This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

RE: Bankruptcy follow up

Here are statements Mukulski and Murray made against the bill in 2005 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to oppose S. 256, the Bankruptcy Reform Bill. This bill is unfair to the little guy—to families who are struggling to overcome medical bills, unemployment, or divorce and find themselves forced to declare bankruptcy. Under the guise of reform it makes it tougher on families who have done the right thing. That’s not what we should be doing in the United States Senate. Our job is to make sure we are protecting middle-class Americans and small businesses who are the lifeblood of our economy, not hurting them. While some of the reforms of the bill are good steps it goes too far to favor credit card companies and corporations over working families. This bill creates such strict standards that many of our nation’s most vulnerable families are treated unfairly when they are forced to file bankruptcy because of the loss of a job, the high cost of health care or a divorce. This bill does nothing to address the problems these individuals are having, the problems that have driven them to bankruptcy and it provides virtually no discretion for courts dealing with these bankruptcy claims. I have supported bankruptcy reform legislation in the past—but it was not this bill and it was not this process. This bill was rushed through Committee with the promise that amendments would be considered on the floor, that there would be debate and an opportunity to improve the bill. Yet, none of the amendments were truly considered, most were opposed by Republicans marching in lock step to defeat every amendment to the existing bill. In short, there was no real opportunity to improve the bill. What came to the floor leaves the floor virtually unchanged and truly unfair to many of our citizens who are forced to file bankruptcy because of unforeseen circumstances like job loss, divorce or medical costs. Half of all families filing for bankruptcy have faced illness or high medical costs. Medical costs, especially for seniors, are one of the fastest growing causes of bankruptcy. These are not folks who use their credit cards to buy fancy suits, designer wares or other luxury goods. They are paying for the basic necessities of their lives with their credit cards. They are putting their food, clothing and medical bills on the credit cards. Nearly 9 out of 10 people file bankruptcy because of health care problems, job loss or divorce. These individuals don’t want to file bankruptcy—in fact, they have tried to avoid bankruptcy. That’s why they pay those medical bills with credit cards when they simply can’t afford any other way. Or they skip going to the doctor all together because they know have no means to pay. And what happens—they get sicker, incur greater costs for catastrophic care and that sends them spiraling further into debt and forcing many into bankruptcy. We ought to be doing something to help those individuals—not creating a law that will make matters worse. The Senate should be on the side of those Americans who are facing hard times and hard decisions. We should be addressing the lack of health care and working to ensure that we are creating good, high paying jobs. I am opposing this version of the Bankruptcy Reform Bill because it creates needless and unfair hoops for these individuals to jump through and the rigid means test puts those in real need of relief at a disadvantage. It imposes new burdens on families already overburdened by the debt they must shoulder. Certainly we all agree that those who can afford to should pay their creditors back—that they should be responsible for their debt. Those debtors who charge thousands of dollars on luxury goods, new cars and the like, only to then declare bankruptcy, should be held accountable. Many of us can remember a mother or father who taught us about debt, taught us the dangers of getting into debt and to be responsible for paying all our debts back. But we need to be fair in how we calculate who can pay. And we need to make sure that the provisions are not so rigid that they allow courts no discretion to take into account the circumstances that lead to the bankruptcy. The legislation that the Senate considers today is different from past versions that I have supported. There is obviously the removal of the Schumer amendment which held those who block access to abortion clinics accountable for the court judgments that they have incurred. But it also gives women, single parents, families and those living in poverty less opportunity to overcome their hardships and get a fresh start. This bill punishes people, assumes that all those filing for bankruptcy have purposefully created their debt problems, imposes a strict standard that does not take into account the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy and the real means of individuals to pay their debt back. That’s not fair, it’s not right, and it makes life tougher on working families. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for women, children and working families by opposing this bill. [Congressional Record, 3/10/05 <https://www.congress.gov/crec/2005/03/10/CREC-2005-03-10-pt1-PgS2462-2.pdf> ] Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I voted against a bankruptcy bill that puts credit card companies and politics ahead of ordinary Americans. Rather than providing balanced reform, this bill punishes those who have fallen on hard times—particularly our military families and those who are struggling under the weight of soaring medical bills. I have heard from residents across Washington State that the cost of medical care is forcing them into bankruptcy. In fact, a report last summer by the Working for Health Coalition found that half of Washington State bankruptcies were due to rising health care costs. Most of these families are working and more than half have health insurance, but the growing cost of health care is so overwhelming it pushes them into bankruptcy. A national study last month found that 61 percent of bankruptcy filers did not seek the medical care they needed. These families deserve help, but instead this bill punishes them for circumstances beyond their control. This bill also fails to adequately protect our military families, particularly our Guard and Reserve members. These patriotic families have had to struggle with half their normal income during long—and often extended—deployments. Many have seen their businesses collapse at home while they have served overseas. I have met with Washington State Guard and Reserve families and have seen how they are struggling to meet the financial burdens of long deployments. They deserve a lifeline, not more paperwork, legal fees, and threats from collection agencies. The Senate had an opportunity to protect our soldiers through Senator DURBIN’s amendment, but that was rejected for a Republican amendment that falls far short. Our military families deserve better. If Republicans had been willing to make the bill less punitive toward ordinary Americans, they would have adopted a number of reasonable amendments in committee and on the Senate floor, but they refused. For example, Republicans blocked an amendment that would have protected workers and retirees if their company files for bankruptcy. Republicans also voted down amendments to ensure the elderly don’t lose their homes and to discourage predatory lending. And they even failed to protect people who have had their identities stolen by criminals who then run up huge credit card bills. These are all examples of how Republicans are protecting corporate interests at the expense of vulnerable individuals. This bankruptcy bill also stacks the deck against women and children. For example, this bill will make it harder for single mothers to collect the pastdue child support they and their children are owed. I am also disappointed that the Senate rejected the Schumer amendment, which would have assured that those who commit violent crimes at reproductive-health facilities against women and doctors do not escape paying their debts and fines by declaring bankruptcy. Looking at the big picture, this bill fits a pattern of Republican proposals that turn the tide against average Americans. Last month, Republicans tipped the scales of justice against working families by limiting their ability to seek compensation for a death or injury caused by a company’s negligence. On Monday, Republicans rejected a proposal to raise the minimum wage. Taken together, these actions will make life harder for working families and represent a dangerous trend that threatens average Americans. In the past, I have voted for bankruptcy reform legislation, but today families find themselves in a much different place financially because of the costs of healthcare and military service. Congress should not punish them for things beyond their control with this unbalanced, unfair bill. American families deserve reform, not retribution. [Congressional Record, 3/10/05 <https://www.congress.gov/crec/2005/03/10/CREC-2005-03-10-pt1-PgS2462-2.pdf> ] * 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§ion=newsroom <https://web.archive.org/web/20010520143637/http:/nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=640§ion=newsroom> https://web.archive.org/web/20010711180022/http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=637§ion=newsroom <https://web.archive.org/web/20010711180022/http:/www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=637§ion=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 <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> 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 <aoleary@hillaryclinton.com> 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 <kschake@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: What did she say that was wrong? On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Ann O'Leary <aoleary@hillaryclinton.com> 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 <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Hi, Ann. Have you been able to reach them? Really hoping to get this out today. * Good idea. Let me call them this morning and get on it. On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Jennifer Palmieri < jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> 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 <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: We should. On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com> 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 <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> 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