[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 64 (Monday, May 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5221-S5230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1037. A bill to require disclosure of financial relationships 
between brokers and mutual fund companies, and of certain brokerage 
commissions paid by mutual fund companies; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mutual Fund 
Transparency Act of 2005. Mutual funds are vital investment vehicles 
for middle-income Americans that offer diversification and professional 
money management. Mutual funds are what average investors rely on for 
retirement, savings for children's college education, or other 
financial goals and dreams.
  I was outraged by the widespread abuses in the industry. Ordinary 
investors were being harmed due to the greed of brokers, mutual fund 
companies, and institutional and large investors. That is why I 
introduced the Mutual Fund Transparency Act in November 2003 with my 
colleagues Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Lieberman.
  I want to thank the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, SEC, William Donaldson, for his courageous leadership. 
Chairman Donaldson has demonstrated a commitment to bring about reforms 
that better protect investors. I applaud the SEC's enforcement and 
regulatory efforts in addressing weaknesses and abuses in the mutual 
fund industry.
  The SEC has adopted several reforms that mirror provisions found in 
my original Mutual Fund Transparency Act. In July 2004, the SEC adopted 
reforms requiring mutual funds, with certain exemptive rules, to have 
an independent chairman and ensure that 75 percent of their board 
members are independent.
  Although the SEC has undertaken a number of impressive reforms, I 
have chosen to reintroduce a modified version of my original bill to 
further strengthen the independence of boards, make investors more 
aware of the true costs of their mutual funds, and prevent several key 
reforms from being rolled back. It is also important to legislatively 
address areas where the SEC needs additional statutory authority. 
Legislation is needed to ensure that the increased independence rule 
applied universally among mutual funds.
  My bill includes a number of provisions intended to strengthen mutual 
fund boards. It will require that mutual fund boards have independent 
chairmen and that 75 percent of their directors be independent. My bill 
strengthens the definition of who is considered an independent director 
and requires independent directors to be approved by shareholders. 
These steps are necessary to strengthen the ability of mutual fund 
boards to detect and prevent abuses of investor trust.
  My bill will also increase the transparency of the complex financial 
relationships between brokers and mutual funds in ways that are both 
meaningful and easy to understand for investors. Shelf-space payments 
and revenue-sharing agreements between mutual fund companies and 
brokers present conflicts of interest that must be addressed. Brokers 
have conflicts of interest, some of which are unavoidable, but these 
need to be disclosed to investors. Without such disclosure, investors 
cannot make informed financial decisions. Investors may believe that 
brokers are recommending funds based on the expectation for solid 
returns or low volatility, when the broker's recommendation may be 
influenced by hidden payments. This legislation will require brokers to 
disclose in writing the amount of compensation the broker will receive 
due to the transaction, instead of simply providing a prospectus. 
Currently, the prospectus fails to include the detailed relevant 
information that investors need to make informed decisions.
  The SEC has requested comments on a proposal to require a 
confirmation notice, as well as increased point-of-sale disclosures, to 
provide investors with more information about broker conflicts in 
mutual fund transactions. The SEC is reviewing comments on its 
proposal, and studying other possibilities. I have included a point-of-
sale disclosure requirement in my legislation that was absent in the 
prior bill. In my bill, investors would have to be provided with the 
amount of differential payments and average fees for comparable 
transactions. My legislation also requires that confirmation notices be 
provided for mutual fund transactions, which will include how their 
broker was compensated.
  To further increase the transparency of the actual costs of the fund, 
brokerage commissions must be counted as an expense in filings with the 
SEC and included in the calculation of the expense ratio. Consumers 
often compare the expense ratios of funds when making investment 
decisions. However, the expense ratios fail to take into account the 
cost of commissions in the purchase and sale of securities. Therefore, 
investors are not provided with a complete and accurate idea of the 
expenses involved with owning that fund. Currently, brokerage 
commissions are disclosed to the SEC, but not to individual investors. 
Right now, brokerage commissions are only disclosed to the investor 
upon request. My bill puts teeth into brokerage commission disclosure 
provisions and ensures that commissions will be included in a document 
that investors have access to and can utilize.
  The inclusion of brokerage commissions in the expense ratio creates a 
powerful incentive to reduce the use of soft dollars. Soft dollars can 
be used to lower expenses, since most purchases using soft dollars do 
not count as expenses and are not calculated into the expense ratio. 
There have been calls for the prohibition of soft dollars. This is a 
recommendation that needs to be further examined. My bill provides an 
alternative, which is an incentive for funds to limit the use of soft 
dollars by identifying them as expenses. If commissions are disclosed 
in this manner,

[[Page S5222]]

the use of soft dollars will be reflected in the higher commission fees 
and overall expenses. This makes it easier for investors to see the 
true cost of the fund and compare the expense ratios of funds.
  Some may argue that this approach gives an incomplete picture and 
fails to account for spreads, market impact, and opportunity costs. 
However, the SEC has the authority to address the issue further if it 
can determine an effective way to quantify these additional factors. My 
bill does not impose additional reporting requirements that would be 
burdensome to brokers. It merely uses what is already reported and 
presents this information in a manner meaningful to investors.
  Another important provision in my bill requires the SEC to conduct a 
study to assess financial literacy among mutual fund investors. This 
study is necessary because any additional disclosure requirements for 
mutual funds will not truly work unless investors are given the tools 
they need to make smart investment decisions.
  Mr. President, my legislation will ensure that mutual fund boards are 
independent and that investors are provided with more relevant and 
meaningful disclosures from which they can make better informed 
choices. I look forward to continue working with my colleagues and the 
SEC to better protect investors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1037

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

         This Act may be cited as the ``Mutual Fund Transparency 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BROKERS 
                   AND MUTUAL FUND COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange 
     Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(13) Confirmation of transactions for mutual funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each broker shall disclose in writing to 
     customers that purchase the shares of an open-end company 
     registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 
     1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8)--
       ``(i) the amount of any compensation received or to be 
     received by the broker in connection with such transaction 
     from any sources; and
       ``(ii) such other information as the Commission determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) Revenue sharing.--The term `compensation' under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include any direct or indirect payment 
     made by an investment adviser (or any affiliate of an 
     investment adviser) to a broker or dealer for the purpose of 
     promoting the sales of securities of an open-end company.
       ``(C) Timing of disclosure.--The disclosure required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made to a customer not later than 
     as of the date of the completion of the transaction.
       ``(D) Limitation.--The disclosures required under 
     subparagraph (A) may not be made exclusively in--
       ``(i) a registration statement or prospectus of an open-end 
     company; or
       ``(ii) any other filing of an open-end company with the 
     Commission.
       ``(E) Commission authority.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Commission shall promulgate such 
     final rules as are necessary to carry out this paragraph not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Mutual 
     Fund Transparency Act of 2005.
       ``(ii) Form of disclosure.--Disclosures under this 
     paragraph shall be in such form as the Commission, by rule, 
     shall require.
       ``(F) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `open-end 
     company' has the same meaning as in section 5 of the 
     Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-5).''.
       (b) Disclosure of Brokerage Commissions.--Section 30 of the 
     Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-29) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Disclosure of Brokerage Commissions.--The Commission, 
     by rule, shall require that brokerage commissions as an 
     aggregate dollar amount and percentage of assets paid by an 
     open-end company be included in any disclosure of the amount 
     of fees and expenses that may be payable by the holder of the 
     securities of such company for purposes of--
       ``(1) the registration statement of that open-end company; 
     and
       ``(2) any other filing of that open-end company with the 
     Commission, including the calculation of expense ratios.''.

     SEC. 3. MUTUAL FUND GOVERNANCE.

