[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.

                          ____________________