January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S101 

S. 129 

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 

RUBEN MKOIAN, ASMIK 

KARAPETIAN, AND ARTHUR 

MKOYAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1151), Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and 

Arthur Mkoyan 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 such Act (8 

U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to 

lawful permanent resident. 

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Ruben 

Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, or Arthur 

Mkoyan enters the United States before the 

filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 

Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, or Arthur 

Mkoyan, as appropriate, shall be considered 

to have entered and remained lawfully in the 

United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1255) as of the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 

(c) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.— 

Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the 

application for the issuance of an immigrant 

visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later 

than 2 years after the date of the enactment 

of this Act. 

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.—Upon granting an immigrant visa or 

permanent resident status to Ruben Mkoian, 

Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan, the 

Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 

officer to reduce by 3, during the current or 

subsequent fiscal year, the total number of 

immigrant visas that are made available to 

natives of the country of birth of Ruben 

Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur 

Mkoyan under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, 

if applicable, the total number of immigrant 

visas that are made available to natives of 

the country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, 

Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan 

under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 

1152(e)). 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN: 

S. 130. A bill for the relief of Jorge 

Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez; to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 

today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas 

Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva Gonzalez 

Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas 

Gonzalez. The Rojas family members 

are Mexican nationals living in the San 

Jose area of California. 

The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress’ special consideration for such an 

extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. 

Mr. Rojas and his wife Ms. Gonzalez 

originally came to the United States in 

1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. 

was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left 

the country to attend a funeral, and 

then re-entered on visitors’ visas. 

The family has since expanded to include a son, Alexis Rojas, now age 16, 

and a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 

14. 

Since arriving in the United States, 

this family has dedicated themselves 

to community involvement, a strong 

work ethic and volunteerism. They 

have been paying taxes since their arrival in 1990. The family has been described by their friends and colleagues 

as a ‘‘model American family.’’ I would 

like to tell you some more about each 

member of the Rojas family. 

Mr. Rojas is a hard-working individual who has been employed by Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in 

San Jose, California, for the past 14 

years. Currently, Mr. Rojas works on 

commercial landscaping projects. He is 

well-respected by his supervisor and his 

peers. 

In addition to supporting his family, 

Jorge has volunteered his time and talents to provide modern green landscaping and a recreational jungle gym 

to Sherman Oaks Community Charter 

School, where his two youngest children attend school. 

Ms. Gonzalez, in addition to raising 

her three children, has been very active 

in the local community. She has 

worked to help other immigrants assimilate to American life by working 

as a translator and a tutor for immigrant children at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School and the 

Y.M.C.A. Kids after-school program. 

She has also coached soccer teams, 

and has recently directed a Thanksgiving food drive. Ms. Gonzalez also devotes many hours of her time to the organization People Acting in Community Together, PACT, where she works 

to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and 

schools. 

Perhaps one of the most compelling 

reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on 

their three children. Two of the children, Alexis and Tania, are U.S. citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the 

United States since he was a toddler. 

For these children, this country is the 

only country they really know. 

Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the 

United States as an infant with his 

parents, is now 20 and is currently 

working at Jamba Juice. He graduated 

from Del Mar High School in 2007 and 

is currently taking classes at San Jose 

City College. 

Alexis and Tania are students at 

Sherman Oaks Community Charter 

School. They are described by their 

teachers as ‘‘fantastic, wonderful, and 

gifted’’ students. In fact, the principal 

at Sherman Oaks has described all 

three of the children as ‘‘honest, hardworking academic honor students’’ and 

have commended all of them for their 

on-campus leadership. 

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream, 

and their continued presence in our 

country would do so much to enhance 

the values we hold dear. I have received 

30 letters from the community in support of this family. Enactment of the 

legislation I have reintroduced today 

will enable the Rojas family to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the 

United States. 

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to 

support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 

be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 130 

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 

JORGE ROJAS GUTIERREZ, OLIVA 

GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, AND JORGE 

ROJAS GONZALEZ. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1151), Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez 

Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez 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 such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Jorge Rojas 

Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, or Jorge 

Rojas Gonzalez enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva 

Gonzalez Gonzalez, or Jorge Rojas Gonzalez, 

as appropriate, shall be considered to have 

entered and remained lawfully in the United 

States and shall be eligible for adjustment of 

status under section 245 of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall 

apply only if the application for the issuance 

of an immigrant visa or the application for 

adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.—Upon granting an immigrant visa or 

permanent residence to Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge 

Rojas Gonzalez, the Secretary of State shall 

instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, 

during the current or subsequent fiscal year, 

the total number of immigrant visas that are 

made available to natives of the country of 

birth of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez 

under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 

that are made available to natives of the 

country of birth of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, 

Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas 

Gonzalez under section 202(e) of such Act (8 

U.S.C. 1152(e)). 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN: 

S. 131. 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, 

today I am introducing the Credit Card 

Minimum Payment Notification Act. 

This bill would help American consumers by requiring banks to notify 

credit card holders of the true cost if 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

they choose to make the minimum 

payment each month. 

Americans today own more credit 

cards than ever before. The average 

American has approximately four credit cards. In 2007, 1 in 7 Americans held 

more than 10 cards. 

Unsurprisingly, this increase in credit card ownership has resulted in a dramatic increase in credit card debt. 

Over the past 2 decades, Americans’ 

combined credit card debt has nearly 

tripled—from $238 billion in 1989 to a 

staggering $971 billion in 2008. 

Today, the average American household has approximately $10,678 in credit 

card debt, up 29 percent from 2000. 

Among credit card users, 55 percent 

carry a balance on their credit card, a 

2 percent increase from last year. 

Approximately 1 in 6 families with 

credit cards pays only the minimum 

due every month. 

Young Americans are using credit 

cards to finance everything from daily 

expenses to college tuition. Forty-one 

percent of college students have a credit card, and, of those, only 65 percent 

pay their bills in full every month. 

Over the past year, as economic conditions have worsened, it has become 

even harder for families to pay off their 

debt. Whether it is a mortgage, or tuition, or medical expenses, people are 

finding it harder than ever to meet all 

of their expenses. 

In July of this year, 28 percent of 

people surveyed reported that their 

ability to pay off their credit card balances has become more strained. 

This increasing debt is contributing 

to more and more Americans filing for 

bankruptcy. 

Ever since the Bankruptcy Reform 

Act was enacted in 2005, non-business 

bankruptcies have been increasing at a 

rapid pace. The numbers this year already show a staggering hike. Between 

September 2007 and September 2008, 

Americans filed over one million nonbusiness bankruptcies, up 30 percent 

from the previous year. 

Many of these personal bankruptcies 

are people who are turning to credit 

cards to finance their expenses. Today’s filers have even more credit card 

debt than usual—sometimes because 

they have been struggling to pay a 

mortgage and have started using credit 

cards for daily expenses. 

One family, the Forsyths, found 

themselves in financial trouble after 

moving to a new State for a better job 

opportunity. Unable to sell their old 

house, they rented. But when the 

renter stopped making payments, the 

family became overwhelmed with two 

mortgage payments. Credit cards 

helped at first—providing payment for 

food, utilities, and clothes—but the 

family quickly accumulated $20,000 in 

debt and was left with no alternative 

other than bankruptcy. 

The benefits offered by credit cards 

are attractive, but these cards also 

pose enormous financial risk. Dianne 

McLeod discovered this in a painful 

way after back-to-back medical emergencies depleted her finances. Although credit cards initially enabled 

her to maintain her lifestyle, before 

long these cards and two mortgages 

meant that she later found that she 

was spending more than 40 percent of 

her monthly income on interest payments, in addition to thousands of dollars annually in fees. 