       (a) Independent Fund Boards.--Section 10(a) of the 
     Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-10(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall have'' and inserting the following: 
     ``shall--
       ``(1) have'';
       (2) by striking ``60 per centum'' and inserting ``25 
     percent'';
       (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) have as chairman of its board of directors an 
     interested person of such registered company; or
       ``(3) have as a member of its board of directors any person 
     that is an interested person of such registered investment 
     company--
       ``(A) who has served without being approved or elected by 
     the shareholders of such registered investment company at 
     least once every 5 years; and
       ``(B) unless such director has been found, on an annual 
     basis, by a majority of the directors who are not interested 
     persons, after reasonable inquiry by such directors, not to 
     have any material business or familial relationship with the 
     registered investment company, a significant service provider 
     to the company, or any entity controlling, controlled by, or 
     under common control with such service provider, that is 
     likely to impair the independence of the director.''.
       (b) Action by Independent Directors.--Section 10 of the 
     Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-10) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Action by Board of Directors.--No action taken by the 
     board of directors of a registered investment company may 
     require the vote of a director who is an interested person of 
     such registered investment company.
       ``(j) Independent Committee.--
       ``(1) In general.--The members of the board of directors of 
     a registered investment company who are not interested 
     persons of such registered investment company shall establish 
     a committee comprised solely of such members, which committee 
     shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) selecting persons to be nominated for election to the 
     board of directors; and
       ``(B) adopting qualification standards for the nomination 
     of directors.
       ``(2) Disclosure.--The standards developed under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be disclosed in the registration statement of 
     the registered investment company.''.
       (c) Definition of Interested Person.--Section 2(a)(19) of 
     the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (iv), by striking ``two'' and inserting 
     ``5''; and
       (B) by striking clause (vii) and inserting the following:
       ``(vii) any natural person who has served as an officer or 
     director, or as an employee within the preceding 10 fiscal 
     years, of an investment adviser or principal underwriter to 
     such registered investment company, or of any entity 
     controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such 
     investment adviser or principal underwriter;
       ``(viii) any natural person who has served as an officer or 
     director, or as an employee within the preceding 10 fiscal 
     years, of any entity that has within the preceding 5 fiscal 
     years acted as a significant service provider to such 
     registered investment company, or of any entity controlling, 
     controlled by, or under the common control with such service 
     provider;
       ``(ix) any natural person who is a member of a class of 
     persons that the Commission, by rule or regulation, 
     determines is unlikely to exercise an appropriate degree of 
     independence as a result of--

       ``(I) a material business relationship with the investment 
     company or an affiliated person of such investment company;
       ``(II) a close familial relationship with any natural 
     person who is an affiliated person of such investment 
     company; or
       ``(III) any other reason determined by the Commission.'';

       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (iv), by striking ``two'' and inserting 
     ``5''; and
       (B) by striking clause (vii) and inserting the following:
       ``(vii) any natural person who is a member of a class of 
     persons that the Commission, by rule or regulation, 
     determines is unlikely to exercise an appropriate degree of 
     independence as a result of--

       ``(I) a material business relationship with such investment 
     adviser or principal underwriter or affiliated person of such 
     investment adviser or principal underwriter;
       ``(II) a close familial relationship with any natural 
     person who is an affiliated person of such investment adviser 
     or principal underwriter; or
       ``(III) any other reason as determined by the 
     Commission:''.

       (d) Definition of Significant Service Provider.--Section 
     2(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
     2(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(53) Significant service provider.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2005, the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission shall issue final rules 
     defining the term `significant service provider'.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The definition developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, the investment 
     adviser and principal underwriter of a registered investment 
     company for purposes of paragraph (19).''.

[[Page S5223]]

     SEC. 4. FINANCIAL LITERACY AMONG MUTUAL FUND INVESTORS STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Securities and Exchange Commission 
     shall conduct a study to identify--
       (1) the existing level of financial literacy among 
     investors that purchase shares of open-end companies, as that 
     term is defined under section 5 of the Investment Company Act 
     of 1940, that are registered under section 8 of that Act;
       (2) the most useful and understandable relevant information 
     that investors need to make sound financial decisions prior 
     to purchasing such shares;
       (3) methods to increase the transparency of expenses and 
     potential conflicts of interest in transactions involving the 
     shares of open-end companies;
       (4) the existing private and public efforts to educate 
     investors; and
       (5) a strategy to increase the financial literacy of 
     investors that results in a positive change in investor 
     behavior.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
     shall submit a report on the study required under subsection 
     (a) to--
       (1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 
     the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 5. STUDY REGARDING MUTUAL FUND ADVERTISING.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study on mutual fund advertising to 
     identify--
       (1) existing and proposed regulatory requirements for open-
     end investment company advertisements;
       (2) current marketing practices for the sale of open-end 
     investment company shares, including the use of unsustainable 
     past performance data, funds that have merged, and incubator 
     funds;
       (3) the impact of such advertising on consumers;
       (4) recommendations to improve investor protections in 
     mutual fund advertising and additional information necessary 
     to ensure that investors can make informed financial 
     decisions when purchasing shares.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report on the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a) to--
       (1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of 
     the United States Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 6. POINT-OF-SALE DISCLOSURE.

       (a) In General.--Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange 
     Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(b)), as amended by section 2, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Broker disclosures in mutual fund transactions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each broker shall disclose in writing to 
     each person that purchases the shares of an investment 
     company registered under section 8 of the Investment Company 
     Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8)--
       ``(i) the source and amount, in dollars and as a percentage 
     of assets, of any compensation received or to be received by 
     the broker in connection with such transaction from any 
     sources;
       ``(ii) the amount, in dollars and as a percentage of 
     assets, of compensation received in connection with 
     transactions in shares of other investment company shares 
     offered by the broker, if materially different from the 
     amount under (i);
       ``(iii) comparative information that shows the average 
     amount received by brokers in connection with comparable 
     transactions, as determined by the Commission; and
       ``(iv) such other information as the Commission determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) Revenue sharing.--The term `compensation' under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include any direct or indirect payment 
     made by an investment adviser (or any affiliate of an 
     investment adviser) to a broker or dealer for the purpose of 
     promoting the sales of securities of a registered investment 
     company.
       ``(C) Timing of disclosure.--The disclosures required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be made to permit the person 
     purchasing the shares to evaluate such disclosures before 
     deciding to engage in the transaction.
       ``(D) Limitation.--The disclosures required under 
     subparagraph (A) may not be made exclusively in--
       ``(i) a registration statement or prospectus of a 
     registered investment company; or
       ``(ii) any other filing of a registered investment company 
     with the Commission.
       ``(E) Commission authority.--The Commission shall 
     promulgate such final rules as are necessary to carry out 
     this paragraph not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2005.''.
       (b) National Securities Association Requirements.--Section 
     15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-3) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) National Securities Association Requirements.--Each 
     national securities association registered pursuant to this 
     section shall issue such rules as necessary not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of the Mutual Fund 
     Transparency Act of 2005 to require that a broker that 
     provides individualized investment advice to a person shall--
       ``(1) have a fiduciary duty to that person;
       ``(2) act solely in the best interests of that person; and
       ``(3) fully disclose all potential conflicts of interest 
     and other information that is material to the relationship to 
     that person prior to the time that the investment advice is 
     first provided to the person and at least annually 
     thereafter.''.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter in 
support of my legislation from Fund Democracy, the Consumer Federation 
of America, Consumer Action, and Consumers Union, as well as a letter 
of support from AARP, be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     May 16, 2005.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: We are writing to express our 
     enthusiastic support for your Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 
     2005. Your bill will benefit fund shareholders in three 
     significant respects. First, it will strengthen the 
     independence of fund board to help ensure that the gross 
     abuses of trust committed by fund managers in connection with 
     the recent mutual fund scandal will not be repeated. Second, 
     the bill will require that fund shareholders be provided with 
     full and understandable disclosure of brokers' fees and 
     conflicts of interest, and that when brokers provide 
     individualized investment advice they will be held to the 
     same fiduciary standards to which all other investment 
     advisers are held. Third, the bill will promote competition 
     through increased price transparency, and thereby improve 
     services and reduce costs for the almost 100 million 
     Americans who have entrusted their financial security to 
     mutual funds.


