provisions • of § 522 must control over the narrow exclusion contained in § 541(c)(2), and Congress thus envisioned a procedure whereby ERISA qualified pension benefits would be brought into the bankrupt’s estate subject to exemption. Although there are conflicting rulings on whether an anti-alienation provision serves to exclude property from the bankrupt’s estate, the majority of the courts which have considered the issue have held that such clauses do not prevent property interests from passing to the trustee. Samore v. Graham (In re Graham), 726 F.2d 1268 (8th Cir.1984); Regan v. Ross, 691 F.2d 81 (2d Cir.1982); In re Kelley, 31 B.R. 786 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1983); Firestone v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (In re DiPiazza), 29 B. n re Buren), 725 F.2d 1080 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The most recent decision involving ERI-SA
holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of social security disability benefits holding that offset for social security retirement benefits does not include federal disability benefits and stating that there was no legislative intent to embody the entire subchapter of the social security act dealing with both disability benefits and old age benefits holding that social security benefits are excluded from property of the estate because of the statutory antialienation provision holding that use of social security benefits satisfied child support obligation holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate