Mr. President, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Senate is faced with a daunting but absolutely crucial task. How can Congress best respond to the horrific damage caused by this disaster? I want…
Mr. President, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Senate is faced with a daunting but absolutely crucial task. How can Congress best respond to the horrific damage caused by this disaster? I want to express my full support to the people from all of the affected regions in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and their congressional delegations. In this time of desperate need, we all must pull together and do everything we can to help.
We can see the devastating effects of the hurricane and flooding on our television screens every night. It will take years to rebuild the affected areas. In the meantime, the residents and small businesses in those areas have suffered catastrophic losses. Some will undoubtedly, through no fault of their own, have to file for bankruptcy sometime in the future. The bankruptcy system is an important safety net for people who suffer this kind of devastation. In this country, we do not sentence people who have been through a disaster of this type to a lifetime of financial servitude. Bankruptcy lets them get a fresh start. And a fresh start is what so many of the relief efforts going on are all about.
As my colleagues are aware, Congress earlier this year enacted major changes to the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (``BAPCPA'') was the first major overhaul of the bankruptcy system in more than 25 years. Most provisions of the new law will become effective on October 17, 2005, six months after enactment. Any bankruptcy case filed before that date is still subject to current law.
We do not yet know how many families affected by this disaster will end up filing for bankruptcy. A study just released a few days ago by Professor Bob Lawless, a law professor at the University of Nevada, indicates that bankruptcy filings increase significantly in areas where natural disasters occur. Professor Lawless looked at 18 hurricanes and tropical storms since 1980 and the rate of bankruptcy filings in the States where the storms made landfall compared to the surrounding States and the rest of the country. He looked at the effects in the first, second and third year after the event.
According to this study, bankruptcy filings climbed in landfall States at more than 1\1/2\ times the pace of unaffected States and remained stuck at that rate even three years later. Given the enormous impact of this storm, we can expect a similar if not greater, increase in filings. And this new influx of filings will occur just as the new law is going into effect. Katrina victims will in essence be guinea pigs, testing the new provisions with the most desperate of circumstances.
The new bankruptcy law makes it significantly more difficult and complicated to file for bankruptcy. No one disputes that. It was intended to weed out abusers of the system. It contains new documentation requirements and the so-called ``means test'' which is a fairly rigid formula designed to identify debtors who really can continue to pay their debts and shouldn't get a discharge.
Everyone in the Senate knows that I strongly opposed the BAPCPA and tried very hard to amend it to make it less onerous for good faith debtors. But my goal now is not to try to undermine or reopen the new law, but simply to make sure that it doesn't compound the hardship faced by victims of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. That is what the bill I will introduce today, the Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005, aims to do.
This bill first deals directly with the fact that the new law is scheduled to take effect only a month and a half from now, when the victims of Katrina will still be in the initial stages of putting their lives back together. I believe the best way to handle this extraordinary situation is to give Katrina victims a grace period during which the old bankruptcy law, which has essentially been in effect for 27 years, will still apply to their cases. The bill provides that cases filed within one year of the effective date of the new law by people who lived in the natural disaster area declared by the President will be handled under the law in effect on August 29, 2005, the date of the hurricane. This provision will mean that all the complicated work to apply and interpret the new law that will take place in the first year after it becomes effective will not affect the cases of the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
I understand that some may argue that the new law contains adequate safeguards and judicial discretion to deal with the concerns I have raised. But we can't know that for sure at this point. At the very least, there will be litigation and disagreement over how some provisions will be interpreted. Those issues will be settled by the courts all across the country, and that process will not be affected by this bill. But Katrina's victims should not be the test cases. Giving them a year to proceed under the old law seems entirely reasonable.
Providing this added grace period also addresses the fact that some of the hurricane victims might have filed their petitions before October 17 were it not for the hurricane. These people have been deprived of that right, which Congress provided in the new law itself, by a natural disaster. Given all they are now going through, we should give them adequate time to take care of their most immediate needs before closing the door on their ability to file for bankruptcy under the old law. A one year grace period should be sufficient, and seems fair.