                            Fund Governance

       The mutual scandal that erupted in September 2003 and 
     continues to be litigated to this day revealed ``a serious 
     breakdown in management controls in more than just a few 
     mutual fund complexes.'' As noted by the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission:
       ``The breakdown in fund management and compliance controls 
     evidenced by our enforcement cases raises troubling questions 
     about the ability of many fund boards, as presently 
     constituted, to effectively oversee the management of funds. 
     The failure of a board to play its proper role can result, in 
     addition to serious compliance breakdowns, in excessive fees 
     and brokerage commissions, less than forthright disclosure, 
     mispricing of securities, and inferior investment 
     performance.''
       The Act directly addresses the governance weaknesses 
     revealed by the scandal by strengthening the independence of 
     fund directors. It plugs loopholes that have allowed former 
     executives of fund managers and other fund service 
     providers, among others, to qualify as ``independent'' 
     directors when their independence is clearly compromised 
     by their former positions. The Act also ensures that the 
     board's agenda will be set by an independent chairman, and 
     not by the CEO of the fund's manager, as is common 
     practice, and that independent directors will control 
     board matters and the evaluation of independent nominees. 
     The Act's requirement that independent directors seek 
     shareholder approval at least every 5 years will enhance 
     the accountability of independent directors to the 
     shareholders whose interests they are supposed to serve.
       Although the SEC recently adopted rules requiring 
     independent fund chairmen and a 75% independent board, these 
     rules will not prevent fund managers from terminating 
     independent chairmen or reducing independent representation 
     on the board to the statutory minimum of 40%. The SEC's rules 
     apply only when the funds choose to rely on certain exemptive 
     rules. If there is a conflict between the fund's independent 
     directors and the fund manager, the fund manager can simply 
     stop relying on the rules and seek to install its own 
     executives in a majority of board positions. This is 
     precisely what Don Yacktman did when the independent 
     directors of his funds opposed him, and it will undoubtedly 
     be repeated the next time that there is a similar 
     confrontation. More importantly, independent directors know 
     from the Yacktman experience that the protection given them 
     by the SEC is limited, and they therefore will be less likely 
     to stand up for shareholders than if--as you have proposed--
     the SEC's requirements were codified.


    Fiduciary Duties and Full Disclosure for All Investment Advisers

       Recent regulatory investigations and enforcement actions 
     have uncovered persistent and widespread sales abuses by 
     brokers. Regulators have found that brokers have 
     systematically overcharged investors for commissions, 
     routinely made improper recommendations of B shares, accepted 
     undisclosed directed brokerage payments in return for 
     distribution services, and received revenue sharing payments 
     that create incentives to favor funds that pay the highest 
     compensation rather than funds that are the best investment 
     option for their clients.
       Last fall, the Commission promised that it would address 
     the problems that have so long plagued brokers' sales 
     practices, but the Commission's efforts have fallen far short 
     of the mark. Its recent proposals fail to require full 
     disclosure of brokers' compensation,

[[Page S5224]]

     much less the disclosure of information that would enable 
     investors to fully evaluate their brokers' conflicts of 
     interests. The new disclosure requirements that you have 
     proposed will ensure that brokers' conflicts of interest will 
     be fully transparent to investors. Investors will be able to 
     view the amount the broker is being paid for the fund being 
     recommended compared with the (often lesser) amount the 
     broker would receive for selling a different fund, which 
     cannot help but direct investors' attention to the conflict 
     of interest created by differential compensation structures. 
     We especially applaud your proposal to ensure that all broker 
     compensation, including revenue sharing payments, is 
     disclosed in the point-of-sale document, which ensures that 
     disclosure rules will not create an incentive for brokers to 
     favor revenue sharing as a means of avoiding disclosure.
       Remarkably, in the wake of a longstanding pattern of 
     brokers' sales abuses, the Commission has recently repealed 
     Congress's narrow exemption from advisory regulation for 
     brokers who provide only ``solely incidental'' advice. The 
     Commission's strained interpretation of ``solely incidental'' 
     advice to include any advice provided ``in connection with 
     and reasonably related to a broker's brokerage services''\3\ 
     has effectively stripped advisory clients of the protections 
     of an entire statutory regime solely on the ground that the 
     investment advice happens to be provided by a broker. The 
     Commission's position flatly contradicts the text and purpose 
     of the Investment Advisers Act, which, as the Supreme Court 
     has stated: ``reflects a congressional recognition ``of `the 
     delicate fiduciary nature of an investment advisory 
     relationship,' as well as a congressional intent to 
     eliminate, or at least to expose, all conflicts of interest 
     which might incline an investment adviser--consciously or 
     unconsciously--to render advice which was not 
     disinterested.''
       Your proposal restores crucial components of Congress's 
     carefully constructed regulatory scheme for the distinct and 
     complementary regulation of brokerage and advisory services. 
     It properly recognizes that a ``fiduciary, which Congress 
     recognized the investment adviser to be,'' is also what 
     consumers expect an investment adviser to be, as is generally 
     the case when professional services are provided on a 
     personalized basis. The Act also recognizes the importance 
     of''expos[ing] all conflicts of interest which might incline 
     an investment adviser--consciously or unconsciously--to 
     render advice which was not disinterested'' by requiring full 
     disclosure of such conflicts of interests and other material 
     information at the time that the prospective client is 
     deciding whether to enter into the relationship.


                  Fee Disclosure and Price Competition

       Your fee disclosure provisions will do double duty, by 
     addressing conflicts of interest and brokers' sales abuses 
     while also promoting competition, thereby improving services 
     and driving down expenses. Requiring brokers to disclose the 
     amount of differential payments and average fees for 
     comparable transactions will provide the kind of price 
     transparency that is a necessary predicate for price 
     competition and the efficient operation of free markets. In 
     addition, the requirement that funds disclose the amount of 
     commissions they pay will ensure that the fund expense ratio 
     includes all of the costs of the fund's operations and enable 
     investors to make more informed investment decisions. The 
     best regulator of fees is the market, but the market cannot 
     operate efficiently when brokers and funds are permitted to 
     hide the actual cost of the services they provide.


               Financial Literacy and Fund Advertisements

       Finally, we strongly agree that there is a need to further 
     study of financial literacy, including especially information 
     that fund investors need to make informed investment 
     decisions and methods to increase the transparency of fees 
     and potential conflicts of interest. Your proposed study of 
     mutual fund advertisements is also timely, as the regulation 
     of fund ads continues to permit misleading touting of out 
     sized short-term performance and other abuses.
       Mutual funds are Americans' most important lifeline to 
     retirement security. The regulation of mutual funds, however, 
     has not kept pace with their enormous growth. We applaud your 
     continuing efforts to enhance investor protection, promote 
     vigorous market competition and create wealth for America's 
     mutual fund investors through effective disclosure and truly 
     independent board oversight.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Mercer Bullard,
       Founder and President, Fund Democracy, Inc.
     Barbara Roper,
       Director of Investor Protection, Consumer Federation of 
     America.
     Ken McEldowney,
       Executive Director, Consumer Action.
     Sally Greenberg,
       Senior Counsel, Consumers Union.
                                  ____

                                                             AARP,


                                                 E Street, NW,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2005.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: AARP supports your continuing efforts 
     to expand investor awareness of mutual fund costs, to promote 
     fund competition by making those costs transparent and 
     comparable, and to improve the independent oversight and 
     governance functions of fund boards of directors. Building on 
     legislation that you introduced in November of 2003, which 
     AARP supported, we are also pleased to support the updated 
     and upgraded legislation that you are introducing today, the 
     ``Mutual Fund Transparency Act of 2005.''
       We believe that there exists a growing need for legislative 
     action that clarifies, reinforces, strengthens, and secures 
     the corrective rule-making efforts undertaken by the U.S. 
     Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that were--in part--
     stimulated by your earlier legislative proposal. We look 
     forward to working with you on these issues that are critical 
     to the economic security of millions of Americans--
     particularly those of or near retirement age. If you have any 
     questions, please do not hesitate to call me, or have your 
     staff call Roy Green of our Federal Affairs Department.
           Sincerely,
                                                    David Certner,
                                        Director, Federal Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1039. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the treatment of depreciation of refinery property; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gas Price 
Reduction through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005, S. 1039.
  This bill provides tax incentives to encourage increases in oil 
refining capacity in the United States. By increasing domestic refining 
capacity, we will increase supply of refined oil products, thus 
decreasing the price of gasoline at the pump.
  This bill is the second in a package of three bills I am proposing to 
promote long-term solutions to our Nation's energy needs.
  Our nation needs clean, affordable sources of energy, and we should 
increase our energy security by focusing on those sources of energy 
that can be developed domestically.
  Two weeks ago I introduced the CLEAR ACT, which provides market 
solutions to promote breakthroughs in the use of alternative fuels and 
technologies in our transportation sector.
  The third bill, which I will introduce in the near future, will focus 
on increasing U.S. energy independence through the development of our 
nation's gigantic, untapped oil shale and tar sands reserves.
  Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that increasing our domestic 
supplies of crude oil is not an effective solution unless we can 
increase our capacity to refine it. This is the genesis of the Gas 
Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act.
  Refining capacity in the United States cannot keep up with demand. In 
fact, there has not been a new refinery built in the United States 
since the 1976.
  But that is only part of the story.
  The fact is that the economics of refining are so tough that we have 
actually lost about 200 refineries since the last one was built. So 
now, our powerful Nation is down to only 149 overworked refineries.
  Technological improvements at existing refineries have brought some 
increase to capacity, but these increases have fallen far short of 
demand. As a result, we now meet the gap in demand by importing more 
and more oil products that have already been refined, which makes us 
all the more dependent on foreign suppliers.
  Every day, I hear from Utahns who are burdened by rapidly rising gas 
prices. Let me quote from just a portion of a letter from one of my 
constituents, Richard Decker of West Jordan, Utah:

