[Pages H2559-H2571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING YOUR CREDIT SCORE ACT OF 2019
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call
up the bill (H.R. 5332) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to
ensure that consumer reporting agencies are providing fair and accurate
information reporting in consumer reports, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Financial Services, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in part C of House Report 116-436, is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5332
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting
Your Credit Score Act of 2020''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Establishment of online consumer portal landing page for
consumer access to certain credit information.
Sec. 3. Accuracy in consumer reports.
Sec. 4. Improved dispute process for consumer reporting agencies.
Sec. 5. Injunctive relief.
Sec. 6. Increased transparency.
Sec. 7. Consumer reporting agency registry.
Sec. 8. Authority of Bureau with respect to consumer reporting
agencies.
Sec. 9. Bureau standards for protecting nonpublic information.
Sec. 10. Report on data security risk assessments in examinations of
consumer reporting agencies.
Sec. 11. GAO study on the use of social security numbers.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ONLINE CONSUMER PORTAL LANDING PAGE
FOR CONSUMER ACCESS TO CERTAIN CREDIT
INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Section 612(a)(1) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681j(a)(1)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(D) Online consumer portal landing page.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subparagraph, each consumer reporting
agency described in section 603(p) shall jointly develop an
online consumer portal landing page that gives each consumer
unlimited free access to--
``(I) the consumer report of the consumer;
``(II) the means by which the consumer may exercise the
rights of the consumer under subparagraph (E) and section
604(e);
``(III) the ability to initiate a dispute with the consumer
reporting agency regarding the accuracy or completeness of
any information in a report in accordance with section 611(a)
or 623(a)(8);
``(IV) the ability to place and remove a security freeze on
a consumer report for free under section 605A(i) and (j);
``(V) if the consumer reporting agency offers a product to
consumers to prevent access to the consumer report of the
consumer for the purpose of preventing identity theft, a
disclosure to the consumer regarding the differences between
that product and a security freeze as defined under section
605A(i) or (j);
``(VI) information on who has accessed the consumer report
of the consumer over the last 24 months, and, as available,
for what permissible purpose the consumer report was
furnished in accordance with section 604 and section 609; and
``(VII) the credit score of the consumer in accordance with
section 609(f)(7).
``(ii) No waiver.--A consumer reporting agency described in
section 603(p) may not require a consumer to waive any legal
or privacy rights to access--
``(I) a portal established under this subparagraph; or
``(II) any of the services described in clause (i) that are
provided through a portal established under this
subparagraph.
[[Page H2560]]
``(iii) No advertising or solicitations.--A portal
established under this subparagraph may not contain any
advertising, marketing offers, or other solicitations.
``(iv) Extension.--The Bureau may allow the consumer
reporting agencies an extension of 1 year to develop the
online consumer portal landing page required under clause
(i).
``(v) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph
may be construed as requiring a consumer reporting agency to
disclose confidential proprietary information through the
online consumer portal landing page.
``(E) Opt-out option.--
``(i) In general.--If a consumer reporting agency sells
consumer information in a manner that is not included in a
consumer report, the consumer reporting agency shall provide
each consumer with a method (through a website, by phone, or
in writing) by which the consumer may elect, free of charge,
to not have the information of the consumer so sold.
``(ii) No expiration.--An election made by a consumer under
clause (i) shall expire on the date on which the consumer
expressly revokes the election through a website, by phone,
or in writing.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 612(f)(1) of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681j(f)(1)) is amended, in
the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by adding ``or that is
made through the online consumer portal landing page
established under subsection (a)(1)(D),'' after ``subsections
(a) through (d),''.
SEC. 3. ACCURACY IN CONSUMER REPORTS.
Section 607(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681e) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Ensuring Accuracy.--
``(1) In general.--In preparing a consumer report, each
consumer reporting agency shall follow reasonable procedures
to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information
concerning the consumer to whom the report relates.
``(2) Matching information in a file.--In assuring the
maximum possible accuracy under paragraph (1), each consumer
reporting agency described in section 603(p) shall ensure
that, when including information in the file of a consumer,
the consumer reporting agency--
``(A) matches all 9 digits of the social security number of
the consumer with the information that the consumer reporting
agency is including in the file; or
``(B) if a consumer does not have a social security number,
matches information that includes the full legal name, date
of birth, current address, and at least one former address of
the consumer.
``(3) Periodic audits.--Each consumer reporting agency
shall perform periodic audits, on a schedule determined by
the Bureau, on a representative sample of consumer reports of
the agency to check for accuracy.''.
SEC. 4. IMPROVED DISPUTE PROCESS FOR CONSUMER REPORTING
AGENCIES.
(a) Responsibilities of Furnishers of Information to
Consumer Reporting Agencies.--Section 623 of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s-2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(8)--
(A) in subparagraph (E)(ii), by inserting ``and consider''
after ``review''; and
(B) in subparagraph (F)--
(i) in clause (i)(II), by inserting ``, and does not
include any new or additional information that would be
relevant to a reinvestigation'' before the period at the end;
and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) New or additional information.--For purposes of
clause (i)(II), the term `new or additional information'--
``(I) means information of a type designated by the Bureau;
and
``(II) does not include information previously provided to
the person.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``and consider''
after ``review''.
(b) Bureau Credit Reporting Ombudsperson.--Section 611(a)
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Bureau credit reporting ombudsperson.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the Bureau shall establish
the position of credit reporting ombudsperson, whose specific
duties shall include carrying out the Bureau's
responsibilities with respect to--
``(i) resolving persistent errors that are not resolved in
a timely manner by a consumer reporting agency; and
``(ii) enhancing oversight of consumer reporting agencies
by--
``(I) advising the Director of the Bureau, in consultation
with the Office of Enforcement and the Office of Supervision
of the Bureau, on any potential violations of paragraph (5)
or any other applicable law by a consumer reporting agency,
including appropriate corrective action for such a violation;
and
``(II) making referrals to the Office of Supervision for
supervisory action or the Office of Enforcement for
enforcement action, as appropriate, in response to violations
of paragraph (5) or any other applicable law by a consumer
reporting agency.
``(B) Report.--The ombudsperson shall submit to the
Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate an annual report including
statistics and analysis on consumer complaints the Bureau
receives relating to consumer reports, as well as a summary
of the supervisory actions and enforcement actions taken with
respect to consumer reporting agencies during the year
covered by the report.''.
(c) Responsibilities of Consumer Reporting Agencies.--
Section 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681i) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Obligations of consumer reporting agencies relating
to reinvestigations.--Commensurate with the volume and
complexity of disputes about which a consumer reporting
agency receives notice, or reasonably anticipates to receive
notice, under this paragraph, each consumer reporting agency
shall--
``(i) maintain sufficient personnel to conduct
reinvestigations of those disputes; and
``(ii) provide training with respect to the personnel
described in clause (i).'';
(B) in paragraph (6)(B)--
(i) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) a copy of the consumer's file and a consumer report
that is based upon such file as revised, including a
description of the specific modification or deletion of
information, as a result of the reinvestigation;'';
(ii) by striking clause (iii) and redesignating clauses
(iv) and (v) as clauses (vi) and (vii), respectively;
(iii) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) a description of the actions taken by the consumer
reporting agency regarding the dispute;
``(iv) if applicable, contact information for any furnisher
involved in responding to the dispute and a description of
the role played by the furnisher in the reinvestigation
process;
``(v) the options available to the consumer if the consumer
is dissatisfied with the result of the reinvestigation,
including--
``(I) submitting documents in support of the dispute;
``(II) adding a consumer statement of dispute to the file
of the consumer pursuant to subsection (b);
``(III) filing a dispute with the furnisher pursuant to
section 623(a)(8); and
``(IV) submitting a complaint against the consumer
reporting agency or furnishers through the consumer complaint
database of the Bureau or the State attorney general for the
State in which the consumer resides;'';
(C) by striking paragraph (7) and redesignating paragraph
(8) as paragraph (7); and
(D) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraphs (2), (6), and (7)'' and inserting ``paragraphs
(2) and (6)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Notification of Deletion of Information.--A consumer
reporting agency described in section 603(p) shall
communicate with other consumer reporting agencies described
in section 603(p) to ensure that a dispute initiated with one
consumer reporting agency is noted in a file maintained by
such other consumer reporting agencies.''.
