Here's the latest on the BAnkruptcy ReForm Act (BARF):

On Wednesday, January 28th, House Republicans were successful in
substituting the text of HR 975, the omnibus bankruptcy reform bill, into
S.1920 (previously passed by the Senate and intended to temporarily extend
Chapter 12 or Title 11, which expired the end of December at the end of the
first session of the 108th Congress).

The House voted 265-99 (a vote count which did include Democrats) to combine
the family farmer relief bankruptcy bill with the GOP bankruptcy
legislation, while voting down a Democrat proposal to pass the farm
bankruptcy legislation as a stand-alone bill.

As a reminder, the bankruptcy reform bill has failed in the past 3
Congresses, failing in the 107th Congress due primarily to a provision
perceived by Republicans to ban abortion protesters from using the
bankruptcy system to avoid paying fines for blocking clinics if they
knowingly violated the law.

A House-Senate committee previously agreed to include that proviso, but
House members refused to accept it. Now, however, House Republicans are
threatening the usually routine extension of bankruptcy help for farmers if
Democrats don't accept the bankruptcy legislation without the abortion
provision.

Despite fairly vocal opposition to the procedural maneuver by several House
Democrats, that Republicans were using the farm bill as leverage at the
expense of American farmers, House Republicans were able to pass the measure
in the Chamber where rules of procedure favor the majority party.

Senate Democratic Leader Daschle (SD), who has expressed support for both
the farm bankruptcy bill and the bankruptcy legislation with the Democratic
abortion provision, would not commit to the House GOP bill Tuesday
indicating he has enough votes to filibuster the bill. In fact, it is
significant that even Republican Senators, including Senate Judiciary
Chairman Hatch (R-Utah), indicated they the House tactic would not work.

(Attached below is a "Dear Colleague" letter sent Tuesday by Rep. Baldwin

(D-WI) opposing the maneuver).

David P. Goch

Washington Legislative Counsel

Commercial Law League of America

For more information, please visit: http://www.clla.org



January 27, 2004

Don't Use Family Farmers As Pawns

Dear Colleague:

On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to consider S. 1920, legislation that
temporarily reinstates the farm bankruptcy provisions of Chapter 12 of Title

11 of the Bankruptcy Code for six months. This legislation is urgently
needed to ensure that our family farmers have the bankruptcy protections
they need to allow them to file for bankruptcy, restructure their debts, and
continue to farm.

Unfortunately, according to numerous sources, the House Leadership intends
to strike the farm bankruptcy extension and insert the text of H.R. 975, the
controversial bankruptcy bill that has been debated in the past three
Congresses. Although S. 1920, as modified, may pass the House, it is
unlikely to pass the Senate due to the same obstacles that the previous
bankruptcy bills have faced. This tactic is doomed to fail to achieve its
objective of enacting bankruptcy reform. However, it will do one
thing-continue to leave family farmers without bankruptcy protection.

Chapter 12 expired on December 31, 2003. The House could have taken up S.

1920 last year and it would now be the law. Instead, we are using our
farmers as pawns in the push for bankruptcy reform, holding their needs
hostage as part of a parliamentary maneuver that has failed to succeed year
after year. Since the debate over bankruptcy reform began more than five
years ago, we have extended Chapter 12 eight times. Anyone can see that
using farm bankruptcy protection as a bargaining chip hasn't worked.

I have attached a letter from the National Farmers Union opposing the
continued cynical use of our farmers as a bargaining chip. We shouldn't be
playing politics with the livelihoods of our farmers by putting the special
interests who want bankruptcy reform ahead of the real needs of our family
farmers. Please oppose efforts to block this six month extension.

Sincerely,

/s/

Tammy Baldwin

Member of Congress


--
Brett

************************************************** ***************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* lawyer@brettweiss.com *
* http://www.brettweiss.com *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
************************************************** ***************

The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
************************************************** ***************

OK Brett you know we luv ye ;-)
**BUT**
Could you give me just a little translation of what this means.
I am finished with my Chapter 13 but would still like to keep
informed.
Is Senator Daschle's threat of filibuster a good thing for the
financially challenged or is it not?