       ``I am interested in knowing the progress or status of 
     planning to protect Americans from the continually rising oil 
     prices . . . I am just a normal guy with a tiny family. Given 
     salaries, inflation, lack of fuel efficient automobiles at a 
     decent price, I worry if I and others will be able to make a 
     decent life here--not just in Utah but in America. 
     Personally, I wish I had the option of a hydrogen-powered 
     vehicle that would completely rid us of the dependence on 
     foreign oil imports.
       However, this isn't likely soon, so can we work on the gas 
     prices? Do you have any suggestions? . . . Keep up the good 
     work. Best Regards, Richard Decker''

  My answer to Richard is that we hear him, and we are trying to 
respond.

[[Page S5225]]

  We have a serious problem.
  It is easy to point a finger at the energy companies for high gas 
prices, but the reality is that government rules and regulations 
combined with a complete lack of a national energy policy and 
unfriendly tax rules have kept our refining capacity far short of our 
need. There are no silver bullets that will bring price relief 
immediately, but we can act now to start meeting this need.
  Last year, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham asked the National 
Petroleum Council to make recommendations to improve our oil supply and 
to increase our nation's oil refining capacity. Among the Council's 
recommendations was a call to adjust the depreciation schedule for new 
refining equipment from 10 years to five years to make refineries 
consistent with other manufacturers in the U.S.
  I believe that the 10-year depreciation schedule is unwarranted, and 
that it has contributed to a hostile economic environment for 
refineries. Leveling the playing field on depreciation is long overdue, 
and the Gas Price Reduction Act would accomplish that goal.
  But it is also important that we see this new refining capacity as 
soon as possible. So, I have added a provision in my bill aimed at 
pushing refining companies to act quickly to increase capacity. For 
refiners that can commit to starting construction on new refining 
equipment before 2007 and have new facilities built by 2011, the bill 
would allow a complete write-off for their new equipment in the first 
year. This is a powerful incentive, and I believe it will capture the 
attention of decision-makers in the refining industry.
  Again, the goal of the Gas Price Reduction Act is to get results as 
soon as possible, and I believe my legislation will make a difference. 
This bill will not bring immediate relief at the pump. But it will 
begin to put the brakes on escalating prices in the next few years and 
increase our nation's control over our energy future.
  There are other good reasons to support this bill.
  As part of my three-pronged approach to meeting our Nation's energy 
needs, it is in accord with the President's energy plan.
  It does not provide a windfall to oil companies but puts refineries 
on an equal footing with other industries in the manufacturing sector, 
which already have a five-year depreciation.
  It is important to note that S. 1039 does nothing to weaken our 
strong environmental laws and regulations; rather, it would lead to 
cleaner technologies as refineries upgrade equipment.
  This bill is also an essential part of our strategy to increase 
domestic production. When we begin to realize the potential of our vast 
oil shale and tar sands reserves we will need domestic refining 
capacity to handle any increase in domestic crude oil production.
  Finally, I must point out that, in the long run, this bill will not 
have any cost, since refineries are allowed to change the timing of the 
depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in this important 
effort to increase our refining capacity, lower gas prices for our 
citizens, and provide for our Nation's security through increased 
energy independence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1040. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide for 
enhanced disclosure under an open end credit plan; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Credit Card 
Minimum Payment Notification Act.
  Today, 144 million Americans utilize credit cards and charge more 
debt on those cards than ever before. In 1990, Americans charged $338 
billion on credit cards. By 2003, that number had risen to $1.5 
trillion.
  Many Americans now own multiple credit cards. In 2003, 841 million 
bank-issued credit cards were in circulation in the U.S. That number 
becomes nearly 1.4 billion credit cards, when cards issued by stores 
and oil companies are factored in. That's an average of 5 credit cards 
per person.
  The proliferation of credit cards can be traced, in part, to a 
dramatic increase in credit card solicitation. In 1993, credit card 
companies sent 1.52 billion solicitations to American homes; in 2001, 
they sent over 5 billion.
  As one would expect, the increase in credit cards has also yielded an 
increase in credit card debt. Individuals get 6, 7, or 8 different 
credit cards, pay only the minimum payment required, and many end up 
drowning in debt. That happens in case after case.
  Since 1990, the debt that Americans carry on credit cards has more 
than tripled, going from about $238 billion in 1990 to $755 billion in 
2004.
  As a result, the average American household now has about $7,300 of 
credit card debt.
  As has been discussed much in this Congress, the number of personal 
bankruptcies has doubled since 1990. Many of these personal 
bankruptcies are people who utilize credit cards. These cards are 
enormously attractive. However, these individual credit card holders 
receive no information on the impact of compounding interest. They pay 
just the minimum payment. They pay it for 1 year, 2 years--they make 
additional purchases, they get another card, and another, and another.
  Unfortunately, these individuals making the minimum payment are 
witnessing the ugly side of the ``Miracle of Compound Interest.'' After 
2 or 3 years, many find that the interest on the debt is such that they 
can never repay these cards, and do not know what to do about it.
  Statistics vary about the number of individuals who make only the 
minimum payments. One study determined that 35 million pay only the 
minimum on their credit cards. In a recent poll, 40 percent of 
respondents said that they pay the minimum or slightly more. What is 
certain is that many Americans pay only the minimum, and that paying 
only the minimum has harsh financial consequences.
  I suspect that most people would be surprised to know how I much 
interest can pile up when paying the minimum. Take the average 
household, with $7,300 of credit card debt, and the average credit card 
interest rate, which in April, before the most recent Federal Reserve 
Board increase of the prime rate, was 16.75 percent. If only the 2 
percent minimum payment is made, it will take them 44 years and 
$23,373.90 to pay off the card. And that is if the family doesn't spend 
another cent on their credit cards--an unlikely assumption. In other 
words, the family will need to pay over $16,000 in interest to repay 
just $7,300 of principal.
  For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls 
are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 16.75 
percent interest rate will take 58 years and $65,415.28 to pay off if 
only the minimum payments are made.
  And 16.25 is percent only the average interest rate. The prime rate, 
despite recent increases, remains relatively low--at 6 percent. 
However, interest rates around 20 percent are not uncommon. In fact, 
among the 10 banks that are the largest issuers of credit cards, the 
top interest rates on credit cards are between 23 and 31 percent--and 
that does not factor in various penalties and fees. When penalty 
interest rates are factored in, the highest rates are 41 percent. In 
1990, the highest interest rate--even with penalties, was 22 percent, a 
little more than half of what they are today.
  Even if we assume only a 20 percent interest rate, a family that has 
the average debt of $7,300 at a 20 percent interest rate and makes the 
minimum payments will need an incredible 76 years and $41,884 to pay 
off that initial $7,300 of debt. That's $34,584 in interest payments--
more than 4 times the original debt. And these examples are far from 
extreme.
  Moreover, these are not merely statistics, but are reflective of very 
real situations for many people. On March 6, the Washington Post ran a 
headline story on its front page, entitled ``Credit Card Penalties, 
Fees Bury Debtors.'' I would recommend this article to my colleagues, 
because it illustrates part of the problem--that credit card companies, 
aggressively marketing their products, end up charging outrageous 
interest and fees to their customers. I ask unanimous consent that the 
article be included in the Record. The article highlighted the 
following stories:
  Ohio resident, Ruth Owens tried for 6 years to pay off a $1,900 
balance on her

