PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S9851-9852)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 8, 2005
Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005 - Applies the provisions of federal bankruptcy law, as in effect on August 29, 2005, to any case commenced (except under chapter 12) during the 12-month period beginning on October 17, 2005, (the effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA)) by a debtor: (1) who on August 29, 2005, resided in any area declared by the President as a major disaster related to Hurricane Katrina; and (2) whose financial condition is materially adversely affected by such disaster.
Authorizes the bankruptcy court to extend statutory deadlines governing debtor's submission of specified financial documentation if the debtor's status as a victim of a natural disaster necessitates such extension.
Expands debtor's non-abusive monthly expenses to include actual reasonably necessary expenses incurred as a result of being a victim of a natural disaster.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
States that if the debtor is a victim of a natural disaster: (1) the presumption of bankruptcy abuse is inapplicable; and (2) the court may not dismiss or convert the case for either an individual (Chapter 7) or a business debtor (Chapter 11).
Authorizes the court to grant an extension of time to comply with bankruptcy deadlines if it finds that: (1) it is warranted by a natural disaster in the case of a small business debtor; and (2) the debtor's status as a victim of a natural disaster necessitates such extension in the case of a chapter 13 debtor capable of making periodic payments.
Amends the federal judicial code to permit a case in bankruptcy to be commenced in the district court for the district in which a person who is the victim of a natural disaster resides.
People & committees
Sen. Feingold, Russell D. [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S9851-9852)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9850-9851)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1647 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1647 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1647 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1647 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.