SEC. 5. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
(a) In General.--The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 616 (15 U.S.C. 1681n)--
(A) in subsection (a), by amending the subsection heading
to read as follows: ``Damages'';
(B) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Injunctive Relief.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to any other remedy under
this section, a court may award injunctive relief to require
compliance with the requirements imposed under this title
with respect to any consumer.
``(2) Attorney's fees.--In the event of any successful
action for injunctive relief under this subsection, a court
may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees
(as determined by the court) incurred by the prevailing party
during the action.''; and
(2) in section 617 (15 U.S.C. 1681o)--
(A) in subsection (a), in the subsection heading, by
striking ``(a) In General.--'' and inserting ``(a) Damages.--
'';
(B) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(C) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Injunctive Relief.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to any other remedy under
this section, a court may award injunctive relief to require
compliance with the requirements imposed under this title
with respect to any consumer.
``(2) Attorney's fees.--In the event of any successful
action for injunctive relief under this subsection, a court
may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees
(as determined by the court) incurred by the prevailing party
during the action.''.
(b) Enforcement.--Section 615(h)(8) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m(h)(8)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section'' and
inserting ``subsection''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``This section'' and
inserting ``This subsection''.
SEC. 6. INCREASED TRANSPARENCY.
(a) Disclosures to Consumers.--Section 609 of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681g) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) the address and telephone number of the person; and
``(iii) the permissible purpose, as available, of the
person for obtaining the consumer report, including the
specific type of credit product that is extended, reviewed,
or collected, as described in section 604(a)(3)(A).'';
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) by amending paragraph (7)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) supply the consumer with a credit score through the
portal established under section
[[Page H2561]]
612(a)(1)(D) or upon request by the consumer, as applicable,
that--
``(i) is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely
distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency for
the purpose of any extension of credit or other transaction
designated by the consumer who is requesting the credit
score; or
``(ii) is widely distributed to lenders of common consumer
loan products and predicts the future credit behavior of the
consumer; and''; and
(B) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``, except that a credit
score shall be provided free of charge to the consumer if
requested in connection with a free annual consumer report
described in section 612(a) or through the online consumer
portal landing page established under section 612(a)(1)(D)''
before the period at the end; and
(3) in subsection (g)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
(i) in the clause heading, by striking ``subparagraph (d)''
and inserting ``subparagraph (C)''; and
(ii) by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (C)'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``consistent with
subparagraph (C)'';
(C) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(D) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (G) as
subparagraphs (C) through (F), respectively.
(b) Notification Requirements.--
(1) Adverse information notification.--
(A) In general.--The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681 et seq.) is amended--
(i) in section 612 (15 U.S.C. 1681j), by striking
subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Free Disclosure After Notice of Adverse Action or
Offer of Credit on Materially Less Favorable Term.--Not later
than 30 days after the date on which a consumer reporting
agency receives a notification under subsection (a)(2) or
(h)(6) of section 615, or from a debt collection agency
affiliated with the consumer reporting agency, the consumer
reporting agency shall make to a consumer, without charge to
the consumer, all disclosures that are made to a user of a
consumer report in accordance with the rules prescribed by
the Bureau.''; and
(ii) in section 615(a) (15 U.S.C. 1681m(a))--
(I) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively;
(II) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) direct the consumer reporting agency that provided
the consumer report that was used in the decision to take the
adverse action to provide the consumer with the disclosures
described in section 612(b);''; and
(III) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated--
(aa) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``of the consumer's right'';
(bb) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) that the consumer shall receive a copy of the
consumer report with respect to the consumer, free of charge,
from the consumer reporting agency that furnished the
consumer report; and''; and
(cc) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``of the right of
the consumer'' before ``to dispute''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 604(b)(2)(B)(i) of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(B)(i)) is
amended by striking ``section 615(a)(3)'' and inserting
``section 615(a)(4)''.
(2) Notification in cases of less favorable terms.--Section
615(h) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m(h))
is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (7)'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (7)'';
(C) in paragraph (5)(C), by striking ``may obtain'' and
inserting ``shall receive'';
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) as
paragraphs (7), (8), and (9), respectively; and
(E) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) Reports provided to consumers.--A person who uses a
consumer report as described in paragraph (1) shall notify
and direct the consumer reporting agency that provided the
consumer report to provide the consumer with the disclosures
described in section 612(b).''.
(3) Notification of subsequent submissions of negative
information.--Section 623(a)(7)(A)(ii) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(7)(A)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``with respect to'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting ``without providing
additional notice to the consumer, unless another person
acquires the right to repayment connected to the additional
negative information. The acquiring person shall be subject
to the requirements of this paragraph and shall be required
to send consumers the written notices described in this
paragraph, if applicable.''.
SEC. 7. CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY REGISTRY.
Section 621 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681s) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Consumer Reporting Agency Registry.--
``(1) Establishment of registry.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Bureau
shall establish a publicly available registry of consumer
reporting agencies that includes--
``(A) each consumer reporting agency that compiles and
maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis;
``(B) each nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency;
``(C) all other consumer reporting agencies that are not
included under section 603(p) or 603(x); and
``(D) links to any relevant websites of a consumer
reporting agency described under subparagraphs (A) through
(C).
``(2) Registration requirement.--The Bureau shall establish
a deadline, which shall be not later than 270 days after the
date of the enactment of this subsection, by which each
consumer reporting agency described in paragraph (1) shall be
required to register in the registry established under such
paragraph.''.
SEC. 8. AUTHORITY OF BUREAU WITH RESPECT TO CONSUMER
REPORTING AGENCIES.
Section 1024(a)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) is a consumer reporting agency described under
section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.''.
SEC. 9. BUREAU STANDARDS FOR PROTECTING NONPUBLIC
INFORMATION.
Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6801 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 501, by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(c) Consumer Reporting Agency Safeguards.--The Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection shall establish, by rule,
appropriate standards for consumer reporting agencies
described under section 603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act relating to administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards to protect records and information as described in
paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b).'';
(2) in section 504(a)(1)(A), by striking ``, except that
the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection shall not have
authority to prescribe regulations with respect to the
standards under section 501''; and
(3) in section 505(a)(8), by inserting ``, other than under
subsection (c) of section 501'' after ``section 501''.
SEC. 10. REPORT ON DATA SECURITY RISK ASSESSMENTS IN
EXAMINATIONS OF CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection shall assess whether examinations conducted by the
Director of consumer reporting agencies described under
section 603(f) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681a(f)) include sufficient processes to addresses any data
security risks to the consumers of such agencies on which
such agencies maintain and compile files. Along with the
first semiannual report required under section 1016(b) of the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5496(b))
to be submitted after the 90-day period after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to Congress
a report containing the results of such assessment that
includes--
(1) recommendations for improving the processes to
addresses any such data security risks; and
(2) the progress of the Director on making any improvements
described under paragraph (1).
SEC. 11. GAO STUDY ON THE USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall carry out a study on the feasibility and means of
consumer reporting agencies replacing the use of social
security numbers as identifiers with another type of Federal
identification.
(b) Report.--Not later than the end of the 2-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General shall issue a report to the Congress
containing all findings and determinations made in carrying
out the study required under subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 5332 and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5332, the Protecting Your
Credit Score Act of 2020.
I would like the thank Representative Gottheimer, the bill's sponsor,
for all of his hard work and leadership on this important and
bipartisan legislation. He worked extensively for most of last year to
seek the input and support of our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, making improvements along the way.
[[Page H2562]]
Our credit reporting system is badly broken, and consumers have
little recourse. It should be no surprise that consumer complaints
regarding credit reporting errors and failed attempts to fix these
errors are consistently a top complaint submitted to the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission. This
demonstrates that millions of consumers are frustrated with the current
system and need our help.
H.R. 5332 would direct the nationwide consumer reporting agencies to
create a streamlined, single online portal for consumers to have easy
access to free credit reports, credit scores, dispute errors, and place
security freezes.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5332.
I want to first thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his work on
this bill. I am disappointed we were not able to come to a bipartisan
compromise. We worked for the better part of a year to try to achieve a
good product that could broadly be supported. This product does not
represent that work, sadly. Unfortunately, we didn't get there.
I believe that we are considering, today, a bill that is just another
attempt for House Democrats to socialize the credit reporting and
scoring industry. We are voting on a bill that will decrease
competition, increase fraud, prop up the trial bar, and expand
authority of an already unaccountable CFPB, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
First, this bill directs the three nationwide credit reporting
agencies to create a shared online portal. This portal will allow
unlimited and free consumer access to credit information--this is
good--and credit freezes. This is good and allows consumers to initiate
disputes.
