability under the kind of claim petitioner raises, because the tort claim in Silkwood attaches additional consequences to safety violations themselves, rather than to employer conduct that merely arises from allegations of safety violations. Moreover, and related, the prospect of compensatory and punitive damages for radiation-based injuries will undoubtedly affect nuclear employers’ primary decisions about radiological safety in the construction and operation of nuclear power facilities far more substantially than will liability under the kind of claim petitioner asserts. It is thus not surprising that we find no evidence of a “clear and manifest” intent on the part of Congress to pre-empt tort claims like petitioner’s. Cf. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U. S. 174, 186 (1988) (increased workers’ compensation award for injury caused by a safety violation at a Government-owned nuclear facility is “incidental regulatory pressure” that Congress finds acceptable). Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner’s claim does not lie within the pre-empted field of nuclear safety.

c

We now turn to the question whether, as the lower courts concluded, petitioner’s claim conflicts with particular aspects of § 210. On its face, the section does no more than grant a federal administrative remedy to employees in one industry against one type of employer discrimination—retaliation for whistle-blowing. Ordinarily, the mere existence of a federal regulatory or enforcement scheme, even one as detailed as § 210, does not by itself imply pre-emption of state remedies. The Court has observed: “Undoubtedly, every subject that merits congressional legislation is, by definition, a subject of national concern. That cannot mean, however, that every federal statute ousts all related state law. . . . Instead, we must look for special features warranting pre-emption.” Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 719 (1985). Here, the District Court identified three “special features” of § 210 that it believed were incompatible with petitioner’s claim.

The District Court relied first on § 210(g), which provides that “Subsection (a) of this section [the prohibition on employer retaliation] shall not apply” where an employee “deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of this Act or of the Atomic Energy Act.” According to the District Court and respondent, this section reflects a congressional desire to preclude all relief, including state remedies, to a whistle-blower who deliberately commits a safety violation referred to in § 210(g). Permitting any state-law claim based on whistle-blowing retaliation, the court reasoned, would frustrate this congressional objective. We do not agree. As an initial matter, we note that the text of § 210(g) specifically limits its applicability to the remedy provided by § 210(a) and does not suggest that it bars state-law tort actions. Nor does the legislative history of § 210 reveal a clear congressional purpose to supplant state-law causes of action that might afford broader relief. Indeed, the only explanation for any of the statute’s remedial limitations is the Committee Report’s statement that employees who deliberately violate nuclear-safety requirements would be denied protection under § 210(g) “[i]n order to avoid abuse of the protection afforded under this section.” S. Rep. No. 95-848, p. 30 (1978) (emphasis added).

In any event, even if the District Court and respondent are correct in concluding that Congress wanted those who deliberately commit nuclear-safety violations, as defined under § 210(g), to be denied all remedies against employer retalia tion, this federal interest would be served by pre-empting state law only to the extent that it afforded recovery to such violators. See Norris v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 881 F. 2d 1144, 1150 (CA1 1989). In the instant case, the ALJ found that petitioner had not deliberately committed a safety violation within the meaning of § 210(g), App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a, and neither the Secretary nor the lower courts have suggested otherwise. Thus, barring petitioner’s tort action would not even serve the federal interest the lower courts and respondent have gleaned from their reading of this section.

The District Court also relied on the absence in § 210 of general authorization for the Secretary to award exemplary damages against employers who engage in retaliatory conduct. The District Court concluded, and respondent now argues, that this absence implies a congressional intent to bar a state action, like petitioner’s, that permits such an award. As the District Court put it, § 210 reflects “an informed judgment [by Congress] that in no circumstances should a nuclear whistler blower receive punitive damages when fired or discriminated against because of his or her safety complaints.” 683 F. Supp., at 1014. We believe the District Court and respondent have read too much into Congress’ decision not to authorize exemplary damages for most § 210 violations. First, even with respect to actions brought under § 210, the District Court was incorrect in stating that “in no circumstances” will a nuclear whistle-blower receive punitive damages; § 210(d) authorizes a district court to award exemplary damages in enforcement proceedings brought by the Secretary. Moreover, and more importantly, we think the District Court failed to follow this Court’s teaching that “[o]rdinarily, state causes of action are not pre-empted solely because they impose liability over and above that authorized by federal law.” California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U. S. 93, 105 (1989). Absent some specific suggestion in the text or legislative history of § 210, which we are unable to find, we cannot conclude that Congress intended to pre-empt all state actions that permit the recovery of exemplary damages.