[[Page S5226]]

Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly 
payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28.
  Virginia resident Josephine McCarthy's Providian Visa bill increased 
to $5,357 in 2 years, even though McCarthy has used the card for only 
$218.16 in purchases and has made monthly payments totaling $3,058.
  Special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini, from my state of 
California, worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly 
payments she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in 
credit card debt. Even though she had not used the cards to buy 
anything more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time she 
filed for bankruptcy last June.
  Unfortunately, these stories are not unique.
  Part of the problem goes back to changes made in the credit card 
industry. For a long time, most banks required their customers to pay 5 
percent of their credit card balance every month. That was before 
Andrew Kahr, a credit card industry consultant, got involved. Mr. Kahr 
realized that if customers were able to pay less, they would borrow 
more, and he convinced his clients that they should reduce the minimum 
payment to just 2 percent.
  The PBS program ``Frontline'', ran a program in November of last year 
titled ``The Secret History of the Credit Card'' that examined the 
rapid growth of the credit card industry and included an interview with 
Mr. Kahr.
  Mr. Kahr's innovation has been a windfall for the credit card 
industry. If consumers are paying a lower percentage of their balance 
as the minimum payment, the credit card companies will make more money 
over time. In fact, many in the industry refer to individuals who pay 
their credit card bills in full as ``deadbeats'', because they are less 
profitable than individuals who carry large balances, who are known as 
``revolvers.''
  And Mr. Kahr's own research showed that just making the minimum 
payment eased consumers' anxiety about carrying large amounts of credit 
card debt--they believe they are still being financially prudent.
  The bill I am proposing speaks directly to those types of consumers. 
There will always be people who cannot afford to pay more than their 
minimum payments. But, there are also a large number of consumers who 
can afford to pay more but feel comfortable paying the minimum payment 
because they don't realize the consequences of doing so.
  Now I am certainly not trying to demonize credit cards or the credit 
card industry. Credit cards are an important part of everyday life. 
However, I do think that people should understand the dangers of paying 
only their monthly minimums. In this way individuals will be able to 
act responsibly.
  It's not necessarily that people don't understand the basics of 
interest. Most of us just don't realize how fast it compounds or how 
important it is to do the math to find out what it means to pay a 
minimum requirement.
  The bottom line is that for many consumers, the 2 percent minimum 
payment is a financial trap.
  The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to 
ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of 
information. The bill tracks the language of the amendment originally 
proposed to the Bankruptcy bill that was co-sponsored by Senator Kyl, 
Senator Brownback, and myself.
  Let me tell you exactly what this bill would do. It would require 
credit card companies to add two items to each consumer's monthly 
credit card statement: 1. A notice warning credit card holders that 
making only the minimum payment each month will increase the interest 
they pay and the amount of time it takes to repay their debt; and 2. 
Examples of the amount of time and money required to repay a credit 
card debt if only minimum payments are made; OR if the consumer makes 
only minimum payments for six-consecutive months, the amount of time 
and money required to repay the individual's specific credit card debt, 
under the terms of their credit card agreement.
  The bill would also require that a toll free number be included on 
statements that consumers can call to get an estimate of the time and 
money required to repay their balance, if only minimum payments are 
made.
  And, if the consumer makes only minimum payments for six consecutive 
months, they will receive a toll free number to an accredited credit 
counseling service.
  The disclosure requirements in this bill would only apply if the I 
consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt 
on the credit card, or if their balance is greater than $500. 
Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their 
statement.
  The language of this bill comes from a California law, the 
``California Credit Card Payment Warning Act,'' passed in 2001. 
Unfortunately, in 2002, this California law was struck down in U.S. 
District Court as being preempted by the 1968 Truth in Lending Act. The 
Truth in Lending Act was enacted in part because Congress found that, 
``The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost of 
thereof by consumers.'' Consequently, this bill would amend the Truth 
in Lending Act, and would also further its core purpose.
  These disclosures allow consumers to know exactly what it means for 
them to carry a balance and only make minimum payments, so they can 
make informed decisions on credit card use and repayment.
  The disclosure required by this bill is straightforward how much it 
will cost to pay off the debt if only minimum payments are made, and 
how long it will take to do it. As for expense, my staff tells me that 
on the website Cardweb.com, there is a free interest calculator that 
does these calculations in under a second. Moreover, I am told that 
banks make these calculations internally to determine credit risk. The 
expense would be minimal.
  Percentage rates and balances are constantly changing and each month, 
the credit card companies are able to assess the minimum payment, late 
fees, over-the-limit fees and finance charges for millions of accounts.
  If the credit card companies can put in their bills what the minimum 
monthly payment is, they can certainly figure out how to disclose to 
their customers how much it might cost them if they stick to that 
minimum payment.
  The credit card industry is the most profitable sector of banking, 
and last year it made $30 billion in profits. MBNA's profits alone last 
year were one-and-a-half times that of McDonald's. Citibank was more 
profitable than Microsoft and Walmart. I don't think they should have 
any trouble implementing the requirements of this bill.
  I believe that this is extraordinarily important and that it will 
minimize bankruptcies. With companies charging very substantial 
interest rates, they have an obligation to let the credit card holder 
know what those minimum payments really mean. I have people close to me 
I have watched, with 6 or 7 credit cards, and it is impossible for 
them, over the next 10 or 15 years, to pay off the debt if they 
continue making just minimum payments.
  We now have a bankruptcy bill that has passed into law. I continue to 
believe that a bill requiring a limited but meaningful disclosure by 
credit cards companies is a necessary accompaniment. I think you will 
have people who are more cautious, which I believe is good for the 
bankruptcy courts in terms of reducing their caseloads, and also good 
for American consumers.
  The credit card debt problem facing our Nation is significant. I 
believe that this bill is an important step in providing individuals 
with the information needed to act responsibly, and it does so with a 
minimal burden on the industry.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 6, 2005]

   Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors; Senate Nears Action on 
                            Bankruptcy Curbs

                (By Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer)

       For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh 
     Hosseini worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in 
     monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try 
     to pay $25,000 in credit card debt.
       Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything 
     more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time the 
     Sunnyvale,

[[Page S5227]]