That all sounds very good. In fact, Republicans support a one-stop
shop for consumers to access important credit information. But we are
talking about the three largest players in the industry, and this bill
codifies their place--their oligopoly structure and their favored view
of the current marketplace--and enshrines them further into law with
this outsized authority.
This bill condones their market structure by mandating that many of
their services be merged into a single web portal. This doesn't make
things better; it makes it worse.
If Congress really wants to protect consumers, we should be working
to promote more competition in the credit reporting and scoring
industry. We should be promoting new ways to eliminate barriers to
entry, not promoting what really comes down to less consumer choice.
Second, this bill requires the complete Social Security numbers be
used to confirm the consumer's identity. So here is the problem: The
bill fails to set appropriate standards to protect that information.
Specifically, the bill directs the credit reporting agencies to match
all nine digits of a consumer's Social Security number before including
any information in consumer credit reports.
That sounds well, fine, and good, but we know hacks happen. As
Federal employees, we have had our information hacked and sold. Just
look at the credit reporting agencies. They have had their information
hacked and sold. This is why we wanted to come to a bipartisan
compromise.
There is something legitimate we should be doing, but today, not all
data furnishers collect full Social Security numbers for submission for
consumer credit information to the credit bureaus. That means this bill
has a requirement now that they collect all the Social Security
information to confirm the consumer's identity. This will potentially
have two negative consequences for consumers.
First, data that is not already linked to that Social Security number
will be excluded from credit bureaus. That means, under this bill,
accurate information will be removed for no other reason than it is
missing the Social Security number.
This will actually decrease the predictive power of credit files.
That is a negative for consumers. That, in turn, will jeopardize the
ability to get low-cost credit for consumers, especially for those who
are on the margin where much of their information is derived by being a
consumer and paying back regular consumer debt.
Second, data furnishers will start aggressively capturing and storing
Social Security numbers for consumers just so the data can be used in
the credit models. That means that our Social Security number will be
in more places and identity theft can then increase with more
opportunities to steal our information. It means that consumers will be
further at peril for fraudulent activities by bad and malicious actors.
So committee Republicans have consistently expressed concern with the
private sector and government use of Social Security numbers for
identity verification. I think we should all agree on that. This bill
will only exacerbate the problem by statutorily directing an increase
in reliance on this very highly personal information.
Next, this bill creates an additional opportunity for trial lawyers
to exploit the litigation system, ultimately raising the cost of credit
for all consumers.
The bill expands the private right of action under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act to allow for injunctive relief. It further provides
plaintiffs with compensation for attorney fees, and more litigation
means increased costs associated with credit reporting.
Additionally, this bill allows consumers to continuously dispute
information even if the account is verified as accurate, promoting an
endless cycle of frivolous reinvestigations and decreasing the
effectiveness of credit reporting.
Lastly, this bill continues the Democrats' goal of expanding the
statutory authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the
CFPB. The bill creates duplicative ombudsmen in the CFPB for credit
reporting, something that they currently have, but the person has more
than just consumer credit reporting responsibilities.
Since its creation, congressional Republicans have fought to place
this unaccountable government agency under the annual appropriations
process and have argued that the single-Director structure is
unconstitutional. That is being litigated and will be decided by the
Supreme Court this summer.
While the current CFPB Director is working to increase the
accountability and transparency at the agency, we don't know what the
next Director will do, if he or she will abuse his or her power. We
should fix the CFPB before we expand their authorities.
{time} 1530
Madam Speaker, I also want to take issue with a larger set of issues
here.
The Democrats' decision to report out a closed rule means that you
can't even have the ultimate goal of a bipartisan bill that can then
get action in the Senate and then, potentially, get a signature by the
President.
This, too, is a sad sign of the state of affairs in what seems to be
a highly broken legislative process that we are in the midst of. It
further demonstrates my point that my colleagues, in particular, on the
other side of the aisle have no interest in working with Republicans to
craft a bill that protects consumers' personal information.
I submitted amendments to the Committee on Rules that provide for
targeted solutions:
Eliminating this reliance on Social Security numbers;
Removing paid non-elective debt from credit reports--which this bill
fails to do;
Allowing parents to electronically freeze their minor's credit
report--which this bill fails to do;
Requiring sources for public record data in credit reports, which
would then expand credit files so that those who are on the margins for
creditworthiness would have enhanced credit potentially;
Prohibit the inclusion of adverse information relating to predatory
mortgage lending;
Financial abuse or fraud associated with private student loans in
credit reports. This bill does not act;
And directing the GAO to study and report to Congress on the use of
nontraditional data and credit scoring, this is something that has
bipartisan support in our committee and has been reported out in other
measures, but not in this one.
And so those are sensible measures that could have been included if
we had
[[Page H2563]]
an open amendment process. But then, again, we are wearing masks, we
are conducting business in this odd way, where Members can vote for
other Members that are not here on the House floor and we have to go
through this whole long process. So I understand they have a need to
rush, right, but this is an ill-conceived bill that will have a
negative impact on every American--every American--if this is signed
into law.
Madam Speaker, I think we need better consideration and a better
product that could actually achieve a bipartisan outcome.
Let's vote ``no'' on this, and let's get on with the real work of the
American people.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), author of this bill and
a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for allowing me
to speak today on behalf of my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 5332, the
Protecting Your Credit Score Act of 2020.
Madam Speaker, since I took office, I have been committed to helping
protect seniors and other vulnerable communities from fraud and to
protect their financial well-being. Like many of my colleagues,
constituents in my district are feeling the economic pain caused by the
ongoing pandemic.
Just this week, in fact, a constituent of mine, Patricia from
Wantage, New Jersey, reached out to me to ask: What can we do as
policymakers to help protect people's credit during this crisis?
Madam Speaker, I am proud that we were able to provide Americans with
debt and credit relief as part of the bipartisan CARES Act, protecting
homeowners in forbearance and Federal student loan borrowers. We were
able to continue to work to do so with the bipartisan HEROES Act, which
has yet to become law. It is in the Senate now waiting action. And that
act, including suspending negative credit reporting during the
pandemic, giving Americans time to recover economically before there is
a risk of being hit on their credit reports. It is also time that we
look at the way hardworking Americans are able to track and ensure
accuracy in their credit reports so that their scores are where they
need to be as we progress into our economic recovery.
Madam Speaker, I really want to thank Chairwoman Waters for her
impactful leadership and partnership on this bipartisan bill and her
incredibly supportive and smart team. I also thank Ranking Member
McHenry for spending so many months working with me in such a
constructive and cooperative manner. My bill reflects a lot of his wise
input. I, too, am sorry we weren't able to find ultimate common ground.
I also want to thank my good friend and co-chair of the Problem Solvers
Caucus, Tom Reed, for his work cosponsoring this important
legislation.
Madam Speaker, after working on this bill for a year, I was proud
when the bill was reported favorably out of the Committee on Financial
Services on December 11, 2019.
I am also proud the House last night passed the landmark George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act. We must continue to come together as a country
to fight for racial justice on all fronts, and to combat inequalities
that have plagued this Nation for too long, which includes the ability
to access credit.
Credit affects all communities, impacting what Americans pay for a
car, whether they can get a mortgage for a house, the rates on a credit
card, and how much they can receive for a small business loan. The
impact it has is especially strong on communities of color. And experts
have testified to the Committee on Financial Services that the credit
reporting system is biased, particularly against these communities.
Running this crucial part of our economy are three companies in the
United States that literally hold the keys to the kingdom. It is an
oligopoly. They decide Americans' credit fate and whether they should
get access to credit, and it is all done in a closed-off system behind
the drapes. And we don't know what goes on, how they develop those
scores.
I am very glad the ranking member is interested in trying to get more
competition into that process. And I am very eager--and I am sure the
committee is, too--to work together on that front.
I am also glad that there are areas that he would like to go further
on overall when it comes to access to credit. And I am also eager to
sit down as well.
Madam Speaker, the bottom line is these three credit bureaus come up
with their own magic number: Your credit score. Houdini, himself, could
not figure out how these credit scores are calculated. They have their
own secret formula. It impacts every aspect of your life, as I said,
from your car loan to your mortgage, and it is up to you to track it
and beg them to fix inaccuracies when they arise, which is far too
often, and most often not your fault.
