[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 8, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2722-S2726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT
OF 2007
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3221, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States toward greater
energy independence and security, developing innovative new
technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs,
protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy
production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax
incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy
conservation.
Pending:
Dodd/Shelby amendment No. 4387, in the nature of a
substitute.
Sanders amendment No. 4401 (to amendment No. 4387), to
establish a national consumer credit usury rate.
Cardin/Ensign amendment No. 4421 (to amendment No. 4387),
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit
against income tax for the purchase of a principal residence
by a first-time homebuyer.
Ensign amendment No. 4419 (to amendment No. 4387), to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the limited
continuation of clean energy production incentives and
incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to prevent a
downturn in these sectors that would result from a lapse in
the tax law.
Alexander amendment No. 4429 (to amendment No. 4419), to
provide a longer extension of the renewable energy production
tax credit and to encourage all emerging renewable sources of
electricity.
Nelson (FL)/Coleman amendment No. 4423 (to amendment No.
4387), to provide for the penalty-free use of retirement
funds to provide foreclosure recovery relief for individuals
with mortgages on their principal residences.
Lincoln amendment No. 4382 (to amendment No. 4387), to
provide an incentive to employers to offer group legal plans
that provide a benefit for real estate and foreclosure
review.
Lincoln (for Snowe) amendment No. 4433 (to amendment No.
4387), to modify the increase in volume cap for housing bonds
in 2008.
Landrieu amendment No. 4404 (to amendment No. 4387), to
amend the provisions relating to qualified mortgage bonds to
include relief for persons in areas affected by Hurricane
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
Sanders amendment No. 4384 (to amendment No. 4387), to
provide an increase in specially adapted housing benefits for
disabled veterans.
Murray amendment No. 4478 (to amendment No. 4387), to
increase funding for housing counseling with an offset.
Mr. DODD. What is the pending amendment, Mr. President?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Murray amendment.
Mr. DODD. The Senator from Maryland wishes to speak.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Amendment No. 4494 to Amendment No. 4478
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4494.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes an
amendment numbered 4494 to amendment No. 4478.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make additional funds available to the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation to increase legal assistance available to
homeowners at risk of foreclosure and assistance to community
organizations working to preserve homeownership and prevent
foreclosure, with an offset)
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
SEC. _____.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the amount
appropriated under section 301(a) of this Act shall be
$3,862,500,000 and the amount appropriated under section 401
of this Act shall be $237,500,00: Provided, That, of amounts
appropriated under such section 401 $37,500,000 shall be used
by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (referred to in
this section as the ``NRC'') to (1) make grants to counseling
intermediaries approved by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development or the NRC to hire attorneys trained and
capable of assisting homeowners of owner-occupied homes with
mortgages in default, in danger of default, or subject to or
at risk of foreclosure who have legal issues that cannot be
handled by counselors already employed by such
intermediaries, and (2) support NRC partnerships with State
and local legal organizations and organizations described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
exempt from tax under section 501(a) of that Code with
demonstrated relevant legal experience in home foreclosure
law, as such experience is determined by the Chief Executive
Officer of NRC: Provided further, That for the purpose of the
prior proviso the term ``relevant experience'' means
experience representing homeowners in negotiations and or
legal proceedings aimed at preventing or mitigating
foreclosure or providing legal research and technical legal
expertise to community based organizations whose goal is to
reduce, prevent, or mitigate foreclosure: Provided further,
That of the amounts provided for in the prior provisos the
NRC shall give priority consideration to counseling
intermediaries and legal organizations that (1) provide legal
assistance in the 100 metropolitan statistical areas (as
defined by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget) with the highest home foreclosure rates, and (2) have
the capacity to begin using the financial assistance within
90 days after receipt of the assistance.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I spoke earlier about the compelling
need for this amendment. It would add money to NeighborWorks to be able
to help them add more legal staff to help people workout a plan to stay
in their homes. This amendment adds $37.5 million to the bill for the
NeighborWorks Program to do three things: Help counseling groups hire
more attorneys and paralegals to help with the foreclosure crisis, it
would also provide money to legal organizations to train more attorneys
and paralegals in foreclosure law, and also hire the people to train
counselors and nonprofit groups in basic foreclosure law to help people
do their workouts.
Many of my constituents and also constituents nationwide were victims
of predatory lending practices, schemes, and scams. It is because of
the complexity of dealing with these foreclosure increases that
nonprofit counseling organizations need more legal help. That is why I
am offering this amendment. It is to help those trying to have workouts
to their foreclosure problems, while we are giving considerable
bailouts to the people who caused the problem.
This is a second-degree amendment to the Murray amendment. I know it
will be considered at the appropriate time.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
Amendment No. 4401, as Modified
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I seek recognition to modify Sanders-
Durbin amendment No. 4401, and I send the modification to the desk.
The original amendment I offered would cap all interest rates on
consumer loans using a similar formula that Senator D'Amato used when
he offered an amendment to cap interest rates on credit cards in 1991.
Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to the
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is standing.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, that amendment passed on the floor by a
vote of 74 to 19. The modification I have sent to the desk would only
cap interest rates on mortgages insured by the Federal Housing
Administration. If this amendment were in law today, interest rates for
mortgages insured by the FHA could be no higher than 14 percent, which
is 8 percentage points above what the IRS charges to income tax
deadbeats.
The reason I am modifying this amendment is because if cloture is
invoked on this legislation, capping interest rates on all consumer
loans would not be germane. But capping interest rates on mortgages
insured by the FHA would be germane to the underlying bill. In the
future I will have more to say about this amendment. That is where we
are.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
[[Page S2723]]
(Purpose: To establish a maximum rate of interest for loans insured
under title II of the National Housing Act, and for other purposes)
On page 6, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
(c) Maximum Insured Mortgage Loan Rate.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the annual percentage rate
applicable to any loan that is insured under title II of the
National Housing Act may not exceed by more than 8 percentage
points the rate established under section 6621(a)(2) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Amendment No. 4485
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I call up Sanders amendment No. 4485.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. SHELBY. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 4392
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss with
the chairman of the committee the status of the bill and the pendency
of my amendment No. 4392. This is a very important amendment which
would give relief to homeowners with variable rate mortgages where
there is foreclosure action, where they suddenly find the monthly
payments increased unexpectedly from as much as $1,400 to $1,900, which
they cannot afford and then their house goes into foreclosure. The
borrowers do not understand that, and frequently there is
misrepresentation, fraud.
This amendment differs markedly from the Durbin amendment, which was
defeated, which would have had a serious impact on the availability of
lenders to put up money if there is undue interference with the
contractual rights.
This amendment protects the homeowners. It does little harm to the
fluidity of the availability to get loans.
We are moving toward a cloture vote at 2:30 p.m. By all indications,
cloture is going to be invoked, although I intend to fight it, to talk
about it in the caucus which will be held in a few minutes.
On the Republican side, we talked about denying cloture in order to
give Members an opportunity to have their amendments heard and voted
on, and I intend to press that issue. I was prepared to vote on this
amendment last Thursday, when I was taken from the floor to go to a
Judiciary Committee hearing because the expectation of another
Republican covering it was not fulfilled. So I had to go over to the
hearing as ranking member because we had a number of nominees in the
Judiciary Committee hearing. Now I find we are moving to cloture, and
there is no opportunity for a vote.
In my judgment, that is not the way this place ought to operate. I
know the chairman of the committee is bound by leadership decisions,
but I hope we can find a way to get a vote on this amendment. I know
there are other Members who have amendments who want votes.
May I ask the chairman for a response?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from
Pennsylvania, I appreciate the substance of the idea he has offered
and, of course, the amendment by Senator Durbin as well. I will not
belabor my colleagues with the history of why it is that provision
exists.
There were about 10 or 12 of us who strenuously objected to the
bankruptcy reform bill. So I had problems with that bill across the
board. I will not go into all that here. Let me try and frame this
again.
The majority leader, back about a week or so ago, talked with the
Republican leader about the possibility of us breaking this logjam that
existed, where nothing could even be debated on the housing issue. So
the idea was Senator Shelby and myself were designated by our
respective leaders to try to come up with a consensus package of ideas,
one Republicans and Democrats, by and large, could support to come out
with as a core, and from that other amendments would be offered and
added along the way, and if there was consensus, we would try to add
those.
It is a complicated process, but it was the only way we were going to
move beyond the gridlock that was allowing no debate whatsoever.
I am in the position, obviously, of trying to accomplish what our
leader is trying to achieve--and he should and I applaud him for it--of
trying to get us moving on this issue. We are losing 8,000 people a day
in foreclosure and the country and the economy is suffering terribly
and we were in gridlock on this issue.
There are some very meritorious ideas. Those who have been in this
position of managing legislation, of trying to get it through, know
from time to time you are confronted with substantively agreeing with
what a colleague is offering but find yourself in the position of
where, to move the product along, you do not agree at that particular
time to deal with the issue for a variety of reasons.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DODD. Let me finish the thought. The idea is we are watching the
legislation, quite candidly, because it is a tax bill, with which
Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus are dealing. All of a sudden, we
found ourselves dealing with other issues. That is not to say this is
one. This is one that could clearly relate to the subject matter. There
are others dealing with energy policy and the like. It is one of the
few vehicles that may move. So I understand the frustrations people may
have about putting something on this bill.
The fact is, we could be here endlessly and fail to get a housing
bill--albeit short of what I would like or others would like--to get us
to a conference with the House to do something about this issue. We can
stay the rest of this week or next week and debate a variety of
amendments or try to get moving to get something accomplished.
That, I believe, is the motivation behind the majority leader, and I
will let Senator Shelby talk for the minority leader. That is the
general thought. That is not to suggest these other ideas do not have
merit or do not have value, including the idea promoted by the Senator
from Pennsylvania. There is a reason why the leadership is responsible
for trying to move product through here that may not include every idea
everyone has that they would like to see added to legislation.
My hope is cloture will be invoked, that we can go forward, and there
can be amendments in postcloture, and if they are germane and deal with
the issues at hand, then we will try to accommodate them and, where we
have consensus, add them and come to some closure and move forward.
This is not the end of the debate. This is not the end of ideas. We
will have hearings this week in the committee. We have proposals we are
going to bring up in our committee in markup in the next couple weeks,
and we will be back on the floor with other ideas directly related to
this subject matter. We are merely trying to move this subject along to
achieve some of the results involved.
I admire what the Senator is trying to do. He and I have worked on a
lot of issues over the years and certainly this idea. As my colleague
from Alabama knows, when Senator Durbin's amendment was offered, I told
my colleagues this is one area where I am going to be supportive of
that effort to deal with primary residences.
I agree with what my colleague wants to achieve, but there are other
considerations we are trying to accomplish with this legislation.
I will be happy to respond to a question.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the problem with the argument by the
chairman is that looking to the future, the reality is that nothing
will happen. It is a long way from the representation, which I know the
chairman makes in very good faith, to have a bill come out of committee
and come back to the floor, in light of what has happened on the
calendar. It is just that the chances are so small, it cannot remotely
be relied upon.
[[Page S2724]]
When the chairman makes the comment about postcloture germaneness,
the Senate rules on what is germane are so arcane as to be un-
understandable, just un-understandable. Here we have a housing bill.
What could be more material to a housing bill when foreclosures are
happening across the country as we speak? The Senator from Connecticut
comments about the high rate of foreclosures, and this is an amendment
which seeks to stop the foreclosures, and it seeks to stop the
foreclosures where the lender has provided an instrument, which is a
variable rate mortgage, that the borrower does not understand; it has
not been explained; there are probably misrepresentations in many cases
and probably fraud in many cases. That is why this amendment opens up
the court to make a determination of that.
It does not impede upon the fluidity of the market and the
availability of capital, such as the Durbin amendment did, which
changed the principal sum.
The legislation which is coming out of the Congress and what is
happening on the administration is very heavily tilted to Wall Street
and not to Main Street. Those are the expressions. It is the little guy
who is not being taken care of.
I have admired what the Senator from Connecticut has had to say about
that. This bill is imbalanced--a bailout of Bear Stearns but you cannot
protect the borrower who has a variable rate mortgage which he did not
understand, where the rates have ballooned and he is being foreclosed.
That is not fair, and that is not right.
This bill is not balanced. It has a loss carried forward, which I
think is a good provision, but that does not help the little guy. It
has a tax credit for somebody who buys a house where the mortgage is in
foreclosure, but that does not keep the homeowner in the house. I don't
think the Senate ought to move ahead. This is not half a loaf, this is
a crumb. This bill is a crumb.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have been notified that at least one
Member, on the side of my good friend from Pennsylvania, will object to
any process going forward. So maybe he can spend some time in his
conference lunch to convince some of his colleagues to be more
supportive of some of these ideas.