     Calif., resident filed for bankruptcy last June. That is 
     because Hosseini's payments sometimes were tardy, triggering 
     late fees ranging from $25 to $50 and doubling interest rates 
     to nearly 30 percent. When the additional costs pushed her 
     balance over her credit limit, the credit card companies 
     added more penalties.
       ``I was really trying hard to make minimum payments,'' said 
     Hosseini, whose financial problems began in the late 1990s 
     when her husband left her and their three children. ``All of 
     my salary was going to the credit card companies, but there 
     was no change in the balances because of that interest and 
     those penalties.''
       Punitive charges--penalty fees and sharply higher interest 
     rates after a payment is late--compound the problems of many 
     financially strapped consumers, sometimes making it 
     impossible for them to dig their way out of debt and pushing 
     them into bankruptcy.
       The Senate is to vote as soon as this week on a bill that 
     would make it harder for individuals to wipe out debt through 
     bankruptcy. The Senate last week voted down several 
     amendments intended to curb excessive fees and other 
     practices that critics of the industry say are abusive. House 
     leaders say they will act soon after that, and President Bush 
     has said he supports the bill.
       Bankruptcy experts say that too often, by the time an 
     individual has filed for bankruptcy or is hauled into court 
     by creditors, he or she has repaid an amount equal to their 
     original credit card debt plus double-digit interest, but 
     still owes hundreds or thousands of dollars because of 
     penalties.
       ``How is it that the person who wants to do right ends up 
     so worse off?'' Cleveland Municipal Judge Robert J. Triozzi 
     said last fall when he ruled against Discover in the 
     company's breach-of-contract suit against another struggling 
     credit cardholder, Ruth M. Owens.
       Owens tried for six years to payoff a $1,900 balance on her 
     Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 
     in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew 
     to $5,564.28, even though, like Hosseini, she never used the 
     card to buy anything more. Of that total, over-limit penalty 
     fees alone were $1,158.
       Triozzi denied Discover's claim, calling its attempt to 
     collect more money from Owens ``unconscionable.''
       The bankruptcy measure now being debated in Congress has 
     been sought for nearly eight years by the credit card 
     industry. Twice in that time, versions of it have passed both 
     the House and Senate. Once, President Bill Clinton refused to 
     sign it, saying it was unfair, and once the House reversed 
     its vote after Democrats attached an amendment that would 
     prevent individuals such as antiabortion protesters from 
     using bankruptcy as a shield against court-imposed fines.
       Credit card companies and most congressional Republicans 
     say current law needs to be changed to prevent abuse and make 
     more people repay at least part of their debt. Consumer-
     advocacy groups and many Democrats say people who seek 
     bankruptcy protection do so mostly because they have fallen 
     on hard times through illness, divorce or job loss. They also 
     argue that current law has strong provisions that judges can 
     use to weed out those who abuse the system.
       Opponents also argue that the legislation is unfair because 
     it ignores loopholes that would allow rich debtors to shield 
     millions of dollars during bankruptcy through expensive homes 
     and complex trusts, while ignoring the need for more 
     disclosure to cardholders about rates and fees and curbs on 
     what they say is irresponsible behavior by the credit card 
     industry. The Republican majority, along with a few 
     Democrats, has voted down dozens of proposed amendments to 
     the bill, including one that would make it easier for the 
     elderly to protect their homes in bankruptcy and another that 
     would require credit card companies to tell customers how 
     much extra interest they would pay over time by making only 
     minimum payments.
       No one knows how many consumers get caught in the spiral of 
     ``negative amoritization,'' which is what regulators call it 
     when a consumer makes payments but balances continue to 
     grow because of penalty costs. The problem is widespread 
     enough to worry federal bank regulators, who say nearly 
     all major credit card issuers engage in the practice.
       Two years ago regulators adopted a policy that will require 
     credit card companies to set monthly minimum payments high 
     enough to cover penalties and interest and lower some of the 
     customer's original debt, known as principal, so that if a 
     consumer makes no new charges and makes monthly minimum 
     payments, his or her balance will begin to decline.
       Banks agreed to the new rules after, in the words of one 
     top federal regulator, ``some arm-twisting.'' But bank 
     executives persuaded regulators to allow the higher minimum 
     payments to be phased in over several years, through 2006, 
     arguing that many customers are so much in debt that even 
     slight increases too soon could push many into financial 
     disaster.
       Credit card companies declined to comment on specific cases 
     or customers for this article, but banking industry 
     officials, speaking generally, said there is a good reason 
     for the fees they charge.
       ``It's to encourage people to pay their bills the way they 
     said they would in their contract, to encourage good 
     financial management,'' said Nessa Feddis, senior federal 
     counsel for the American Bankers Association. ``There has to 
     be some onus on the cardholder, some responsibility to manage 
     their finances.''
       High fees ``may be extreme cases, but they are not the 
     trend, not the norm,'' Feddis said.
       ``Banks are pretty flexible,'' she said. ``If you are a 
     good customer and have an occasional mishap, they'll waive 
     the fees, because there's so much competition and it's too 
     easy to go someplace else.'' Banks are also willing to work 
     out settlements with people in financial difficulty, she 
     said, because ``there are still a lot of options even for 
     people who've been in trouble.''
       Many bankruptcy lawyers disagree. James S.K. ``Ike'' 
     Shulman, Hosseini's lawyer, said credit card companies 
     hounded her and did not live up to several promises to work 
     with her to cut mounting fees.
       Regulators say it is appropriate for lenders to charge 
     higher-risk debtors a higher interest rate, but that negative 
     amortization and other practices go too far, posing risks to 
     the banking system by threatening borrowers' ability to repay 
     their debts and by being unfair to individuals.
       U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David H. Adams of Norfolk, who is 
     also the president of the National Conference of Bankruptcy 
     Judges, said many debtors who get in over their heads ``are 
     spending money, buying things they shouldn't be buying.'' 
     Even so, he said, ``once you add all these fees on, the 
     amount of principal being paid is negligible. The fees and 
     interest and other charges are so high, they may never be 
     able to pay it off.''
       Judges say there is little they can do by the time cases 
     get to bankruptcy court. Under the law, ``the credit card 
     company is legally entitled to collect every dollar without a 
     distinction'' whether the balance is from fees, interest or 
     principal, said retired U.S. bankruptcy judge Ronald 
     Barliant, who presided in Chicago. The only question for the 
     courts is whether the debt is accurate, judges and lawyers 
     say.
       John Rao, staff attorney of the National Consumer Law 
     Center, one of many consumer groups fighting the bankruptcy 
     bill, says the plight consumers face was illustrated last 
     year in a bankruptcy case filed in Northern Virginia.
       Manassas resident Josephine McCarthy's Providian Visa bill 
     increased to $5,357 from $4,888 in two years, even though 
     McCarthy has used the card for only $218.16 in purchases and 
     has made monthly payments totaling $3,058. Those payments, 
     noted U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stephen S. Mitchell in 
     Alexandria, all went to ``pay finance charges (at a whopping 
     29.99%), late charges, over-limit fees, bad check fees and 
     phone payment fees.'' Mitchell allowed the claim ``because 
     the debtor admitted owing it.'' McCarthy, through her lawyer, 
     declined to be interviewed.
       Alan Elias, a Providian Financial Corp. spokesman, said: 
     'When consumers sign up for a credit card, they should 
     understand that it's a loan, no different than their mortgage 
     payment or their car payment, and it needs to be repaid. And 
     just like a mortgage payment and a car payment, if you are 
     late you are assessed a fee.'' The 29.99 percent interest 
     rate, he said, is the default rate charged to consumers ``who 
     don't meet their obligation to pay their bills on time'' and 
     is clearly disclosed on account applications.
       Feddis, of the banker's association, said the nature of 
     debt means that interest will often end up being more than 
     the original principal. ``Anytime you have a loan that's 
     going to extend for any period of time, the interest is going 
     to accumulate. Look at a 30-year-mortgage. The interest is 
     much, much more than the principal.''
       Samuel J. Gerdano, executive director of the American 
     Bankruptcy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, said that 
     focusing on late fees is ``refusing to look at the elephant 
     in the room, and that's the massive levels of consumer debt 
     which is not being paid. People are living right up to the 
     edge,'' failing to save so when they lose a second job or 
     overtime, face medical expense or their family breaks up, 
     they have no money to cope.
       ``Late fees aren't the cause of debt,'' he said.
       Credit card use continues to grow, with an average of 6.3 
     bank credit cards and 6.3 store credit cards for every 
     household, according to Cardweb.com Inc., which monitors the 
     industry. Fifteen years ago, the averages were 3.4 bank 
     credit cards and 4.1 retail credit cards per household.
       Despite, or perhaps because of, the large increase in 
     cards, there is a ``fee feeding frenzy,'' among credit card 
     issuers, said Robert McKinley, Cardweb's president and chief 
     executive. ``The whole mentality has really changed over the 
     last several years,'' with the industry imposing fees and 
     increasing interest rates if a single payment is late.
       Penalty interest rates usually are about 30 percent, with 
     some as high as 40 percent, while late fees now often are $39 
     a month, and over-limit fees, about $35, McKinley said. ``If 
     you drag that out for a year, it could be very damaging,'' he 
     said. ``Late and over-limit fees alone can easily rack up 
     $900 in fees, and a 30 percent interest rate on a $3,000 
     balance can add another $1 ,000, so you could go from $2,000 
     to $5,000 in just one year if you fail to make payments.''
       According to R.K. Hammer Investment Bankers, a California 
     credit card consulting firm, banks collected $14.8 billion in 
     penalty fees last year, or 10.9 percent of revenue, up