The best way to discover whether there are errors on your credit
report is to check your three reports from these companies, and FCRA
currently only gives consumers the right to view their report for free
once every 12 months.
Otherwise, you have got to pay out of your own pocket and chase down
these three credit bureaus--anywhere from $9.95 a report to $15.95 a
report. Experts recommend that you check your report before applying
for any new line of credit or making a large purchase or renting or
buying a home because a mistake can easily seriously affect your
credit. It could lead to more costs and things like rising interest
rates that would affect your loans, and even worse, you may be
ineligible to qualify for financing altogether.
The Federal Trade Commission has previously found that one in 5
consumers have verified errors in their reports, not of their own
making. And one in 20 consumers have errors so serious that they would
be denied credit or need to pay more for it. That adds up to 42 million
Americans with errors in their credit and 10 million with errors that
can be life-altering.
We also now live in a world where data breaches are a constant
threat. Unfortunately, every year 15.4 million Americans are victims of
credit card fraud--42,000 people every single day.
According to the Merchant Risk Council, 80 percent of all credit
cards are compromised. And the Identity Theft Resources Center has
reported that as of June 11, there have been 475 reported data breaches
already this year, exposing more than 5 million records. And once you
are a victim, almost immediately the criminals, they start in. They
apply for new cards, for mortgages, for loans, for cars--anything else
they can get their hands on, all under your name--affecting your credit
score within these three credit bureaus. And it is vital that these
fraudsters be caught immediately and not be allowed to cause further
damage undetected between the one free annual report.
It has happened to my sister, to my constituents, to people I know.
And I am sure everyone out there knows someone this has happened to.
And when someone is the target of this fraud right now, it is up to the
victim to fix these issues. They receive all of the burden of chasing
after these three companies with their own systems and procedures and
beg them for help. And that can take 3 to 6 months.
Madam Speaker, my bipartisan legislation with Congressman Tom Reed
from New York asked the private sector, not the government, to help fix
this. And this is a big distinction here that I want to point out to
the ranking member, this is driven by the private sector, not the
government, to fix this issue. My bipartisan bill sets up a one-stop
shop online portal to check your credit report for free at any time. It
allows victims to shut off the ability of credit crooks from using your
information to apply for credit under your name.
The portal will also provide the ability to initiate and resolve
disputes between you and the credit bureau, and you will be able to see
who the bureaus have sold your data to in the prior 2 years. Because,
yes, they take your data and they go make money on your information.
Madam Speaker, the bill strengthens cybersecurity safeguards of
information held by consumer reporting agencies, to help prevent a
repeat of the
[[Page H2564]]
2017 Equifax data breach. The bill also asks the GAO to examine the
most secure and accurate marker to track your credit, whether it is
your Social Security number or another Federal identifier. And this is
very important.
I am glad the ranking member raised this issue, because I agree. We
should find the best possible identifier that is most secure, and that
is exactly what this study is all about because we need to make sure we
keep your identity secure. By creating this one-stop portal, all three
credit bureaus will now have to work together to help protect you and
make your lives better, not the other way around.
And I understand the issue that is raised about the security and
making sure that this is not handed off to someone. That is why, again,
as I say, the private sector will develop these websites.
And to a point about this that was raised: If my friend is actually
really concerned, and he thinks that these three bureaus don't have
secure websites now, well then we better get them here immediately and
find out why he is worried about that and if they actually should be
more secure. Because what we are asking them to do is develop a website
just like they have now, which I hope--and I will ask the companies
again--I hope that they are doing everything possible to keep their own
websites secure.
Madam Speaker, well, my own sister had her credit hacked last year.
She told me she was lucky to get a day off from her job to figure all
this out. She had to sit on the phone and chase everyone. But what if
you don't have the ability to take a day off to sit on the phone with
each credit company and chase down every single issue? Our bipartisan
legislation will help fix this and help Americans protect what they
spent a lifetime building, and that is their credit.
Madam Speaker, I am also proud, lastly, to have the support of
several businesses and consumer groups. Vince Malta, the President of
the National Association of Realtors, sent a letter to me this week on
the bill, which states: ``Access to free credit scores, transparency in
the reporting process and use of consumer credit information high
standards for vetting credit information, and a reliable method for
contesting and correcting inaccurate information are critical to a
vibrant housing market and economy.''
Other supporting groups include the National Consumer Law Center, the
Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, and World Privacy
Forum.
Madam Speaker, while we did not earn the support of every group--and
I recognize that--I am proud that even among those who disagree with us
acknowledged the efforts that we took in order to work towards a
bipartisan agreement. I will continue to work to make every effort to
reach consensus, and I appreciate their acknowledgment of that effort.
Madam Speaker, finally, let me say that during an economic downturn
and throughout the years we are going to spend recovering from it,
Americans' financial security will and must be paramount.
We have already seen spikes in fraud throughout this pandemic,
especially related to direct payments and different types of loans. And
the chairwoman has worked overtime in all of our bills to make sure we
do everything possible to protect Americans during this time. I am
grateful for her leadership.
Madam Speaker, as we recover from this crisis, I want to make sure
Americans can protect their credit and resolve disputes that may arise.
As SEC Chairman Clayton testified just yesterday to the House Committee
on Financial Services, for a consumer, the best thing you can do for
yourself is understand your credit and get your credit under control.
We need a modernized system that empowers all consumers, especially
those facing new challenges with this new pandemic, with transparency
and the ability to correct errors to their credit reports, and to make
sure everyone can have access to credit so that they can have a home, a
car, and enjoy everything that everyone who works hard should have
access to.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
bipartisan bill, which will help every American.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I highlight for the bill's sponsor that
first with the Equifax data breach, it is proof that the industry could
use better data standards.
Second, making sure that they have the fullness of the Social
Security numbers only means that when they steal that information, they
also steal our full Social Security numbers so they can have full
action for fraudulent activity and identity testimony. That, we know,
and it should have been addressed in this bill, and it is a failure of
this legislation and the reason why I oppose it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Loudermilk), the ranking member on the Task Force on Artificial
Intelligence.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank our ranking member for not
only yielding, but his fine leadership in this committee.
I also appreciate my colleague, Mr. Gottheimer, sponsor of this
legislation. I appreciate his leadership on this, and I truly believe
he did work very hard in a bipartisan manner to try to come to an
agreement. And unfortunately, we just weren't able to close that gap.
And I hope that going forward we will be able to do that, because this
is something that we do support on this side with the certain
constraints to protect the consumers' identity.
One of my major concerns on this is cybersecurity. As was spoken
about earlier, the bill would create an online portal for consumers to
access their credit reports from all three major credit bureaus in one
place. The idea is a good idea, and very worth discussing and very
worth pursuing. But in its current state, it would be a massive amount
of sensitive data in one place, so it must be done in a way that is
cybersecure to make sure that the information doesn't lead to more
fraud and more identity theft.
As someone who has spent many years in the IT sector, as I know my
good colleague, Mr. Gottheimer, has as well, I am very concerned about
the potential of breaches of this portal.
We all remember the 2017 Equifax data breach that exposed the
financial information of millions of Americans, and the last thing we
should be doing is increasing the chance of that kind of event
happening again. But this bill has the potential to do that very thing
because it does not include robust cybersecurity protections to make
sure the information on the portal is secure.
{time} 1545
Another worthy goal of the bill is to make it easier for consumers to
dispute errors in their credit reports. But the bill allows consumers
to repeatedly dispute the same information on their credit reports,
even if it is found to be accurate, which would lead to unnecessary and
frivolous disputes.
Another significant concern I have with this bill is that it would
expand the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The
CFPB is an unaccountable regulatory agency that took many rogue actions
under the previous administration.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that expanding the
CFPB's power is a nonstarter for Republicans; therefore, I cannot
support this bill. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, just one point I want to bring back
up, if I may. I want to thank my friend for his comments, and I
appreciate his work and our efforts together here.
The one point about the Social Security number that I want to raise
is, the bill requires a study at the GAO to see what the best answer
is, whether if that is a Federal identifier number or a Social Security
number, whatever the best answer is.
I know we spent a lot of time talking about this. I, too, am very
concerned with making sure that we have the best possible outcome to
protect people and protect their information.