This is not a crumb, let me say to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
The idea we are modernizing the FHA is critically important. The fact
we have money in here for disclosure, we have resources for counseling,
the fact we are getting resources back to the States, $4 billion to
assist them as they try to deal with the problems in their local
communities, the fact we are providing some tax support for people to
move into foreclosed property so we don't add to the supply is
critically important as well. These are some very solid ideas.
There are some provisions in the bill, I will be the first to admit,
frankly, had I written this all by myself without having to deal with
other people who care about some of these issues, I would not have
included.
This is far more than a crumb in terms of trying to deal with this
issue. More needs to be done, but the suggestion somehow that the
community development block grants, counseling, disclosure, and
modernization of the FHA and raising loan limits and the like are
insignificant is to fail to understand what is in this bill.
More can be done, I do not disagree. But the suggestion that what we
have done falls into that category is a vast exaggeration in terms of
what we have been trying to accomplish, and more will be done with this
issue as well.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, metaphors are meant to be extreme. We
cannot quantify a crumb as opposed to a loaf of bread. But no one would
say this is half a loaf. The criticism of this bill has largely come
from the chairman of the committee who has said it does not go far
enough.
Mr. DODD. Agreed.
Mr. SPECTER. When we have foreclosures across the country on variable
rate mortgages and no action is being taken to deal with them--let me
ask the Senator from Connecticut: If we consider the action which has
been taken by the Fed on Bear Stearns and otherwise and we consider
what this legislation is, isn't it significantly out of balance between
Main Street and Wall Street?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania,
what was done in the Bear Stearns-JPMorgan Chase issue, I would argue
alternatives may have been available. In the final analysis, what was
done that Sunday night to allow the merger of Bear Stearns with
JPMorgan Chase--and this is the conclusion, I think, unanimously of our
committee, having had a hearing on it--was probably the right decision,
given the alternative of bankruptcy of Bear Stearns and what could have
happened on that Monday had the action not been taken by the Fed, the
Treasury, and the New York Fed. That is one separate issue. It is a
legitimate point to say, shouldn't we do something where we can help
out communities and individuals and to get this economy moving in the
right direction.
I made that case for a year now, not just in the wake of Bear
Stearns. We had our first meetings on this matter in March of last year
trying to get something done. I am not going to take a backseat to
anyone who discovered this issue in the last couple days and how much
they care about it. I have been at it for 13 months, trying to get
things moving in this area.
We are doing some things here. My colleagues know very well what
objections there have been to doing anything in this area: Let the
market take care of it; the problem has been contained; no further
problems. Quite the contrary. We are now down to the business of doing
something about it, and I regret we are not accommodating everyone on
every idea they have the moment they want it considered.
We are doing our best, Senator Shelby and I and members of the
committee, to come out with something. Four weeks ago, we couldn't do
what we are doing now. We couldn't even debate the issue, I say to my
colleague from Pennsylvania.
I am suggesting to the Senator from Pennsylvania this bill does a lot
more than provide crumbs. It goes to the heart of very significant
issues that need to be dealt with. There are other matters that need to
be dealt with.
As my colleague knows, I agree with him about what bankruptcy courts
can do with primary residences. I also understand the history of the
seventies, why that provision was included, but I believe the times
have changed, and under this fact situation, we ought to allow a
bankruptcy judge to be able to modify that agreement to allow that
individual to stay in their home.
I thought Senator Durbin was right with his idea. The Senator from
Pennsylvania has a more modest idea in this area and may attract a few
more votes than the 36 we got with Senator Durbin's amendment. So I am
willing to support that, but the idea of trying to come to some closure
is also important so we can move on, get with the House, resolve some
of these matters, and come back. That is what this chairman is trying
to accomplish. That is what we were doing last week when we were
directed to do so by the leaders of our respective parties.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a final word. I don't disagree with what
the chairman has had to say about what was done with Bear Stearns. I
think we are all opposed--I certainly am opposed--to bailouts when
highly sophisticated Wall Street operators are looking for big profits
and their judgment is bad and they lose money. They ought not come to
the taxpayers for a bailout. I do recognize the situation with Bear
Stearns could have had a domino effect, which could have been
devastating. So I don't disagree with that action.