Today, credit cardholders receive no 

information on the impact of carrying 

a balance with compounding interest. 

As a result, too often individuals make 

only the minimum payment. After a 

few years, they find that the interest 

on the debt is almost twice the amount 

of their original purchases—and they 

do not know what to do about it. 

I first introduced the Credit Card 

Minimum Payment Notification Act 

during the debate on the 2005 bankruptcy bill. As I said then, I believe the 

bill failed to balance responsibility and 

fairness. Consumers should not be so 

harshly penalized when they do not 

have the basic tools and information 

they need to make informed choices. 

The Credit Card Minimum Payment 

Notification Act would help prevent 

this problem by requiring credit card 

companies to add two items to each 

consumer’s monthly credit card statement: 

A general notice that would read 

‘‘Making only the minimum payment 

will increase the interest you pay and 

the time it takes to repay your balance.’’ 

An individualized notice to credit 

card holders that specifies clearly on 

their bill how much time it will take to 

repay their debt and the total amount 

they will pay if they only make the 

minimum payments. 

For consumers with variable rate 

cards, the bill would also require companies to provide a toll-free number 

where cardholders can access creditcounseling services. 

The disclosure requirements in the 

bill would only apply if the consumer 

has a minimum payment that is less 

than 10 percent of the debt on the credit card. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be required on their statement. 

Last year, a Gallup—Experian poll 

found that about 11 percent of credit 

cardholders consistently make only the 

minimum payment on their cards each 

month. 

Consider what this could mean for 

the average household. 

For example, the U.S. average credit 

card debt is $10,678. The average fixed 

credit card interest rate is approximately 12 percent. If the 2 percent minimum payment is all that is paid on its 

debt each month, it would take more 

than 31 years to pay off the bill and the 

total cost would be $21,052.66—and 

that’s just the minimum assuming that 

the family didn’t ever charge another 

dime on that bill. 

In other words, the family would 

need to pay $10,374.66 in interest just to 

repay $10,678 in original debt. 

For individuals or families with more 

than average debt, the pitfalls are even 

greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at 

the average 12 percent interest rate 

will take over 36 years and more than 

$28,261 to pay off if only the minimum 

payments are made. 

Twelve percent is relatively low, average interest rate. Interest rates 

around 20 percent are not uncommon 

on credit cards, and penalty interest 

rates can reach as high as 32 percent. 

A family that has the average debt 

with a 20 percent interest rate and 

makes the minimum payments will 

need a lifetime—over 85 years—and 

$62,158 to pay off the initial $10,678 bill. 

That’s $51,480 just in interest—an 

amount that approaches 5 times the 

original debt. 

Credit cards are an important part of 

everyday life, and they help the economy operate more smoothly by giving 

consumers and merchants a reliable, 

convenient way to exchange funds. But 

the bottom line is that for many consumers, the two 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. 

Last month, the Federal Reserve 

Board approved new rules that will improve disclosures, but the rules do not 

go far enough. Under the rules, starting July 1, 2010, credit card companies 

will have to warn consumers about the 

effect of making minimum payments 

on the length of time it will take to 

pay off their balances. But the warnings may be only examples and will not 

show the effect on the amount that 

consumers pay over time. 

Before approving the final rules, the 

Federal Reserve Board interviewed 

consumers who typically carried credit 

card balances. Those consumers found 

disclosures most helpful when they 

provided specific information and included warnings about the amount that 

would have to be paid over time. 

The Credit Card Minimum Payment 

Notification Act would provide the 

straightforward disclosure that consumers find most helpful and most effective. 

This disclosure will ensure that consumers know exactly what it means for 

them to carry a balance and make minimum payments, so they can make informed decisions on credit card use and 

repayment. 

In addition, the burden on banks will 

be minimal. Calculations like these are 

purely formulaic. Credit card companies already complete similar calculations to determine credit risk and 

when they tell consumers what their 

required minimum payment is each 

month. 

