Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005

BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose the Schumer amendment. This is an issue that just needs more time for us to determine whether there is an abuse that needs to be addressed. We need to ensure that this amendment doesn't have unintended consequences. For instance, it doesn't define the term ``asset protection trust'' and therefore we aren't even sure what we are being asked to vote on. Further, it not only covers asset protection trusts, but also covers ``similar trusts.'' Until we have had time to really understand whether this is a loophole, and if it is, how to close it in a way that doesn't harm innocent third parties.

In addition, this issue is even more complex because it implicates 50 different State laws. We don't know enough at this point about how it works. This would override at least some State laws, like the homestead cap would. I think it is important to look at this issue, have a hearing and consult with senators whose States might be uniquely affected. Be sure, however, that my opposition to this amendment doesn't mean that I will not ultimately find that this issue needs to be addressed at some future date. I think that all the work we have done on this bill, the compromises we have reached should not be disrupted by this last-minute proposal that has not been well thought out.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://thomas.loc.gov