I am not going to retreat from my crumb metaphor, but let the record
show that on the question to the chairman as to whether there was not
substantial imbalance between what has happened with the Fed and what
is happening with proposals in the Congress, substantial imbalance
between Wall Street and the Main Street, the chairman did not deny
that, did not deal with it.
Let me close with a question, if the chairman would give favorable
consideration to my amendment when he reconvenes the Banking Committee
and take up this issue in the future.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we will be happy to consider it. It is a
matter
[[Page S2725]]
under the proper jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, of which the
Senator is a member, and it is not in the jurisdiction of the Banking
Committee. That is one of the other issues we face. If he is unable, as
a leading member of that committee, as a former chairman of that
committee, to have that adopted by his committee and come forward, we
certainly would consider it.
I point out we only had 36 votes for the Durbin amendment. I regret
that. We only had 12 of us who opposed the bankruptcy reform bill for 6
years around here. Those matters we widely endorsed and supported,
including the efforts, as my colleagues may recall, that I tried to do
with credit card companies that are gouging the public on a daily
basis. So I will take a back seat to no one in my determination to get
far better reforms out of the bankruptcy proceedings in the country,
and we will certainly do our best. But I want to be realistic with my
colleague as well. Unfortunately, the Senator from Pennsylvania and I
don't represent a majority in this body when it comes to that issue.
The realities are that we only have about half of us who seem to agree
with the two of us on this matter.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Judiciary Committee did report out
the Durbin amendment favorably, and my amendment on a second degree was
defeated along party lines, it is true there is primary jurisdiction in
the Judiciary Committee. But when this matter comes up before the
Banking, Housing and Urban Development Committee, these ideas could be
incorporated, and I would urge my colleague to do just that.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I know there have been a number of
other amendments, Mr. President, and I have just been informed that
objection will be expressed on every amendment, I guess, that is being
offered by a Member of the other side on this matter. So I would inform
my colleagues where we stand procedurally.
We are going to have our caucus luncheons where, I am sure, this will
be the subject of some discussion as we try to move forward, but,
again, I thank Senator Reid, the majority leader. He has a thankless
job when it comes to these issues, and he asked Senator Shelby and I to
try to do our best to come up with a consensus package. Granted, now
the subject matter has become of great interest to everyone, and it
should, and we have tried to do just that, to put together a consensus
package--not an easy thing to accomplish in this body, but we tried to
do that. Again, we will try to move forward with other ideas that we
can incorporate through our committee and others.
Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas wants to be heard on this
matter as well, and I thank her for her patience.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, do I need to ask unanimous consent for
more time?
I ask unanimous consent to extend the time for an additional 5
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues. I know I
am taking up time now when folks are ready to leave and do other things
and then come back, but I do feel strongly about this amendment and I
just wanted to voice my concerns.
This is an amendment that Senator Smith and I are offering, along
with Senator Snowe and many others--Senators Kerry, Stabenow, Levin,
Schumer, Kennedy. It is a good amendment, and it will encourage our
employers to provide group legal service benefits with an emphasis on
real estate counseling for their employees. This is something which
group legal service plans--which have been around since the 1970s--were
intended to do and exactly what the Center for Responsible Lending said
should be one of our top priorities in this effort in dealing with the
housing crisis. We should be encouraging and incentivizing preventive
legal services.
What the center had cited increasing are those incentives for
mortgage counseling legal services. It is a key policy recommendation
for dealing with what we find ourselves in now--the crisis situation we
are in. Borrowers need affordable and available legal review
of mortgages, mortgage-related documents, and financing and loan
modifications. These are complex transactions and sometimes,
oftentimes, folks in States such as Arkansas and Montana have nowhere
else to go. Legal services provide them that kind of proactive
involvement in making sure they are making the right decisions.
We should be giving the average American homeowner access to that
legal advice so he or she can feel confident in the mortgages they are
getting into, so that when, if, unfortunately, God forbid, things do go
wrong, they can receive advice about their rights and responsibilities
and what they are dealing with in foreclosure, what options are
available to them in dealing with these crises.
This is a good addition to this bill. It is positive. It is all of
what we have been talking about that we need. It is consumer friendly.
