Now that the subject of Hillary’s vote on the 2001 bankruptcy bill has come up again, some people point to Hillary’s statements on this, as well as a past diary to argue that she voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill because she added all kinds of great child support provisions and “consumer protections” that the 2005 law didn’t have. The problem is that is not true, her statements on this are not true, and, with all due respect, that diary is not true.
The 2001 bill had ZERO child support or “consumer protections” that the 2005 and 2000 versions did not have. For reference, links to the text of the 2005 law, 2001 bill and 2000 bill. There was ZERO to justify voting for the 2001 bankruptcy bill while being against the 2005 law and the 2000 bill that Hillary was against and Bill Clinton vetoed. She flip flopped on this, period.
Before I get into the detailed analysis, this is what Elizabeth Warren said in 2003 about the 2001 bill:
The bill was essentially the same [as the 2000 bill], but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not.
Here’s what Sen. Murray said about the 2001 bill:
I plan to vote for this bill [...But] 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 re-affirm 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 well-off 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.
Going back to what Hillary said about the 2001 bill:
While we have yet to achieve the kind of bankruptcy reform I believe is possible, I have worked with a number of people to make improvements that bring us closer to our goals, particularly when it comes to child support. Women can now be assured that they can continue to collect child support payments after the child’s father has declared bankruptcy. The legislation makes child support the first priority during bankruptcy proceedings.
This is not true. The 2005 and 2000 versions had exact same provisions on child support as the 2001 bill (Subtitle B—Priority Child Support). She also said:
Earlier today, this body agreed to include a cap on the homestead exemption to ensure that wealthy debtors could not shield their wealth by purchasing a mansion in a state with no cap on homestead exemption.
This is not true. There is no cap on the homestead exemption in the 2001 bill. She also said:
In addition, I was concerned about competing nondischargeable debt so I worked hard with Senator Boxer to ensure that more credit card debt can be erased so that women who use their credit cards for food, clothing and medical expenses in the 90 days before bankruptcy do not have to litigate each and every one of these expenses for the first $750.
This is misleading. She is referring to Sec. 310, which says “(II) cash advances aggregating more than $750 that are extensions of consumer credit under an open end credit plan obtained by an individual debtor on or within 70 days before the order for relief under this title, are presumed to be nondischargeable.” However, her statement is misleading because Sec. 310 was exactly the same in the 2005 and 2000 versions.
The prior Daily Kos diary also listed a number of amendments below that were rejected in the 2005 law, implying that they were in the 2001 bill. But they weren’t.
- To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by failure to receive alimony or child support, or both, from means testing.
- To provide a maximum amount for a homestead exemption under State law.
- To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.
The only provision in the 2001 bankruptcy bill that was not in the 2005 law was Sec. 328, which made the court fines of anti-abortion protesters nondischargeable debt in bankruptcy. However, Sec. 328 was exactly the same in the 2000 version that Hillary was against and Bill Clinton vetoed.