So if the GAO comes back and says that we need to develop a new
Federal identifier so that we keep it separate from the Social Security
number, then, to me, that would be the best outcome. That is exactly
why the bill requires the GAO to study this.
Again, just one other point, if we are concerned about current
security and cybersecurity.
[[Page H2565]]
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. What I am highlighting is the fact that, in one section
of the bill, you have the study to say whether or not using Social
Security numbers is good or bad. I think that is good. That was
laudable.
The problem is, in another part of the bill, you mandate immediately
that they need the fullness of the Social Security numbers in order for
the data to be included. That is what I am highlighting, and that is
one of the rubs that I have with the bill.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Reclaiming my time.
Yes, they also have a period of time to develop the site. It is not
going to happen overall. In that period of time, we will get direction
on what the best outcome is in terms of using a Federal identifier, and
we will execute against that as we develop this site.
Back to the site. If the oligopoly of the three bureaus--if right now
our concern is that their sites are not secure, then we better have
them in immediately and have them take us through their sites again.
Because if you are still concerned about this--
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. I commend Chairwoman Waters for bringing the three CEOs
in.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Right, right. I remember that.
Mr. McHENRY. We, on a bipartisan basis, beat them up, which is a rare
thing in Congress. We beat them up because they had a massive data
breach that exposed our data. That is why I sincerely wanted to get to
the bottom of this and have a bipartisan bill.
This is not a result of this product.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Reclaiming my time.
Just one question on that. Do you feel now that the three are still
insecure? And are you concerned about them?
Mr. McHENRY. For sure, for sure. That is why I want to get to a
solution. This bill, sadly, incorporates none of the conditionalities
that I wanted.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Reclaiming my time.
Does the gentleman agree that we should have them back in
immediately, again, to talk to them and find out if they have made
progress?
Mr. McHENRY. The point is, we could have had a massive vote on
something that reformed them rather than bring them in and wag our
finger again.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. The whole point is that, because they are still
insecure, we better let people actually have access to their data all
the time. That is what this bill does, so they can find out, instead of
having to pay 10 bucks or 15 bucks every time to see if these sites are
secure. That is my concern.
I thank the gentleman. I think we are good.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
What I would say, very simply, Madam Speaker, is that we could have
had a bipartisan solution here. That is what I was offering. Give up
the private right of action, so you don't have more lawsuits, and give
up your view of a government-centric portal that basically enshrines
these big three. Those are two additions.
The final kicker is this: End the reliance on Social Security numbers
and put the date in the future, and the technology solution will be
there. That is an industry mandate that I offered as a matter of
compromise.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Budd), my colleague from Davie County, North Carolina, a great
leader on the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, I want to rise in strong opposition to H.R.
5332, the Protecting Your Credit Score Act of 2019.
Although I will not be supporting the gentleman from New Jersey's
legislation, I want to make sure that people know that I consider him a
friend, and I thank him for his efforts to try to bring reform to the
credit reporting industry.
There are some good ideas in this bill, such as the one-stop-shop
approach for consumers to freeze and unfreeze their credit for all
three nationwide bureaus that we have just talked about, as well as
access to credit reports and scores.
But even this idea is taken too far in the bill, and it leaves too
many unanswered questions about exactly how it is going to be carried
out.
Now, it is really unfortunate that a bipartisan compromise was not
reached. I know the ranking member and his staff worked tirelessly on
this with the gentleman from New Jersey and his staff.
But there are a few other points I want to make. You know, it is a
chief priority for committee Republicans to protect consumers' personal
information. That is something that both sides have brought up.
Yet, we are preparing to vote on a bill that still makes Social
Security numbers the primary way to identify a person, despite the fact
that we know Social Security numbers threaten consumers' personal
information. Worse yet, the bill will mandate furnishers to match all
nine Social Security digits.
Another concern with this bill is the creation of yet another
ombudsman at the CFPB to deal exclusively with consumer reporting
agencies. This provision is unnecessary and duplicative. The CFPB
already has an ombudsman to deal with consumer-facing issues. There is
no logical reason why the proposed authorities cannot simply be given
to the existing ombudsperson. This is simply another move by the
Democrats to expand the statutory authority of the unaccountable CFPB.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Casten), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. CASTEN of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
5332, the Protecting Your Credit Score Act. I support this bill
because, like so many Americans, I personally know the frustration of
dealing with erroneous marks on your credit report and thought I would
share a recent story.
About a month ago, I got a letter from a bank where I don't have an
account, Bank of America. They were thanking me for something that I
didn't recognize. So, I did what all good Americans do: I threw it in
the recycle bin and moved on with my day.
The next day, I got a similar letter from Navy Federal Credit Union,
where I also do not have an account. This one had a summary of my
credit score and was shortly followed with another note saying that my
account was overdrawn by $3,250.
I am going to be honest. The only reason that the Navy Federal Credit
Union letters got my attention and didn't end up in the recycling bin
is because they were addressed to Lieutenant Commander Sean Casten. I
have been called a lot of things in this job, but that is a rank that I
have never earned.
A few phone calls and a similar overdraft notification from Bank of
America later, and I had fraud alerts placed on both accounts.
On the advice of the banks, I called TransUnion to ensure this
wouldn't show up on my credit report. The agent was helpful. At the end
of the call, she said: ``Is there anything else I should know?''
And I just couldn't resist telling her: ``Only that I am a member of
the House Financial Services Committee with oversight of you, and I
appreciate how helpful you have been.''
Now, I tell that story because I was able to correct this. But I can
imagine a ton of other scenarios where I don't check the recycling,
where I am not alleged to be a commissioned naval officer, where I
hadn't been in enough committee hearings on this subject to recognize
fraud early on. And in all those scenarios, this story has a much less
happy ending.
But those incidents happen every day to an awful lot of Americans. We
know 21 percent of consumers had verified errors in their credit
reports. Thirteen percent had errors that affected their credit scores.
Five percent had errors serious enough to cause them to be denied or
pay more for credit. But those are only the accounts we know about.
Many don't know where to turn or have the resources or the time to
correct them. Fraudulent or accidental marks on a credit report can
have a life-altering consequence, so it is important that those reports
are correct.
But credit scores and reports are a critical gatekeeper for
Americans' financial well-being and access to the
[[Page H2566]]
most basic building block of the American Dream.
It is determinative in setting premiums for auto and homeowner's
insurance. It informs landlords on which renters they want to rent
their apartments to. Your score determines if you must make a bigger
deposit to get your utilities.
That is why this bill is so important. It creates an online consumer
portal where consumers will have free and unlimited access to their
consumer reports and credit scores.
Allowing consumers the ability to initiate disputes about credit
report accuracy--rather than all the rigmarole I had to go through--and
to place or remove a security freeze, is a critical tool that allows
Americans the control and the ability to remedy those errors.
It is 2020. It is long past time to modernize the way that consumers
address errors on their credit scores.
I thank Representative Gottheimer for introducing this bill, and I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Riggleman).
Mr. RIGGLEMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
5332, the Protecting Your Credit Score Act.
I would like to thank the ranking member for his leadership, but also
my colleague from New Jersey. Not only is he a friend, but I respect
him very much, and I do applaud his efforts on this legislation.
I share his interest in ensuring credit reports are complete,
accurate, and transparent, but I believe this bill fails to achieve
that goal.
The passage of H.R. 5332 will have harmful and unintended
consequences for consumers. It is, simply put, yet another veiled
attempt to socialize the credit reporting and scoring industry that
will cause harm to hardworking Americans.
This bill is disguised as pro-consumer, but H.R. 5332 will decrease
competition, increase the cost of credit for consumers, provide
opportunities for trial attorneys to exploit the litigation system, and
expand the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
It undermines the Fair Credit Reporting Act and our ability to
maintain a nationwide credit reporting system that benefits businesses
and consumers. This bill would create a conflicting patchwork of
interpretations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that will lead to
confusion among financial institutions and raise costs for all
consumers.
While my colleague named this bill the Protecting Your Credit Score
Act of 2019, it does little to protect consumers and their data. Quite
to the contrary, it expands and increases the risk of harm to consumers
affected by a data breach.
This bill mandates the three nationwide credit reporting agencies
create a shared online portal and would create significant
cybersecurity vulnerabilities for consumers and companies, all while
creating opportunities for bad actors to manipulate and take advantage
of our consumer data.
I know a little bit about this because I have done this for about 22
years.
Creating a one-stop-shop for the credit report, personal information,
and Social Security number of every individual would be disastrous in
the event of a cyber hack or data breach.
We need to find targeted solutions that focus on increasing the
cybersecurity capability at credit reporting agencies, increase
competition, and increase access to credit for consumers and
businesses, rather than put forward proposals that undermine the
consumer reporting system and further empower unelected bureaucrats at
the expense of the free market.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Riggleman for his points.
He is a good friend, and I respect him deeply.
I disagree here, respectfully. The whole point of this is to protect
consumers. Giving consumers more data to have access to about
themselves and to understand their own credit scores and their own
credit history and have more transparency into their own lives does not
hurt them; it helps them.
That is exactly what we are doing today, so that if you are hacked,
if you are one of the millions of Americans whose credit is stolen
every single day and you are trying to put your credit life back
together, not by your own making, because someone did it to you, and
they are opening accounts and doing things to you, what this
legislation will do is help you.
Instead of having to spend hours chasing down the three bureaus and
hoping that they actually do what they say they are going to do and put
your credit back together, so that when you want a house and a
mortgage, or you want a car, and you want to do the things that you
have worked very hard to build your credit for, someone else who stole
your credit won't be able to undermine that. That is what this bill
does.
One point, just to clarify this important point that the ranking
member made. The bill does not mandate the collection of Social
Security numbers. It simply requires that credit bureaus match the
information they already have on file to ensure that Jane Doe in
Illinois who defaults on her payments does not impair the credit of
Jane Doe in Indiana.
One of the biggest reasons consumers have errors in their files is
because of the mixed files when negative information is assigned to the
wrong person.
It is, once again, another reason why we need a place for consumers
to go to get free access to their reports, to file complaints
immediately, to contest issues when they see them, and to make sure
their credit isn't sold off to someone else right underneath them.
That is the point of this. And why we are having a GAO study is to
make sure we find the best way, the most secure way, to do this going
forward.
This legislation protects consumers; it protects Americans; and it
doesn't look out for the oligopoly. We need more competition there. It
looks out for the American consumer, and that is the point.
{time} 1600
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I think that since this is such a
critical issue, we should count up how many hearings we had in the
Financial Services Committee. We had one in February of 2019.
We could have gotten to the bottom of these things if we actually had
multiple hearings to figure this stuff out. Instead, we got a parsing
bill on the floor that doesn't achieve the things that we needed to
achieve.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Steil).
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina
for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the act.
Like many of my colleagues, I am committed to ensuring that all
consumers can have faith in the validity of their credit score.
Unfortunately, the bill fails to achieve that goal. It puts consumers
at greater risk of having their information stolen.
It threatens to increase the cost of credit by creating more
opportunities for trial lawyers and by making scores less protected.
Further, it expands the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, which is completely unaccountable to Congress.
Credit scores are an essential part of our financial system. Both
Republicans and Democrats, I believe, agree on that point. We also
agree that many Americans have difficulty accessing their credit due to
their poor or insufficient credit histories.
With that in mind, we should work together to enhance cybersecurity
at credit reporting agencies, reduce fraud, and help consumers get the
relief they need in times of crisis.
Our ranking member has been a leader on this issue, introducing
amendments and standalone legislation to move the ball forward.
Unfortunately, his ideas and the ideas of those on our side of the
aisle and other constructive suggestions have not been included in this
bill, making it a flawed bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
legislation.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would inquire through the Chair if my
[[Page H2567]]
colleague has any remaining speakers on his side.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I do.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the ranking member of the Investor Protection,
Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets Subcommittee.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5332,
and it is not because I don't believe that there isn't a motive behind
this that isn't intended to help consumers. I just don't think it is
going to hit the target.
This bill requires the three largest nationwide credit reporting
agencies to create a single shared online portal to allow consumers
one-stop access to consumer reports, credit scores, and credit freezes,
as well as to initiate disputes. This portal would contain information
on consumer rights and directions on how to dispute a credit report.
The bill requires credit reporting agencies to match all nine digits
of a consumer's Social Security number with the information included in
a consumer file.
In addition, the bill codifies the CFPB's supervision of credit
reporting agencies and expands their authority to establish
``administrative, technical, and physical safeguards,'' currently under
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, to all credit reporting agencies.
The bill provides injunctive relief to allow a court to compel a
credit reporting agency to fix an error or remove inaccurate
information from a consumer report.
Furthermore, the bill creates an additional ombudsman at the CFPB
tasked with resolving persistent errors on reports that are not
addressed in a timely fashion and allows the ombudsman to make
referrals to the Office of Supervision and Enforcement for corrective
action.
We are all supportive of increased access and availability on credit
reports, scores, and file freezes, but this legislation is just overly
broad and proscriptive.
I, too, like one of my other colleagues who just talked about having
mysterious things show up in the mail, have been a victim of that. I
have also had my credit card numbers stolen in the past. We have had to
be online and try to deal with these things.
The goal to make sure that we are all protected as much as possible
is a lofty goal. The problem here, though, is that this is going to
potentially decrease competition, which then actually disincentivizes
that access; increasing fraud risk, which I am very concerned about;
propping up the trial bar, which I know is a common theme here in
Washington, D.C., at least out of one party; and expanding the
authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
So, let's talk a little bit about the PII, that personally
identifiable information. When you are matching all nine digits of
consumers' Social Security numbers, it doesn't provide any alternate
methods for verification. We have had problems with this in the past,
and I, for one, and many Republicans have consistently--in fact, a
number of my Democrat friends--have consistently expressed concerns
regarding the private sector and government's overreliance on the use
of these Social Security numbers for identity verification, which
threatens consumers' personal information.
I oppose the Securities and Exchange Commission and other Federal
agencies' use of PII in their databases because there have been
breaches. I am reminded of the old adage: Why would you rob a bank?
Because that is where the money is. Why would you go after a database?
Because that is where the digital gold is.
What we are doing is, we are putting more digital gold into a new
database. So we are increasing that vulnerability. We need to be
working to promote more competition in the credit reporting and scoring
industry, not less. I think that is what this bill, unfortunately, is
doing.
Instead, we should be debating more targeted solutions, such as H.R.
3821, which would bolster cybersecurity capacity at credit reporting
agencies, encourage an alternative to use of Social Security numbers,
protect minors against fraud, and help consumers who may be facing
medical debt as a result of the global pandemic.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening, this is yet another attempt
by House Democrats to socialize the credit reporting and scoring
industry.
We had an opportunity for a bipartisan bill, and this is not the work
of that product. This bill will decrease competition in the industry,
increase fraud risk related to consumers' personal data, prop up the
trial bar, and expand the authority of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
If Congress really wants to protect consumers, we should be working
together promote more competition in the credit reporting and scoring
industry. We should be promoting new ways to eliminate the barriers to
entry, not promoting what really comes down to less consumer choice.
We marked up this bill in the Financial Services Committee back in
December. The committee Democrats noted in their report on the bill:
``It has been more than 15 years since Congress enacted comprehensive
reform of the consumer credit reporting system, and there have been
numerous shortcomings with the current system identified during that
time that need to be addressed.''
Yet, since the Democrats took over in 2019, the House Financial
Services Committee has held one hearing on credit reporting. We had a
bipartisan consensus on the things that needed to be done and the
challenges therein. This hearing featured a public grilling of the CEOs
of the three nationwide bureaus. The hearing discussed structural
problems within the industry, yet this bill just solidifies that
structure.
The number one complaint in the CFPB consumer complaint database is
about consumer issues with credit reporting.
Why are we reinforcing the current structure of this industry by
legislating that? We should promote more competition in the system, not
perpetuate an obviously broken one.
The Democrats took issue with the market failure in credit reporting,
an issue we agree on. However, their legislative response does not do
the things necessary to increase competition and consumer choice and
protect our data.
The fact that Democrat leadership decided this bill was perfect and
needed no amendments demonstrates my point. My colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have no interest in working with Republicans to craft
a bill that will really protect consumers' personal information. This
bill is about catering to their stakeholders.
Madam Speaker, I will reiterate, like I have with so many bills that
have passed the House: This bill has no chance of being passed by the
Senate or signed into law.
Preserving access to and making available low-cost credit options to
consumers should be Congress' priority. We should be working toward
bipartisan solutions, and we should prioritize those things. We should
be working toward those solutions, and that is why I urge a ``no'' vote
on this bill.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to this
bill by the Consumer Data Industry Association, the Credit Union
National Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American
Bankers Association, the National Taxpayers Union, and the Consumer
Bankers Association.
Consumer Data Industry Association,
Washington, DC, June 17, 2020.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker,
Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: As the House
prepares to consider HR 5332, the Protecting Your Credit
Score Act of 2019, CDIA and its members wanted to take this
opportunity to express our opposition to the bill.
We believe that this bill will have negative impacts on the
American consumer. Over the last decade Congress has
prioritized the ``ability to repay'' as the most important
part of underwriting a financial product, to fight predatory
lending and ensure that consumers are not able to borrow more
than they can afford. This bill will make it harder
[[Page H2568]]
for lenders to determine whether a consumer has an ability to
repay, increase loan losses and ultimately result in higher
prices, especially for those who previously received the best
prices on loan products after a lifetime of on-time payments.
The bill: could make the cost of borrowing more expensive
and limit access to credit; could introduce new threats to
consumers' information and physical security; and introduces
unnecessary and expensive burdens into the credit reporting
system, making it harder for consumers disputes to be
processed in a timely fashion.
The bill could make the cost of borrowing more expensive
and limit access to credit.
Section 4 of the bill could lead to higher costs of credit
for the overall market, and specifically for consumers who
pay their bills on time every month. This section of the bill
would allow consumers who have not paid their bills on time
to continue disputing information, even if the account is
verified as accurate. This would increase the likelihood that
that accurate, though negative information, will be excluded
from credit scores, thereby impeding lenders from making
adequate risk decisions.
This bill could introduce new threats to consumers'
information and physical security.
Section 6 would require CRAs to effectively mail a credit
report to a consumer every time an adverse action occurs in a
credit transaction. If, for example, a consumer applies for a
mortgage and receives a rate higher than the lowest possible
rate due to the consumer's higher credit utilization rate,
then each credit bureau would have to physically mail a
report to the consumer, whether the consumer requested it or
not. And if the consumer applied to several mortgage
companies, the CRAs would have to mail the report to the
consumer's last known address each time. This would create
data security issues, as thousands of credit reports would be
sent, by mail, to people who didn't ask for them, don't want
them, or don't need them. Also, tens of millions of consumers
move each year, increasing the likelihood that credit reports
would fall into the hands of persons other than the intended
consumer. Consumers today can receive free credit reports as
often as every week and have additional opportunities to get
their credit report under certain circumstances. CRAs should
not be mailing millions of credit reports with very sensitive
information to people who did not ask for them.
Section 2 of the bill could also harm consumers' personal
physical security. This section includes language giving
consumers new rights to opt out of sales of non-credit report
information. The identity information that also appears in a
credit report is critical for companies that need to confirm
identity, alternate names, and previous addresses, such as
criminal-background screeners. The effect of this provision
would be to allow someone to hide their relevant criminal
history from employers, volunteer agencies or other users of
criminal history reports. For example, someone convicted of
elder or child abuse could simply move to a new jurisdiction,
opt out of non-credit report sales and apply for jobs with
nursing homes or child-care centers. Today, when someone like
this applies for a job and discloses neither their old
address nor the criminal conviction, the background screener
would purchase an address history from a credit bureau to
identify jurisdictions in which to search for records. While
this method is not fool proof, it is the industry standard
and results in detection rates comparable to fingerprinting
by the FBI. Without it, employers, volunteer agencies, youth
sports leagues and other legitimate users of background
screening would be at the mercy of any convicted criminal who
is willing to lie on an application.
The bill introduces unnecessary and expensive burdens into
the credit reporting system, making it harder for consumers
disputes to be processed in a timely fashion.
The addition of a new ``consumer portal,'' also in Section
2, would create an unnecessary new government-mandated
website for consumers when existing options for consumers
already exist. Consumers currently can visit any of the
websites of the nationwide CRAs and file a dispute, set a
security freeze and exercise other rights that are guaranteed
by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This provision is
unnecessary and could create additional data security issues.
Consumers who pay their bills on time would also be the
ones most impacted by the bill's requirement for full nine-
digit Social Security Number (SSN) matching. The FTC studied
this matching topic in an exhaustive report directed by the
2003 FACT A Act, and found that matching nine digits of the
SSN is not a viable solution, as it would not result in
greater accuracy of credit reports, but it would lead to
fewer consumers being approved for credit. By denying CRAs
the ability to anticipate and fix transcription errors,
consumers could end up having multiple fragmentary credit
reports, each one tied to a given SSN. Then, when applying
for new credit, a lender will not be able to see the full
picture of the individual, meaning that the consumer who has
paid their bills on time every month won't receive the
benefit accrued during their many years of hard work. And
some consumers will find strangers' files associated with
their SSN, complicating the lending process. The Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau supervises and examines the
nationwide CRAs and has not raised this issue as a concern;
this section of the bill will harm, not help, consumers.
We would also note that Section 5 of the bill includes
injunctive relief that exposes users of credit reports to
private enforcement for consumer notices and red flags. This
would be a significant change in practice that would expose
lenders to new liabilities from the trial bar.
This bill was the subject of a great deal of negotiation
and discussion with Representative Gottheimer, the bill
sponsor, before the Financial Services Committee passed the
bill. We appreciate his spirit of cooperation, but
unfortunately the bill before the House falls short of its
goals to strengthen the consumer credit market and protect
consumer credit scores.
Sincerely,
Francis Creighton,
President & CEO.
____
Credit Union National Association,
June 24, 2020.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of
America's credit unions, I am writing regarding H.R. 5332,
the Protecting Your Credit Score Act of 2019. The Credit
Union National Association (CUNA) represents America's credit
unions and their 115 million members.
Accurate and complete credit reports are essential to
credit unions providing safe and affordable financial
services to their members. Whereas credit unions' field of
membership restrictions were originally designed as a
mechanism for determining borrowers' credit worthiness, today
credit unions and other financial institutions rely on credit
reports and credit scores to assess credit worthiness and
inform lending decisions. It is in the interest of all
stakeholders in the lending process for borrowers' credit
reports to be accurate and complete.
H.R. 5332 would require credit reporting agencies to create
an online portal for consumers to access free credit reports
and credit scores, and dispute errors. It would also direct
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to impose and
enforce data security safeguards for the credit reporting
agencies.
While the legislation may be well-intentioned, we oppose
H.R. 5332 because the expansion of private rights of action
and allowing courts to award injunctive relief could increase
the frequency of meritless lawsuits under the Federal Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA). When entities are subject to frivolous
litigation, resources are distracted from providing services,
increasing the cost of service to all consumers. In the case
of credit unions, frivolous litigation means that access to
safe and affordable financial services becomes more expensive
and potentially less available for credit union members.
We also have concerns that the online portal mandated under
this legislation would pose significant cybersecurity risks
for consumers, financial institutions, and companies. The
portal created would have no direct owner and require its own
authentication and security, leading to the possibility of
consumers either being rejected from the portal or a
nefarious actor abusing the system.
Finally, we question the need for this legislation. Under
the FCRA, consumers can dispute the accurateness of
information on their credit reports. They can either raise
the dispute directly with the credit reporting agency or with
their creditor. The FCRA requires these disputes to be
resolved in a timely manner and, if the disputed information
is incorrect, the information in question is eliminated from
the report. As such, consumers already have significant tools
to dispute information and correct errors in their credit
reports.
On behalf of America's credit unions, thank you for the
opportunity to share our views.
Sincerely,
Jim Nussle,
President & CEO.
____
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, June 23, 2020.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes H.R. 5332, the ``Protecting
Your Credit Score Act of 2019.''
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each consumer
reporting agency (CRA) to achieve maximum possible accuracy
in compiling a consumer report. Every CRA also has a legal
obligation to safeguard the personal information that they
hold.
This legislation would require companies to jointly
establish an online consumer portal with its own
authentication and security, without a specific owner. This
portal would create significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities
for consumers and companies--making it impossible for CRAs to
meet existing obligations. Further, the authentication of the
portal could potentially expose credit reports to abusive
credit repair. If the authentication is tuned too high, then
real consumers would be rejected from the website. If
authentication is too loose, then it could be abused.
The Chamber supports efforts to streamline access to credit
data for consumers; however, it must be done in a responsible
way that does not prevent access to credit. While we
appreciate the extensive efforts of
[[Page H2569]]
Rep. Gottheimer to resolve our concerns, the Chamber remains
opposed.