[[Page S5228]]

     from $10.7 billion, or 9 percent of revenue, in 2002, the 
     first year the firm began to track penalty fees.
       The way the fees are now imposed, ``people would be better 
     off if they stopped paying'' once they get in over their 
     heads, said T. Bentley Leonard, a North Carolina bankruptcy 
     attorney. Once you stop paying, creditors write off the debt 
     and sell it to a debt collector. ``They may harass you, but 
     your balance doesn't keep rising. That's the irony.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1041. A bill for the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria 
Del Refugio Plascencia; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief 
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo 
Plascencia Lopez and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican 
nationals living in San Bruno, CA.
  I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe 
that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States 
citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, 
without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much 
longer.
  In the seventeen years that the Plascencias have been here, they have 
worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal channels, 
only to have their efforts thwarted by inattentive legal counsel.
  Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused to return their calls or 
otherwise communicate with them in any way, thereby leaving them in the 
dark. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even 
notify the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor 
representation they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware 
that they had been ordered to leave the country fifteen days prior to 
their deportation. Although the family was stunned and devastated by 
this discovery, they acted quickly to fire their attorney for gross 
incompetence, secure competent counsel, and file the appropriate 
paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any other legal 
action could be taken.
  For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed 
from the United States.
  First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. 
Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded 
couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to family 
and devotion to community.
  Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's 
Shellfish for the past 13 years, where his dedication and willingness 
to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial 
position. He now oversees the market's entire packing operation and 
several employees. The President of Vince's Shellfish, in one of the 
several dozen letters I have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, 
referred to him as ``a valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles 
himself in a very professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' 
to other employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. 
Plascencia's job performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' 
``trusted,'' ``honest'' and ``reliable.''
  Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as 
a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. 
Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia 
went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree, improved her 
skills and became a medical assistant.

  For four years, Mrs. Plascencia was working in Kaiser Permanente's 
Oncology Department, where she attended to cancer patients. Her 
colleagues, many of whom have written to me in support of her, commend 
her ``unending enthusiasm'' and have described her work as 
``responsible,'' ``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.'' In fact, Kaiser 
Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse Rose Carino, wrote to 
say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the community and exemplifies 
the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, devoted to her family, 
trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her community. She and her 
family are a solid example of the type of immigrant that America should 
welcome wholeheartedly.'' Nurse Carino went on to write that Mrs. 
Plascencia is ``an excellent employee and role model for her 
colleagues. She works in a very demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued 
and depended on by the physicians she works with.'' The physicians 
themselves confirm this. For example, Dr. Laurie Weisberg, the Chief of 
Oncology at Kaiser Permanente, writes that Mrs. Plascencia ``is truly 
an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it functions 
effectively.''
  Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional 
successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. 
They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health 
care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want 
to send their children to college and give them an even better life.
  This private relief bill is important because it would preserve these 
achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to 
make substantive contributions to the community in the future. It is 
important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on the 
couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each of 
whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay 
Area community.
  Christina, 13, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor student 
with a 3.0 grade-point average at Parkside Intermediate School in San 
Bruno.
  Erika, 9, and Alfredo, Jr., 7, are enrolled at Belle Air Elementary, 
where they have worked hard at their studies and received praise and 
good grades from their teachers. In fact, last year, the principal of 
Erika's school recognized her as the ``Most Artistic'' student in her 
class. Recently, Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked on a report 
card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.''
  The Plascencia's youngest child is 2-year-old Daisy.
  Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be most 
tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States 
and who through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation 
that has the potential to alter their lives dramatically.
  It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children--
Christina, Erika and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They 
are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their 
teachers, their friends and their home. They would leave everything 
that is familiar to them. Their parents would find themselves in Mexico 
without a job and without a house. The children would have to acclimate 
to a different culture, language and way of life.
  The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave 
their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which 
no parents should have to make.
  Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are 
not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with 
the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the 
American spirit. I have sponsored this private relief bill, and ask my 
colleagues to support it, because I believe that this is a spirit that 
we must nurture wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to 
leave the United States would extinguish that spirit.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the private relief bill and 
the numerous letters of support my office has received from members of 
the San Bruno community be the printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1041

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALFREDO PLASCENCIA 
                   LOPEZ AND MARIA DEL REFUGIO PLASCENCIA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Alfredo 
     Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia shall each 
     be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
     adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence upon filing an application for 
     issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of that Act 
     or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and 
     Maria Del Refugio Plascencia enter the United States before 
     the filing deadline specified in subsection (c),

[[Page S5229]]

     Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia 
     shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
     shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application 
     for issuance of immigrant visas or the application for 
     adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of immigrant visas or permanent residence to Alfredo 
     Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, the 
     Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal 
     year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
     available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth 
     under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that 
     are made available to natives of the country of the aliens' 
     birth under section 202(e) of that Act.


                                  Vince's Shellfish Co., Inc.,

                                  San Bruno, CA, January 12, 2005.
     Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Senator Dianne Feinstein: I am writing on behalf of 
     Maria and Alfredo Plascencia from San Bruno, California. 
     Alfredo has worked for me at Vince's Shellfish Co. Inc. for 
     the past 13 years. Alfredo is well respected here at Vinces. 
     Alfredo is a very reliable, dependable individual who has 
     worked his way up and is now a foreman who is in charge of 
     our packing department. Alfredo is responsible for 10 
     employees at this time.
       On a personal basis, Alfredo is a fine father. He is trying 
     desperately to keep his family together. It has been a 15-
     year struggle for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to create a better 
     life in America for their four U.S. born children. If Mr. and 
     Mrs. Plascencia were to face deportation it would be 
     devastating for his four children.
       At this time I support the private bill that is to be 
     presented before the Senate at the end of this month. The 
     Plascencia family will greatly benefit from its passing.
           Sincerely,
                                           Christopher N. Svedisc,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    The Permanente


                                          Medical Group, Inc.,

                       South San Francisco, CA., January 13, 2005.
     Re Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria del Refugio Plascencia

     Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
     San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Senator: We are writing to you in representation of 
     the Oncology department staff at Kaiser Permanente So. San 
     Francisco. We are shocked to hear the events regarding Maria 
     and Alfredo's United States residency status and we are 
     convinced that it could not be due to any omissions on their 
     part. We have the pleasure and good fortune of working with 
     Maria for over four years and she has always distinguished 
     herself for her intelligence, and good judgment. She is truly 
     an asset to our unit and is one of the main reasons that it 
     functions effectively and to the betterment of our patients. 
     This letter is a plea to ask you to reconsider the 
     deportation of this young couple. Their four children, who 
     are all United States citizens, do not need to suffer this 
     ordeal, which seems to be a horrible nightmare. They deserve 
     to stay in America, as these are the kind of citizens that we 
     should welcome with open arms. Maria and Alfredo save and 
     spend their money wisely. They have been able to save enough 
     to buy a home for their family in our community. We can't 
     even imagine their loss, as well as ours, if Maria and 
     Alfredo are required to leave the United States. They both 
     love our country and they support it with their heart and 
     soul.
       Maria seems to have an unending energy and enthusiasm 
     volunteering numerous hours at her church, the community, as 
     well as working full time in a fast paced medical 
     environment, caring for her four children and attending 
     college to continue her education to become a registered 
     nurse. Maria and Alfredo are raising four exceptional 
     children who are excelling in school and extracurricular 
     activities. It would cause an immeasurable hardship on these 
     children if their parents are not allowed to stay in the 
     United States. Therefore, we ask you please allow them to 
     stay so that their children can continue with their education 
     and their lives. The effect on their children would be 
     emotionally and mentally severe and it would seem unfair to 
     all to allow this situation to happen to people who deserve 
     to be in this country.
       We will like for our plea to be heard by the members of the 
     Senate and for them to consider the acceptance of the private 
     bill on behalf of this family. Please consider the high 
     regard that Maria and Alfredo have earned with their fellow 
     workers when making the determination regarding of their 
     residency status.
           Sincerely,
         Laurie Weisberg, M.D. Chief of Oncology, Edmond 
           Schmulbach, M.D. Oncology Specialist, William Huang, 
           M.D. Oncology Specialist, Kelly Sutter, RNNP Oncology, 
           Jodie L. Beyer, pharm. D. Oncology pharmacist, Cynthia 
           Galicia, RN Oncology Infusion Dept., Clarita 
           Difuntorum, RN, Oncology Infusion Dept., Gail Walker, 
           RN Oncology Infusion Dept., Fran Luna, RN Oncology 
           Infusion Dept., Marita Tumaneng, RN Oncology Infusion 
           Dept., Barbara Modica, MA Oncology Dept., Jenifer 
           Ogolin, MA Oncology Dept., Kathie Ankers, MA 
           Gastroenterology Dept., and Tracy Thurman, MA 
           Gastroenterology Dept.
                                  ____