The harsh effects of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are becoming apparent. 

During the debate over that bill, I had 

hoped that Congress would succeed in 

balancing the need to incentivize consumers to act responsibly with the 

promise of a fresh start for those who 

fell impossibly behind. I do not believe 

that that balance was reached. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S103 

I continue to believe that consumers 

need a meaningful disclosure informing 

them of the effects of making minimum payments. 

Today, as Americans face increasing 

struggles with debt and expenses, the 

bill is needed more than ever. I urge 

my colleagues to support this legislation. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 131 

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 ‘‘Credit Card 

Minimum Payment Notification Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. ENHANCED DISCLOSURE UNDER AN OPEN 

END CREDIT PLAN. 

Section 127(b) of the Truth in Lending Act 

(15 U.S.C. 1637(b)) is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(13) ENHANCED DISCLOSURE UNDER AN OPEN

END CREDIT PLAN.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A credit card issuer 

shall, with each billing statement provided 

to a cardholder in a State, provide the following on the front of the first page of the 

billing statement, in type no smaller than 

that required for any other required disclosure, but in no case in less than 8-point capitalized type: 

‘‘(i) A written statement in the following 

form: ‘Minimum Payment Warning: Making 

only the minimum payment will increase the 

interest you pay and the time it takes to 

repay your balance.’. 

‘‘(ii)(I) A written statement providing individualized information indicating the number of years and months and the total cost to 

pay off the entire balance due on an open-end 

credit card account, if the cardholder were to 

pay only the minimum amount due on the 

open-end credit card account, based upon the 

terms of the credit agreement. 

‘‘(II) For purposes of this clause only, if 

the open-end credit card account is subject 

to a variable rate— 

‘‘(aa) the creditor may make disclosures 

based on the rate for the entire balance as of 

the date of the disclosure and indicate that 

the rate may vary; and 

‘‘(bb) the cardholder shall be provided with 

referrals or, in the alternative, with the toll 

free telephone number of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (or any successor thereto) through which the cardholder 

can be referred to credit counseling services 

in, or closest to, the cardholder’s county of 

residence, which credit counseling service 

shall be in good standing with the National 

Foundation for Credit Counseling or accredited by the Council on Accreditation for 

Children and Family Services (or any successors thereto). 

‘‘(B) DEFINITION OF OPEN-END CREDIT CARD

ACCOUNT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘openend credit card account’ means an account in 

which consumer credit is granted by a creditor under a plan in which the creditor reasonably contemplates repeated transactions, 

the creditor may impose a finance charge 

from time to time on an unpaid balance, and 

the amount of credit that may be extended 

to the consumer during the term of the plan 

is generally made available to the extent 

that any outstanding balance is repaid and 

up to any limit set by the creditor. 

‘‘(C) EXEMPTIONS.— 

‘‘(i) MINIMUM PAYMENT OF NOT LESS THAN

TEN PERCENT.—This paragraph shall not 

apply in any billing cycle in which the account agreement requires a minimum payment of not less than 10 percent of the outstanding balance. 

‘‘(ii) NO FINANCE CHARGES.—This paragraph 

shall not apply in any billing cycle in which 

finance charges are not imposed.’’. 

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, 

Mr. HATCH, Mr. BAYH, Mr. 

KERRY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. KYL, 

Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SCHUMER, and 

Ms. CANTWELL): 

S. 132. A bill to increase and enhance 

law enforcement resources committed 

to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter and punish violent 

gang crime, to protect law-abiding citizens and communities from violent 

criminals, to revise and enhance criminal penalties for violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention programs, and for other purposes; to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I 

am pleased to join Senators HATCH, 

BAYH, KERRY, MURRAY, KYL, and SPECTER in introducing comprehensive antigang legislation—the Gang Abatement 

and Prevention Act of 2009. 