Finally, we address the District Court’s holding that the expeditious timeframes provided by Congress for the processing of § 210 claims reflect a congressional decision that no whistle-blower should be able to recover under any other law after the time for filing under § 210 has expired. The District Court reasoned, and respondent agrees, that if a state-law remedy is available after the time for filing a § 210 complaint has run, a whistle-blower will have less incentive to bring a § 210 complaint. As a result, the argument runs, federal regulatory agencies will remain unaware of some safety violations and retaliatory behavior and will thus be unable to ensure radiological safety at nuclear facilities. We cannot deny that there is some force to this argument, but we do not believe that the problem is as great as respondent suggests.

First, many, if not most, retaliatory incidents come about as a response to safety complaints that employees register with federal regulatory agencies. The Federal Government thus is already aware of these safety violations, whether or not the employee invokes the remedial provisions of § 210. Also, we are not so sure as respondent seems to be that employees will forgo their § 210 options and rely solely on state remedies for retaliation. Such a prospect is simply too speculative a basis on which to rest a finding of pre-emption. The Court has observed repeatedly that pre-emption is ordinarily not to be implied absent an “actual conflict.” See, e. g., Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 533 (1912). The “teaching of this Court’s decisions . . . enjoin[s] seeking out conflicts between state and federal regulation where none clearly exists.” Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 446 (1960).

III

We conclude that petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress does not fall within the pre-empted field of nuclear safety as that field has been defined in prior cases. Nor does it conflict with any particular aspect of § 210. The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

       Although, technically, petitioner was placed on a layoff status on July 30, and retained certain benefits and recall rights at that point, as a practical matter she no longer was employed by GE after that date.

       If an employee believes that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of the statute, he may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within 30 days after the violation occurs. § 210(b)(1). The Secretary then must investigate the alleged violation, hold a public hearing, and, within 90 days of receiving the complaint, issue an order that either provides or denies relief. § 210(b)(2)(A). If a violation is found, the Secretary may order reinstatement with backpay, award compensatory damages, and require the violator to pay the employee’s costs and attorney’s fees. § 210(b)(2)(B). Any person adversely affected by an order of the Secretary may obtain judicial review in the appropriate United States court of appeals, and either the Secretary or the complainant may seek enforcement of the Secretary’s order in United States district court. §§ 210(c) through (e).

       The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that decision but remanded the case for consideration of petitioner’s separate claim that she was subjected to a continuing course of retaliatory harassment after the May 15 disciplinary decision. English v. Whitfield, 858 F. 2d 957 (1988). Upon remand, the ALJ concluded that that claim, also, should be dismissed as time barred. The ALJ’s recommended decision on this issue is still pending before the Secretary.

       The District Court ruled that petitioner had not made out a claim under state law for wrongful discharge. Because petitioner has not appealed that ruling, the wrongful-discharge claim is not now before us.

       By referring to these three categories, we should not be taken to mean that they are rigidly distinct. Indeed, field pre-emption may be understood as a species of conflict pre-emption: A state law that falls within a pre-empted field conflicts with Congress’ intent (either express or plainly implied) to exclude state regulation. Nevertheless, because we previously have adverted to the three-category framework, we invoke and apply it here.

       In this regard, we note that the enforcement and implementation of § 210 was entrusted by Congress not to the NRC—the body primarily responsible for nuclear safety regulation—but to the Department of Labor.

       Two Justices thought that since the California statute at issue in Pacific Gas was not motivated by safety concerns, there was no reason for the majority to discuss this portion of the field argument there either. See 461 U. S., at 223-224. Whether the suggestion of the majority in Pacific Gas that legislative purpose is relevant to the definition of the pre-empted field is part of the holding of that case is not an issue before us today because, as discussed above, even if safety motivation is relevant, petitioner’s broad suggestion that safety motivation is necessary to a finding that a particular state law falls within the occupied field lacks merit.

       Respondent relies, see Brief for Respondent 45-49, on decisions construing the pre-emptive effect of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., to argue that petitioner’s claim falls within the pre-empted field. We regard this reliance as misplaced. To begin with, the NLRA, unlike statutes governing the nuclear-employment field, comprehensively deals with labor-management relations from the inception of organizational activity through the negotiation of a collective-bargaining agreement. Moreover, special factors support the conclusion that pre-emption of state labor relations law is warranted—specifically, Congress’ perception that the NLRA was needed because state legislatures and courts were unable to provide an informed and coherent labor policy. See Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U. S. 274, 286 (1971).