State attorneys general are the traditional defenders of consumers. So when all 50 of them announced an investigation last fall into foreclosure practices at the nation’s big banks, there was hope for an unsparing inquiry and a meaningful settlement. Most of all, we hoped that banks would be compelled, at long last, to aggressively modify millions of additional loans.

Unfortunately, a draft settlement recently presented to the nation’s biggest banks is unclear on how to achieve that goal. And even before the terms have been clarified, House and Senate Republicans are attacking the proposal. They are arguing, in effect, that banks should not be held accountable for their misdeeds.

The proposal would impose sound reforms, like requiring banks to halt a foreclosure while a loan modification is pending and to streamline the modification process. But there is no mention of how much money banks would have to put toward reworking bad loans or a target number of new loan modifications. It is also impossible to know the extent to which banks would be shielded from future lawsuits in exchange for settling. Without those details, it is all too easy to envision a settlement in which homeowners receive little and banks win broad release from legal liability for unspecified abuses.

Our doubts about the outcome are worsened by the dissension among government officials about what a settlement should achieve. The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — the banks’ staunchest defenders — have argued for minimal fines. State officials, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau want the broader redress that would come with more loan modifications. Since the aim is for state and federal agencies to join in one global settlement with the banks, differences among people who should be on the same side do not bode well.