Thanks,
Sun


"Brett Weiss" <lawyer@erols.com> wrote in message news:RPCdnQD2zoSxk4TdRVn-hQ@comcast.com... Here's the latest on the BAnkruptcy ReForm Act (BARF): On Wednesday, January 28th, House Republicans were successful in substituting the text of HR 975, the omnibus bankruptcy reform bill, into S.1920 (previously passed by the Senate and intended to temporarily extend Chapter 12 or Title 11, which expired the end of December at the end of the first session of the 108th Congress). The House voted 265-99 (a vote count which did include Democrats) to combine the family farmer relief bankruptcy bill with the GOP bankruptcy legislation, while voting down a Democrat proposal to pass the farm bankruptcy legislation as a stand-alone bill. As a reminder, the bankruptcy reform bill has failed in the past 3 Congresses, failing in the 107th Congress due primarily to a provision perceived by Republicans to ban abortion protesters from using the bankruptcy system to avoid paying fines for blocking clinics if they knowingly violated the law. A House-Senate committee previously agreed to include that proviso, but House members refused to accept it. Now, however, House Republicans are threatening the usually routine extension of bankruptcy help for farmers if Democrats don't accept the bankruptcy legislation without the abortion provision. Despite fairly vocal opposition to the procedural maneuver by several House Democrats, that Republicans were using the farm bill as leverage at the expense of American farmers, House Republicans were able to pass the measure in the Chamber where rules of procedure favor the majority party. Senate Democratic Leader Daschle (SD), who has expressed support for both the farm bankruptcy bill and the bankruptcy legislation with the Democratic abortion provision, would not commit to the House GOP bill Tuesday indicating he has enough votes to filibuster the bill. In fact, it is significant that even Republican Senators, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Hatch (R-Utah), indicated they the House tactic would not work. (Attached below is a "Dear Colleague" letter sent Tuesday by Rep. Baldwin (D-WI) opposing the maneuver). David P. Goch Washington Legislative Counsel Commercial Law League of America For more information, please visit: http://www.clla.org January 27, 2004 Don't Use Family Farmers As Pawns Dear Colleague: On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to consider S. 1920, legislation that temporarily reinstates the farm bankruptcy provisions of Chapter 12 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for six months. This legislation is urgently needed to ensure that our family farmers have the bankruptcy protections they need to allow them to file for bankruptcy, restructure their debts, and continue to farm. Unfortunately, according to numerous sources, the House Leadership intends to strike the farm bankruptcy extension and insert the text of H.R. 975, the controversial bankruptcy bill that has been debated in the past three Congresses. Although S. 1920, as modified, may pass the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate due to the same obstacles that the previous bankruptcy bills have faced. This tactic is doomed to fail to achieve its objective of enacting bankruptcy reform. However, it will do one thing-continue to leave family farmers without bankruptcy protection. Chapter 12 expired on December 31, 2003. The House could have taken up S. 1920 last year and it would now be the law. Instead, we are using our farmers as pawns in the push for bankruptcy reform, holding their needs hostage as part of a parliamentary maneuver that has failed to succeed year after year. Since the debate over bankruptcy reform began more than five years ago, we have extended Chapter 12 eight times. Anyone can see that using farm bankruptcy protection as a bargaining chip hasn't worked. I have attached a letter from the National Farmers Union opposing the continued cynical use of our farmers as a bargaining chip. We shouldn't be playing politics with the livelihoods of our farmers by putting the special interests who want bankruptcy reform ahead of the real needs of our family farmers. Please oppose efforts to block this six month extension. Sincerely, /s/ Tammy Baldwin Member of Congress -- Brett ************************************************** *************** * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy * * * * BRETT WEISS, P.C. * * Attorneys at Law * * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars * * lawyer@brettweiss.com * * http://www.brettweiss.com * * * * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning * ************************************************** *************** The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation. ************************************************** ***************

It means that the House is trying to pull a fast one. Senator Dashle's
threat of a filibuster is a good one.