This bill has changed significantly 

since Senator HATCH and I began introducing gang legislation over 10 years 

ago. The current version of the bill reflects changes that have been made to 

comprehensively address the gang 

problem, including provisions emphasizing prevention and intervention programs, as well as enforcement funding. 

This bill recognizes that the root 

causes of gang violence need to be addressed—identifying successful community programs and then investing significant resources in schools and religious and community organizations to 

prevent young people from joining 

gangs in the first place. 

The bill constitutes a balanced approach to fighting the gang problem, 

with authorization for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used for proven 

gang prevention and intervention programs, as well as strong enforcement 

provisions. 

The rise of criminal street gangs and 

the effect these gangs are having on 

our Nation are two of the fundamental 

issues facing us today. This country is 

in the midst of an epidemic of gang violence that cuts across every age and 

every race and plagues our cities, suburbs and rural areas. This violence 

often involves teens and children as 

both victims and perpetrators. 

Almost every day, gang violence is in 

the news across the country, with 

gang-related killings of children and 

innocent bystanders almost too numerous to count. A person only needs to 

pick up a newspaper or watch the 

evening news to see how gang violence 

is affecting our communities. 

A snapshot of gang violence that occurred over a 4-day period in Los Angeles in March 2008 illustrates how insidious gangs have become. 

On March 2, 2008, Jamiel Shaw, a 17- 

year-old high school football star, was 

shot to death just three doors from his 

home in Mid-City Los Angeles as he 

rushed home to make curfew. Two gang 

members pulled up in a car, asked if 

Jamiel was a gang member, and then 

shot him when he didn’t answer. 

Jamiel was not in a gang and was a 

model student and athlete who was 

being recruited by Stanford and Rutgers to play collegiate football. His 

mother, a sergeant in the U.S. Army 

who was serving her second tour of 

duty in Iraq, had to return home to Los 

Angeles to bury her son. 

On March 4, 2008, 6-year-old Lavarea 

Elvy was shot in the head in the Harbor Gateway area of South Los Angeles 

as she sat in the family car. A gang 

member and a gang associate of a Hispanic street gang have been charged in 

this attempted murder. 

On March 6, 2008, 13-year-old Anthony 

Escobar was killed while picking lemons in a neighbor’s yard in the Echo 

Park area of Los Angeles. Anthony was 

not a gang member, and police believe 

he was targeted by gang members who 

came to his neighborhood for no other 

reason than to kill someone. 

Stories like these are not limited to 

California. They are becoming commonplace across the country. Consider 

the following incidents of gang violence from across the country: 

In February 2008, Julia Steele, an 80- 

year-old woman from St. Louis, Missouri, was killed when she was caught 

in the crossfire of gunfire between rival 

gang members. Julia’s 80-year-old 

friend was also injured when their car 

slammed into other vehicles after the 

shooting. 

Beginning in May 2008, police in Billings, Montana had to increase neighborhood patrols due to repeated driveby shootings conducted by gang members. 

In July 2008, a 7-year-old boy was 

wounded while playing kickball near 

his suburban Roxbury, Massachusetts 

home. He was shot by an adult gang 

member from Boston, who police believe had traveled to the suburbs for no 

other reason than to shoot someone. 

In October 2008, Christopher Walker, 

a 16-year-old high school junior and 

member of the varsity basketball 

team, was shot and killed by a gang 

member near Henry Ford High School, 

his high school in Detroit, Michigan. 

According to media reports, Chris’ 

death has sparked much anger in the 

community over growing gang violence 

in the area. 

Across the country, in rural areas, 

suburbs, and cities, gang violence is literally holding neighborhoods hostage 

and Congress needs to do something 

about it. Our national gang problem is 

immense and growing, and it is not 

going away. 

On January 18, 2007, FBI Director 

Mueller acknowledged that gang crime 

has become ‘‘part of a clear national 

trend.’’ FBI statistics show that there 

are over 30,000 criminal street gangs 

operating in the United States, with 

more than one million gang members. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE