Subject: Re: Bankruptcy follow up
From: "Ann O'Leary" <[email-masked]>
To: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>
Cc: Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 22:30:17 -0500

Murray is a yes, but still working on what she is comfortable saying.
Mikulski is still mulling. Judy and Marcia and ready to be responsive but
not put out statement.

I will get up by 8 am ET on get back on this with goal of getting you
statements in hand from Murray and Mikulski by 9 or 10 am ET and with info
on what Marica/Judy will say if asked by same time frame.

OK?

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Understanding Mandy's concerns....HRC is anxious to get these statements
> in hand tonight or tomorrow am at latest. Ann - think they will come
> through?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 7, 2016, at 6:07 PM, Ann O'Leary <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all -
>
> Here is a full update on where we are:
>
> (1) Mikulski, Murray and Boxer - Talked to all three of COSs. Mikulski and
> Murray COSs are reaching out to their bosses to ask them to do supportive
> statement and make clear that we all were working to make changes for women
> and children and voted to move the bill forward and work to continue to
> strengthen it.  Boxer didn't vote because of a family situation, but
> unfortunately told the LA Times
> <http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/16/news/mn-38491> that she would
> have voted against it. So we shouldn't proactively put her out there, but
> if asked or called upon she will praise HRC for the work they did on the
> credit card amendment and make clear that she understands why all of the
> other women Democratic Senators voted for the bill.
>
> (2) Women's Groups - We cannot put something out proactive here b/c the
> record just isn't good. But, if called, Judy and Marcia are also prepared
> to say that Hillary fought really hard for changes, was with the other
> women Senators, and committed to keep working with them to strengthen the
> bill.  Here are the statements that they put out in 2001 that don't help us:
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20010520143637/http://nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=640&section=newsroom
>
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20010711180022/http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=637&section=newsroom
>
>
> So .... next steps - waiting for final sign off from Mikulski and Murray.
> Also, Tony, their team wants any statements they made in 2005 too and wants
> to confirm they voted against it when it came back.
>
> Jen/Kristina - Do you need to get this out tonight or is tomorrow morning
> ok? Both COS are working to get them on record today, but both Senators are
> in home districts doing events.
>
> Thanks,
> Ann
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>> Here is Murray's floor statement. Mulkulski does not appear to have made
>> one
>>
>>
>> Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the
>> bankruptcy reform legislation. This legislation offers an imperfect but
>> fairly balanced approach to reforming the bankruptcy system. Through the
>> amendment process we have improved the bill, but it could be more fair to
>> all sectors of our society. I am disappointed some good amendments that
>> would have improved the legislation were rejected. The bankruptcy reform
>> legislation that passed the House a couple of weeks ago is less friendly to
>> individuals in adverse circumstances not of their own doing. If this
>> bankruptcy reform bill is weakened in conference, I will have a hard time
>> supporting it. I will likely oppose a conference agreement that looks at
>> all like the House bill. In recent years, consumer bankruptcy filings have
>> dramatically increased. We debated bankruptcy reform in the last two
>> Congresses. Those discussions showed our desire to elevate personal
>> responsibility in consumer financial transactions; to prevent bankruptcy
>> filings from being used by consumers as a financial planning tool; and, to
>> recapture the stigma associated with a bankruptcy filing. It is clear the
>> system is broke, and bankruptcy reform is needed. I voted for bankruptcy
>> reform in both the 105th and 106th Congresses, and I plan to vote for this
>> bill. Despite these votes, I have reservations about how the unintended
>> consequences of this bill will affect the less fortunate. The bill will
>> have an enormous impact on women and child support. The largest growing
>> group of filers are women, usually single mothers. The bill’s overall
>> philosophy of pushing debtors from chapter 7 to chapter 13 will have an
>> unintended effect on women. They usually have fewer means and are more
>> susceptible to crafty creditors seeking to intimidate and reaffirm their
>> debts. They need the protection of chapter 7, but could be pushed into
>> chapter 13. Women will also be disadvantaged by provisions in this bill
>> that fail to prioritize domestic obligations. Under the provisions of this
>> bill, women will find themselves competing with powerful commercial
>> creditors for necessary resources, such as past-due child support, from
>> spouses who are in bankruptcy. It is unfair to place the critical needs of
>> families and single mothers trying to survive behind those of welloff
>> commercial creditors. Another problem with this bill is the new filing
>> requirements are very complex, which could result in unintended
>> discrimination against lower-income individuals and families. Many
>> low-income families don’t have the means to combat most creditors. Because
>> debtors must prove they are filing for legitimate reasons, those without
>> the means to combat powerful commercial interests will be placed at an
>> unfair disadvantage. I was also disappointed that the U.S. Senate failed to
>> adopt some very good amendments that would have significantly improved the
>> bill. Senator KOHL offered an amendment that would have limited the
>> practice of wealthy debtors shielding themselves from creditors in
>> bankruptcy behind State homestead exemption laws that allow them to shelter
>> large amounts of money in a new home. His amendment would have placed a
>> national cap on this exemption, and limited the abusive practice of
>> sheltering large amounts of money in large homes. I supported this needed
>> amendment, but it was rejected on the floor of the Senate. Several