--
Brett

************************************************** ***************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* lawyer@brettweiss.com *
* http://www.brettweiss.com *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
************************************************** ***************

The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
************************************************** ***************

"Sunshine Lady" <sun@shineonus.org> wrote in message
news:23USb.7669$9a4.7249@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... OK Brett you know we luv ye ;-) **BUT** Could you give me just a little translation of what this means. I am finished with my Chapter 13 but would still like to keep informed. Is Senator Daschle's threat of filibuster a good thing for the financially challenged or is it not? Thanks, Sun "Brett Weiss" <lawyer@erols.com> wrote in message
news:RPCdnQD2zoSxk4TdRVn-hQ@comcast.com... Here's the latest on the BAnkruptcy ReForm Act (BARF): On Wednesday, January 28th, House Republicans were successful in substituting the text of HR 975, the omnibus bankruptcy reform bill,
into S.1920 (previously passed by the Senate and intended to temporarily
extend Chapter 12 or Title 11, which expired the end of December at the end of
the first session of the 108th Congress). The House voted 265-99 (a vote count which did include Democrats) to
combine the family farmer relief bankruptcy bill with the GOP bankruptcy legislation, while voting down a Democrat proposal to pass the farm bankruptcy legislation as a stand-alone bill. As a reminder, the bankruptcy reform bill has failed in the past 3 Congresses, failing in the 107th Congress due primarily to a provision perceived by Republicans to ban abortion protesters from using the bankruptcy system to avoid paying fines for blocking clinics if they knowingly violated the law. A House-Senate committee previously agreed to include that proviso, but House members refused to accept it. Now, however, House Republicans are threatening the usually routine extension of bankruptcy help for farmers
if Democrats don't accept the bankruptcy legislation without the abortion provision. Despite fairly vocal opposition to the procedural maneuver by several
House Democrats, that Republicans were using the farm bill as leverage at the expense of American farmers, House Republicans were able to pass the
measure in the Chamber where rules of procedure favor the majority party. Senate Democratic Leader Daschle (SD), who has expressed support for
both the farm bankruptcy bill and the bankruptcy legislation with the
Democratic abortion provision, would not commit to the House GOP bill Tuesday indicating he has enough votes to filibuster the bill. In fact, it is significant that even Republican Senators, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Hatch (R-Utah), indicated they the House tactic would not work. (Attached below is a "Dear Colleague" letter sent Tuesday by Rep.
Baldwin (D-WI) opposing the maneuver). David P. Goch Washington Legislative Counsel Commercial Law League of America For more information, please visit: http://www.clla.org January 27, 2004 Don't Use Family Farmers As Pawns Dear Colleague: On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to consider S. 1920, legislation
that temporarily reinstates the farm bankruptcy provisions of Chapter 12 of
Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for six months. This legislation is urgently needed to ensure that our family farmers have the bankruptcy protections they need to allow them to file for bankruptcy, restructure their debts,
and continue to farm. Unfortunately, according to numerous sources, the House Leadership
intends to strike the farm bankruptcy extension and insert the text of H.R. 975,
the controversial bankruptcy bill that has been debated in the past three Congresses. Although S. 1920, as modified, may pass the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate due to the same obstacles that the previous bankruptcy bills have faced. This tactic is doomed to fail to achieve
its objective of enacting bankruptcy reform. However, it will do one thing-continue to leave family farmers without bankruptcy protection. Chapter 12 expired on December 31, 2003. The House could have taken up
S. 1920 last year and it would now be the law. Instead, we are using our farmers as pawns in the push for bankruptcy reform, holding their needs hostage as part of a parliamentary maneuver that has failed to succeed
year after year. Since the debate over bankruptcy reform began more than five years ago, we have extended Chapter 12 eight times. Anyone can see that using farm bankruptcy protection as a bargaining chip hasn't worked. I have attached a letter from the National Farmers Union opposing the continued cynical use of our farmers as a bargaining chip. We shouldn't
be playing politics with the livelihoods of our farmers by putting the
special interests who want bankruptcy reform ahead of the real needs of our
family farmers. Please oppose efforts to block this six month extension. Sincerely, /s/ Tammy Baldwin Member of Congress -- Brett ************************************************** *************** * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy * * * * BRETT WEISS, P.C. * * Attorneys at Law * * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars * * lawyer@brettweiss.com * * http://www.brettweiss.com * * * * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning * ************************************************** *************** The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws
who can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation. ************************************************** ***************