Professor Lawless's study indicates that the financial effects of a disaster like Katrina last for more than a year. And of course, there will be future disasters, perhaps some as grave as this one. I believe we need to take a close look at the new bankruptcy law and make sure that disaster victims are treated fairly. There is simply no justification for applying provisions designed to stop abuse of the system to people who have been through this kind of disaster. Therefore, the bill makes a number of other amendments to the new law that will apply not only to Katrina victims who file for bankruptcy after the one year grace period is over but to victims of other natural disasters. Let me describe some of those provisions.
First, the bill builds on an exemption to the means test that applies to disabled veterans and simply adds victims of natural disasters to that exemption. No person driven to bankruptcy by a natural disaster should have a case dismissed or converted to a Chapter 13 filing under the means test.
The bill also exempts from the definition of income any payments from FEMA, the Red Cross, or other disaster relief funds. Whatever money people receive to help them survive the aftermath of a disaster should not be included in the calculation of how much they have available to satisfy their creditors. Generous citizens around the country are making contributions to make sure disaster victims are fed and clothed and their homes rebuilt, not to give more money to the credit card companies.
The bill contains a provision to make clear that expenses incurred as a result of a disaster are considered reasonable expenses for purposes of the means test. The rigid IRS standards obviously don't include money to replace things that were lost in a hurricane, or pay for a hotel stay while a home is rebuilt.
Another provision of the new law that seems unfair to apply to victims of natural disasters requires that debtors seek credit counseling before they file for bankruptcy. The new law already includes a provision to exempt debtors who are on active duty military service overseas or who are incompetent or disabled if that status makes them unable to complete the requirement. Victims of natural disasters deserve a similar exemption. If they can't complete credit counseling because they live in a shelter with no access to the Internet or because they have no records for the credit counselor to evaluate, they shouldn't be prevented from filing for bankruptcy.
One of the most tragic effects of a natural disaster is homelessness. Millions of homes were destroyed by Katrina. People who lived in these homes will be in temporary shelters for months, but may eventually find apartments to live in in a new location. If they end up having to file for bankruptcy, that filing puts in place an automatic stay of any legal proceedings against them, including eviction proceedings for nonpayment of rent. The automatic stay allows debtors to get their affairs in order and catch up on their rent payments, but the new law makes it much easier for landlords to have the stay lifted. The prospect of a natural disaster victim being put out on the street during a bankruptcy proceeding should be chilling to all Americans. This bill will simply require landlords of natural disaster victims to seek a lifting of the stay without the expedited procedures and special treatment that the new law provides.
Another provision of the bill gives some extra relief to natural disaster victims from the fairly rigid deadlines that are established for filing certain paperwork in connection with a bankruptcy filing. This is a very reasonable step that simply recognizes that obtaining or filing the necessary tax returns, identity documents, documentation of income and other items may be significantly more difficult, or even impossible for a period of time, for natural disaster victims than it is for other debtors.
Finally, the bill also provides relief for small businesses that are put in dire financial condition by a natural disaster. The new law includes some very tight and unmovable deadlines for small businesses seeking to reorganize under Chapter 11. If we want to help as many businesses hit by disasters to survive as possible, we need to give the courts flexibility to extend those deadlines.
I know that many people in this body worked very hard over a period of many years to pass the BAPCPA. As much as we disagreed about the merits of that bill, I respect their hard work. But I truly hope that my colleagues will not let pride of authorship or the fact that they supported that bill stand in the way of providing desperately needed help to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. The changes in this bill are modest and will apply to a relatively small number of people. I suppose some may argue that they are not absolutely necessary, but I believe, at the least, that a very good argument can be made that they are. Shouldn't we err on the side of helping people whose lives have been ripped apart? Shouldn't we take every precaution to make sure that the horror of a natural disaster is not compounded by a bankruptcy law that is too rigid or too harsh? I believe that is the least we can do in these circumstances.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these modest but important changes to the law. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.