>> amendments were also offered that would have restricted the marketing to
>> and use of credit cards by young people. Credit card companies are
>> aggressively marketing to young people, and many young people are getting
>> into massive debt. Companies should only be allowed to offer credit cards
>> to those who can pay for them. Finally, I am disappointed that amendments
>> were rejected that would have limited predatory lending practices. Some of
>> these predatory loans can have interest rates over 100%. I was pleased to
>> see that the bill included language to end the practice of using the
>> bankruptcy code to escape civil punishment for violence, intimidation or
>> threats against individuals using family planning services. This provision
>> was added in the Judiciary Committee and greatly improves the bill. It
>> ensures that those who violate the law cannot escape justice through the
>> bankruptcy laws. This critical provision of this bill that must not be
>> stripped or drastically changed in conference. Overall, this is a decent
>> bill that will improve on the current abuses of the bankruptcy system.
>> While I have concerns over many of this bill’s provisions, I hope they can
>> be dealt with in conference or in future legislation. This bill should be
>> strengthened in conference, not weakened as has happened to other versions
>> of bankruptcy legislation. I will closely examine a conference agreement
>> with this in mind before voting to send this legislation to the President.
>> [Congressional Record, 3/15/01
>> <https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-03-15/pdf/CREC-2001-03-15-pt1-PgS2343.pdf#page=32>
>> ]
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Ann O'Leary <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> She said women groups were all pressuring her to vote for it. Evidence
>> does not support that statement.
>>
>> If anyone can jump on call, I'm in the line.
>>
>> 718-737-9168, NO PIN
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ann O’Leary
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> (510) 717-5518 (cell)
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> What did she say that was wrong?
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Ann O'Leary <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all -
>>>
>>> We have a problem. HRC overstayed her case this morning in a pretty big
>>> way. Marcia, Judy and I have been figuring out what we could say that
>>> doesn't contradict their 2001 statement. But my other idea is to have women
>>> Senators who all voted for it to put out statement.
>>>
>>> Mandy, Gary and I jumping on phone at4:15. If folks can join, please
>>> dial in:
>>>
>>> 718-737-9168, NO PIN
>>>
>>>
>>> Ann O’Leary
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> (510) 717-5518 (cell)
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Ann.  Have you been able to reach them?  Really hoping to get this
>>> out today.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Ann O'Leary [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 7, 2016 12:11 PM
>>> *To:* Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>
>>> *Cc:* Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>; Mandy Grunwald <
>>> [email-masked]>; Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>; Kristina
>>> Schake <[email-masked]>; Christina Reynolds <
>>> [email-masked]>; Maya Harris <[email-masked]>;
>>> John Podesta <[email-masked]>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Bankruptcy follow up
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good idea. Let me call them this morning and get on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Jennifer Palmieri <
>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Adding Ann O'Leary.  Can you help us get  Judy L and Marcia G to put out
>>> a statement backing HRC up on bankruptcy bill.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We should.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Since HRC spent so much time on 2001 bankruptcy bill today, should we
>>> get Marcia Greenberger and Judy Lichtman and other women's group advocates
>>> to put out statements backing up her story and attacking BS?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mandy Grunwald
>>>
>>> Grunwald Communications
>>>
>>> 202 973-9400
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 7:14 AM, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> To be ready for them to air the clip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *ELIZABETH WARREN:* She voted in favor of it.
>>>
>>> *BILL MOYERS:* Why?
>>>
>>> *ELIZABETH WARREN:* As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very
>>> different. It’s a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don’t
>>> realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the
>>> past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was
>>> consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies
>>> have been giving money, and they have influence.
>>>
>>> *BILL MOYERS:* And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as senator.
>>>
>>> *ELIZABETH WARREN:* She has taken money from the groups, and more to
>>> the point, she worries about them as a constituency.
>>>
>>> *BILL MOYERS:* But what does this mean though to these people, these
>>> millions of people out there whom the politicians cavort in front of as
>>> favoring the middle class, and then are beholden to the powerful interests
>>> that undermine the middle class? What does this say about politics today?
>>>
>>> *ELIZABETH WARREN:* You know this is the scary part about democracy
>>> today. It’s… We’re talking again about the impact of money. The credit
>>> industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars
>>> lobbying, and as their profits grow, they just throw more into lobbying for
>>> how they can get laws that will make it easier and easier and easier to
>>> drain money out of the pockets of middle class families.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ann O'Leary
>>>
>>> Senior Policy Advisor
>>>
>>> Hillary for America
>>>
>>> Cell: 510-717-5518
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Kristina Schake | Communications
>> Hillary for America
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ann O'Leary
> Senior Policy Advisor
> Hillary for America
> Cell: 510-717-5518
>
>

-- 
Ann O'Leary
Senior Policy Advisor
Hillary for America
Cell: 510-717-5518