Thanks.
Sun
"Brett Weiss" <lawyer@erols.com> wrote in message news:EPCdnQTLG9PjyYHdRVn-tA@comcast.com... It means that the House is trying to pull a fast one. Senator Dashle's threat of a filibuster is a good one. -- Brett ************************************************** *************** * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy * * * * BRETT WEISS, P.C. * * Attorneys at Law * * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars * * lawyer@brettweiss.com * * http://www.brettweiss.com * * * * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning * ************************************************** *************** The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation. ************************************************** *************** "Sunshine Lady" <sun@shineonus.org> wrote in message news:23USb.7669$9a4.7249@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... OK Brett you know we luv ye ;-) **BUT** Could you give me just a little translation of what this means. I am finished with my Chapter 13 but would still like to keep informed. Is Senator Daschle's threat of filibuster a good thing for the financially challenged or is it not? Thanks, Sun "Brett Weiss" <lawyer@erols.com> wrote in message news:RPCdnQD2zoSxk4TdRVn-hQ@comcast.com... Here's the latest on the BAnkruptcy ReForm Act (BARF): On Wednesday, January 28th, House Republicans were successful in substituting the text of HR 975, the omnibus bankruptcy reform bill, into S.1920 (previously passed by the Senate and intended to temporarily extend Chapter 12 or Title 11, which expired the end of December at the end of the first session of the 108th Congress). The House voted 265-99 (a vote count which did include Democrats) to combine the family farmer relief bankruptcy bill with the GOP bankruptcy legislation, while voting down a Democrat proposal to pass the farm bankruptcy legislation as a stand-alone bill. As a reminder, the bankruptcy reform bill has failed in the past 3 Congresses, failing in the 107th Congress due primarily to a provision perceived by Republicans to ban abortion protesters from using the bankruptcy system to avoid paying fines for blocking clinics if they knowingly violated the law. A House-Senate committee previously agreed to include that proviso, but House members refused to accept it. Now, however, House Republicans are threatening the usually routine extension of bankruptcy help for farmers if Democrats don't accept the bankruptcy legislation without the abortion provision. Despite fairly vocal opposition to the procedural maneuver by several House Democrats, that Republicans were using the farm bill as leverage at the expense of American farmers, House Republicans were able to pass the measure in the Chamber where rules of procedure favor the majority party. Senate Democratic Leader Daschle (SD), who has expressed support for both the farm bankruptcy bill and the bankruptcy legislation with the Democratic abortion provision, would not commit to the House GOP bill Tuesday indicating he has enough votes to filibuster the bill. In fact, it is significant that even Republican Senators, including Senate Judiciary Chairman Hatch (R-Utah), indicated they the House tactic would not work. (Attached below is a "Dear Colleague" letter sent Tuesday by Rep. Baldwin (D-WI) opposing the maneuver). David P. Goch Washington Legislative Counsel Commercial Law League of America For more information, please visit: http://www.clla.org January 27, 2004 Don't Use Family Farmers As Pawns Dear Colleague: On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to consider S. 1920, legislation that temporarily reinstates the farm bankruptcy provisions of Chapter 12 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for six months. This legislation is urgently needed to ensure that our family farmers have the bankruptcy protections they need to allow them to file for bankruptcy, restructure their debts, and continue to farm. Unfortunately, according to numerous sources, the House Leadership intends to strike the farm bankruptcy extension and insert the text of H.R. 975, the controversial bankruptcy bill that has been debated in the past three Congresses. Although S. 1920, as modified, may pass the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate due to the same obstacles that the previous bankruptcy bills have faced. This tactic is doomed to fail to achieve its objective of enacting bankruptcy reform. However, it will do one thing-continue to leave family farmers without bankruptcy protection. Chapter 12 expired on December 31, 2003. The House could have taken up S. 1920 last year and it would now be the law. Instead, we are using our farmers as pawns in the push for bankruptcy reform, holding their needs hostage as part of a parliamentary maneuver that has failed to succeed year after year. Since the debate over bankruptcy reform began more than five years ago, we have extended Chapter 12 eight times. Anyone can see that using farm bankruptcy protection as a bargaining chip hasn't worked. I have attached a letter from the National Farmers Union opposing the continued cynical use of our farmers as a bargaining chip. We shouldn't be playing politics with the livelihoods of our farmers by putting the special interests who want bankruptcy reform ahead of the real needs of our family farmers. Please oppose efforts to block this six month extension. Sincerely, /s/ Tammy Baldwin Member of Congress -- Brett ************************************************** *************** * Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy * * * * BRETT WEISS, P.C. * * Attorneys at Law * * Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars * * lawyer@brettweiss.com * * http://www.brettweiss.com * * * * Small Business Estates & Estate Planning * ************************************************** *************** The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation. ************************************************** ***************