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

Re: Bankruptcy follow up

Just to be really clear about what the women Senators would be saying... we are trying to get them to make the point that HRC was NOT an outlier voting with Wall Street, but rather than they all were working together to try to make improvements to the bill for women and children and so strategically moved the bill forward and then all the liberal Dems voted against it when it came back in 2005 (as HRC would have done and put out a statement out but for WJC's heart attack). We are NOT, however, re-litigating whether we made enough progress on women and children issues to justify the vote..... but I think it is critical that we make really, really clear that HRC was not alone. I will get up and get on 8 am ET call in case there are questions and I'll try to get the Mikulski and Murray statements before then so we at least know what they'd be saying if we need to or want to deploy. On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mandy Grunwald <gruncom@aol.com> wrote: > > I understand why HRC wants the statements in hand, and we may well need > them to back us up for Thursday's debate, but if we put them out, we should > all be clear that we will inflame Senator Warren further. > > As Ann knows, Elizabeth believes the facts are simply not on our side and > she has a very good case that we do not want her to feel pressed to make to > the media. > > If we can deal with tomorrow's stories without putting out Sen Murrays > statement and/or Sen Milkulskis (if we get one), it would be preferable. > > I probably won't be on the 8 am call, I'm taking an 8:30 plane. Heading > back to NH. > If anyone has questions, they can call me now. > > Thx > > Mandy Grunwald > Grunwald Communications > 202 973-9400 > > > On Feb 7, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Ann O'Leary <aoleary@hillaryclinton.com> > wrote: > > 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 < > jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com> 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 <aoleary@hillaryclinton.com> >> 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§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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * -- Ann O'Leary Senior Policy Advisor Hillary for America Cell: 510-717-5518