                                   San Bruno Park School District,


                                             Belle Air School,

                                  San Bruno, CA, January 14, 2005.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing in behalf of the 
     Plascencia Family. I have known this family for over ten 
     years as the Principal of Belle Air Elementary School. I have 
     the utmost respect for the parents and their family values. 
     The children are wonderful. They are well taken care of and 
     are well adjusted. I am so worried that if they are separated 
     from their parents the affect of the separation will cause 
     reprievable damage to their well being. I have personally 
     counseled the children during the drama of the possible 
     deportment of their parents. I saw the deep sadness and worry 
     that the stress caused. I know that parents wanted a better 
     life for their children and have worked very hard to 
     actualize that. To take the parents and or move this family 
     would be tragic. There are so many undeserving people who 
     will stay in the United States that should leave and be sent 
     back to their countries. But this family is not one. They are 
     a picture of the American dream. They work hard, support 
     their family, church and community. Their children have grown 
     to be proud American citizens. The oldest daughter Christy is 
     an honor student and a cheerleader at Parkside Middle School 
     and a graduate of Belle Air. Christy's brother and sister, 
     Alfredo and Erica, are both on our school's student council. 
     They too, are very bright students.
       Please do not let an injustice of deportment happen to this 
     family. Please assist them and keep them a family unit. We 
     have so many children hurt and scared already in the world. 
     Please do not add these children and this family to the 
     numbers. This family and these children are what help keep 
     American values and traditions alive. I came from an 
     immigrant family and have made it my mission to give back to 
     others by working in education and that is why I am 
     personally writing this letter because I know what family, 
     hard work, and love can do to produce productive adults and 
     citizens.
       Please find it in your heart, to help this family.
       If you need to speak with me personally feel free to 
     contact me.
            Sincerely,
                                                Angela M. Addiego,
     Belle Air School, Principal.
                                  ____

         Mensajeros de Cristo, Comunidad de Oracion y 
           Evangelizacion, All Souls Parish,
                              San Francisco, CA, January 13, 2005.
     Sen. Dianne Feinstien,
     San Francisco, CA.
       This letter represents the community and is in regards to 
     the situation of Maria and Alfredo Plascencia. We would like 
     to make you aware of a few facts and information that may 
     have possible bearing on Mr. and Mrs. Placencia's situation.
       They have both been productive and valued members, of long 
     standing, of our community and in our church.
       Maria and Alfredo have been active members of All Souls 
     Parish since 1997, Where they are currently serving as 
     counselor of Mensajeros de Cristo. They have shown high moral 
     standard through the years.
       They are well thought of and respected by the congregation.
       Please take this information into consideration when 
     evaluating their status of Staying in this country.
       Should you need any additional information, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Hugo Lara,
     Mensajeros de Cristo, Coordinator.
                                  ____

                                                 January 13, 2005.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     San Francisco, CA.
       This letter is just to let you know that, I know Maria and 
     Alfredo Plascencia since March 1999. When he joined the 
     Charismatic Renewal of the Archdioceses of San Francisco, 
     though the prayer group Mensajeros de Cristo from the parish 
     of All Souls in South San Francisco.
       Maria and Alfredo are people with great moral principles, 
     good citizens, and good examples of their community. They are 
     very active members of the above prayer group.
       If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely yours,

                                                 Isabel Tovar,

                           Hispanic Director, Charismatic Renewal,
     Archdioceses of San Francisco.
                                  ____



                                            City of San Bruno,

                                                 January 12, 2005.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     San Francisco, CA.
       Hon. Senator Feinstein: We are writing to you regarding, 
     Alfredo and Maria Plascencia, citizens of the City of San 
     Bruno, who are about to be deported in the very near future.
       Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia, in the sixteen years they have 
     resided in this country and

[[Page S5230]]

     raised their children, have proven to be hard working and 
     law-abiding people trying to provide a better place for their 
     family. While we are certainly aware of the laws of this 
     country we believe that this is a time when we should do 
     everything possible to allow legal residency so this family 
     can stay in this country.
       We urge you to afford the Plascencia family whatever 
     consideration possible.
           Sincerely yours,
     Larry Franzela,
       Mayor.
     Jim Ruane,
       Vice Mayor.
     Chris Pallas,
       Councilmember.
     Irene O'Connell,
       Councilmember.
     Ken Ibarra,
       Councilmember.
                                  ____



                                           St. Bruno's Church,

                                  San Bruno, CA, January 13, 2005.
     Sen. Diane Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       The purpose of this letter is to present my observations on 
     Alfredo Placencia Lopez and Maria Placencia's character and 
     work ethic. I first came to know them in our Church when they 
     came to worship on a Sunday. This happened around January 
     1998.
       And so far, the last 7 years both Alfredo and Maria have 
     been two of our outstanding parishioners at St. Bruno's 
     Church. They come to Sunday Mass and worship, and have been 
     involved in many ministries and services here in our Church 
     at St. Bruno's. Alfredo has been especially a minister of 
     hospitality, always welcoming people to church and 
     participation in the life of the community, helping to 
     provide a spirit of acceptance and concern among our people 
     and providing bread and refreshments for some gatherings. 
     Alfredo has also reached out to the homeless for whom we have 
     a shelter in our Parish and especially providing them with 
     food. Maria has been especially involved as a teacher, 
     faithfully giving to our children the fundamentals of our 
     Faith, of the Gospel and of a Christian moral life. She has 
     founded a Children's Choir and leads them with our Special 
     Music for Sunday worship. They have four children all of whom 
     have been baptized at St. Bruno's Church and come to our 
     School of Religion and our Church.
       Alfredo and Maria have been most generous with their time, 
     their talents and their money, sharing all these with the 
     members of our Church Community. They have also frequently 
     donated food to the Church and to the Pastor. I have found 
     them to be really good Christian people, most generous, 
     considerate, kind, honest and reliable. If they would have to 
     leave the United States, it will be most difficult for them 
     and for their children who have been growing in a Christian 
     environment and are doing so well; it would be a tremendous 
     loss. We too here in our Church would find it difficult 
     without them. For they are a great asset to this country and 
     to our Church and to many people.
       We appreciate whatever you can do for them to help them get 
     their legal papers of residence in the United States.
       Thank you very much.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                       Rene Gomez,
     Pastor of St. Bruno's Church.
                                  ____



                                                San Bruno, CA,

                                                 January 13, 2005.
     Re Alfredo Placencia Lopez and/or Maria Del Refugio 
         Placencia.

       To Whom It May Concern: My name is Elisa Alvarez. Alfredo 
     and Maria Placencia and Family are my neighbors and friends, 
     I have known them since 1999. They live on 3rd Ave. and I 
     live on 4th. Since I have known them I saw that they are a 
     very close and spiritual family. I enjoyed their company 
     because they have been a great example of how a close family 
     they are and how spiritual they are. They are great parents 
     and they love and are very close with the rest of their 
     family. They always go every where together as a family, you 
     never see them without each other. They always get together 
     with the rest of their relatives they are very close family. 
     They invited me one night to a prayer group and even offered 
     to pick me up and take me and bring me home when I was going 
     through some hard times. This experience was so moving, and 
     it help me and my whole life changed from that day on. I have 
     became very spiritual thanks to the Alfredo and Maria. I met 
     them at St. Bruno's Church. They always do voluntary work at 
     the church they both do so much for our parish and are always 
     willing to help anyone who needs it.
       If Alfredo and Maria are separated from their children and 
     family it will be very hard for their children to be with out 
     their parents or I know if they all go to Mexico it will be 
     very hard for this family to survive there. I hope you can 
     help them by not separating this family, they are hard 
     workers and I'm sure they would never be a burden for this 
     country. This is a very nice young family, you don't see 
     families like this one these days. I hope everything can be 
     done so Alfredo and Maria can get their permanent residency 
     and their lives can get back to normal and . they don't have 
     to suffer from this bad roller coaster.
       Thank you for your attention to this letter.
           Sincerely,
     Elisa Alvarez.

                          ____________________