It is something we have used in this country. Unfortunately, section
120 of the Internal Revenue Code has lapsed. That section of the code
was intended to provide the tax incentives so that our employers could
set up and offer group legal service plans. Since it has lapsed,
virtually no new group legal benefit plans have been created, and many
employers are dropping those that do exist.
So I would encourage us all to look at what we are trying to
accomplish in this bill; not to just throw things overboard because
somebody else didn't get what they wanted, but that we look at what we
are trying to do for the American people. We should encourage these
plans that provide our working Americans with access to legal advice.
They review those mortgage documents, they assist those individuals in
working with the lender to modify those loans, creating forbearance
agreements and assistance in the restructuring of loans, and it
provides that much needed counseling in foreclosure litigation when it
is needed.
I thank Chairman Dodd and the ranking member, Senator Shelby, for
their patience because I know they see all of us in these frantic modes
of wanting to improve the bill and wanting to provide something that we
know has been beneficial to the people we represent, and we know it can
be beneficial again, and this is the appropriate place to put it.
So I just encourage that working through legal services, particularly
in rural States such as mine, it is one of those places where people
have to go. They do have the confidence of going to their neighbor,
their country lawyer, and being able to get those services. They may
not have a big, huge housing agency they can go to for the kinds of
counsel they need, and these are good services that have proven
themselves in years passed. Yet we find that employers cannot afford to
provide them because we have lost that section in the Internal Revenue
Code.
So I do thank all my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment.
We have worked on this for quite some time. I say a big thanks also to
the groups that have endorsed our amendment--the American Bar
Association, the American Prepaid Legal Services Institute, the
International Union, UAW, AFSCME, and the laborers. So many different
groups realize hard-working Americans who get caught in these
circumstances need this kind of assistance.
I thank the Chair for his indulgence, and certainly my colleagues,
the chairman, and the ranking member for trying to work with us. And I
guess, Mr. President, and Mr. Chairman, my only option is to ask for a
unanimous consent; is that correct? Is there something we can work
through? Can I ask unanimous consent for regular order with respect to
my amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is not in regular
order.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to take every
consideration as they move forward in putting together this bill; that
if there is any possible way we can work through making sure these
individuals who really have nowhere else to go will be able to have the
types of services they are used to having in years passed, and
providing the incentives the employers need in order to be able to
provide those services because they are clearly not providing them now.
It is not something small businesses can do.
[[Page S2726]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will ask for 2 additional minutes, if I
can, to respond to my colleague from Arkansas.
First of all, I agree with her totally about the value. Over the many
years I have been a long-time supporter of these legal services offices
and the job they do on behalf of people all across the country,
particularly in rural America, and the difference they make. So I am in
complete agreement with her about the value of this approach.
I would inform her that the regular order would be asking consent,
after cloture has been invoked, to bring up the matter she wants to
bring up. It is a tax matter and one that would require the consent of
the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member. So it is
a matter where we are leaving it up to that jurisdiction to respond. So
I want to be careful. I don't know how Senator Baucus feels about that.
I don't want to put words in his mouth at all. I suspect he has the
same sort of reaction as I do, and it is a positive one.
I am grateful for my colleague's understanding the situation we are
in, trying to accommodate as many ideas as we can and to move from here
to the next stage and deal with other aspects of the legislation. We
couldn't have gotten here without the majority leader insisting, and
really with the minority leader, to come together and allow us to bring
up this package. So there are a lot of very good ideas and ones I
applaud and welcome, but in the interest of trying to move forward, we
are not going to be able to accommodate all of them.
I am not suggesting that will happen in this case, but I again
appreciate her recognition that what we are trying to accomplish and
deal with here is difficult. It is serious. As she points out, we have
a lot of people suffering every single day--I have been making that
case for 12 months--and we haven't been able to have a debate about
this subject until last week. So to the extent that we have gotten that
far along, that is some achievement.
I hope now that we are in the debate we can do some valuable and
worthwhile works that will make a difference, and her suggestion
contributes to that. So my hope is we will be able to accommodate this
in the package as well.
Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the chairman for his comments, and I certainly
want to express this is a time-appropriate solution to the problems
that exist, and I hope we will give every consideration to it.
I thank the Chair.
____________________