Sincerely,
Neil L. Bradley.
____
American Bankers Association,
Washington, DC, June 23, 2020.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: The
American Bankers Association writes to express our opposition
to H.R. 5332, the Protecting Your Credit Score Act of 2020,
scheduled for consideration before the House this week.
We share the sponsor's interest in ensuring that credit
reports are complete and accurate and that consumers have
appropriate protections, including rights to challenge and
have corrected any inaccuracies in their reports. Though the
legislation is well-intended, we believe it will make credit
reports less predictive and useful by promoting the
elimination of negative but accurate information that will
weaken the underwriting process and thus increase borrowers'
costs and reduce people's ability to get loans. In addition,
allowing courts to award injunctive relief will promote
questionable lawsuits and replace the current single-
interpretation regime with inconsistent interpretations that
vary across the country.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) currently provides
consumers strong dispute rights to challenge the accuracy of
information in their reports--rights that are enforced
through supervision, government agency enforcement actions,
and civil lawsuits. Consumers may submit claims to either the
consumer reporting agency or directly to the furnisher of the
information. Disputes must be investigated and resolved
promptly. If not, the information is deleted. Thus, consumers
have ample legal means to challenge the accuracy of
information in their credit reports.
We are concerned about the abuse of these protective
provisions to remove accurate but negative information, not
only by credit repair organizations and those hoping to erase
accurate negative information from their report to improve
their ability to obtain credit, but also by individuals,
including those involved in organized crime, seeking to
defraud lenders.
H.R. 5332 will make it even easier than it is today for
individuals to flood consumer reporting agencies and
furnishers of information with false claims of inaccuracies
that must be resolved in a timely fashion or deleted. The
resulting degradation of the reports will reduce the ability
of lenders to evaluate an applicant's creditworthiness and
ability to repay, which in turn will increase what consumers
pay for credit and make it harder for many consumers,
especially the underserved, to get credit. Moreover,
resources and money spent to manage the increased volume of
false claims are better spent resolving legitimate disputes.
The bill will further undermine the consumer reporting
system by expanding private rights of action against users of
credit reports and by creating uncertainty about how banks
and others must comply with the FCRA. Allowing courts to
award injunctive relief means that multiple courts can
interpret this complicated statute differently from the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the primary agency
tasked with interpreting and enforcing FCRA. The result will
be a patchwork of inconsistent interpretations, uncertainty
about how to comply, and lawsuits of questionable merit.
While we appreciate Representative Gottheimer's efforts and
welcome discussion on these issues, we must oppose H.R. 5332
as currently crafted.
Sincerely,
James C. Ballentine.
____
National Taxpayers Union,
Washington. DC, June 26, 2020.
The National Taxpayers Union urges Representatives to vote
``NO'' on H.R. 5332, the ``Protecting Your Credit Score Act
of 2020.'' Though well-intentioned, this legislation would
cede more power to the unaccountable Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, jeopardize consumer information, and
potentially weaken lending underwriting standards.
Accurate and complete credit reports are the foundation of
this country's robust and competitive consumer credit market.
Most, if not all, lenders rely upon credit history data found
in credit reports to identify and evaluate potential risks a
consumer may pose before entering into a financial
relationship with that consumer. That information is critical
for lenders to evaluate the applicant's ability to repay,
interest rates, and other loan terms. Since many home loan
borrowers will have their mortgage guaranteed by the federal
government, lawmakers must be cautious in their reforms to
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to avoid adding undue
credit risk onto the government-sponsored enterprises'
balance sheets.
Perhaps the most problematic provision of H.R. 5332 is the
requirement for the three major credit bureaus, which are
entirely private businesses, to jointly create an online
consumer portal for consumers to access their credit reports
and scores, dispute errors, and place or lift security
freezes. While a one-stop shop may seem to offer consumer
benefits, having one location containing every credit report,
personal information, and social security number of every
individual could have disastrous consequences in the event of
a cyber hack or data breach.
Secondly, this legislation provides no legal protection to
these entities in the event of a large scale cyber breach,
leaving these businesses vulnerable to big class-action
lawsuits. H.R. 5332 also changes how consumers dispute
adverse information found in their credit reports, allowing
individuals to flood reporting agencies and lenders with
false claims of inaccuracies that must be resolved in a
timely manner. Ultimately, this proposal shifts the burden on
dispute resolution from the individual onto the credit
bureaus.
Additionally, this bill establishes a second, duplicative
ombudsman at the CFPB who will have sole control over credit
reporting. The ombudsperson would have to help resolve
persistent errors in credit reports that aren't addressed in
a timely manner, and make referrals for supervisory or
enforcement actions against credit reporting companies. This
situation sets up a new opportunity for the CFPB to
specifically target certain companies that may become
``unsavory'' and be subject to political targeting.
NTU also questions the need for such legislation, as the
FCRA currently provides consumers ample opportunity to
dispute inaccurate information on their credit reports. The
FCRA already requires these disputes to be resolved in a
timely manner and, if the disputed information is incorrect,
the information in question is eliminated from a report. In
essence, this legislation does not bring any new meaningful
benefits to the credit reporting process.
Roll call votes on H.R. 5332 will be included in NTU's
annual Rating of Congress and a ``NO'' vote will be
considered the pro-taxpayer position. If you have any
questions, please contact NTU Policy and Government Affairs
Manager, Thomas Aiello.
____
Consumer Bankers Association,
Washington, DC, June 25, 2020.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of the
Consumer Bankers Association (CBA), I am writing to share our
views on H.R. 5332, the Protecting Your Credit Score Act of
2019. CBA is the voice of the retail banking industry whose
products and services provide access to credit for consumers
and small businesses. Our members operate in all 50 states,
serve more than 150 million Americans, and collectively hold
two-thirds of the country's total depository assets.
CBA opposes the Protecting Your Credit Score Act of 2019.
Section 5 of the bill, ``Injunctive Relief for Victims,'' is
especially concerning because it undermines the CFPB and
Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) primary authority to enforce
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in a manner consistent
with maintaining a nationwide credit reporting system that
benefits businesses and consumers. Congress enacted FCRA in
1970 with emphasis on ensuring fairness, accuracy, and
efficiency within the banking system, and in doing so
specifically protected federal regulators' sole authority to
pursue injunctive relief for violations, to avoid any
possibility of multiple courts issuing conflicting orders.
Undoing this deliberate design is unnecessary given the
serious fines and other existing penalties already in place
under the FCRA and court disrupt credit markets without any
positive impact on consumer credit reports. As depository
institutions supervised by prudential federal regulators with
deep expertise and experience in financial markets, CBA
members are concerned with the potential for unlimited
injunctive authority to impair nationwide financial systems.
CBA is also troubled by Section 4, ``Improved Dispute
Process for Consumer Reporting Agencies.'' The CFPB already
has authority to enforce fines for FCRA violations, and this
proposal would complicate existing cost effective and
efficient processes furnishers are mandated to use under
federal law to distinguish false or illegitimate disputes
from actual consumer problems that should draw focus and
proper inquiry. Safety and soundness considerations require
the highest standards for complete and accurate consumer
information in the underwriting process. Modifying or
deleting disagreeable, but accurate consumer information from
any report without proper input from furnishers will
interfere with prudent risk assessments and raise costs for
all consumers.
Furthermore, the ``Bureau Credit Reporting Ombudsman'' as
written under this section has seemingly unrestrained
individual authority that could make determinations on a
consumer's credit profile without the due process or appeal
mechanisms generally required under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). This unilateral decision-making
authority would have a serious and negative impact on a
bank's ability to determine risk and extend affordable
credit.
Thank you for your consideration of our views. CBA remains
eager to assist your efforts at improving outcomes for all
borrowers.
Sincerely,
Richard Hunt,
President and CEO.
Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H2570]]
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, it has been nearly 17 years since major reform
legislation to address common problems with credit reporting has been
enacted into law. To that end, I am pleased that, earlier this year,
the House passed H.R. 3621, the Comprehensive Credit Reporting
Enhancement, Disclosure, Innovation, and Transparency Act.
Representative Gottheimer's bipartisan bill complements those efforts
to ensure we have a well-functioning credit reporting system that is
streamlined and easy to use and that better protects the data of all
consumers.
Republicans were in charge when Equifax exposed sensitive data of 150
million Americans. What was their response? Nothing.
Earlier this year, the House passed the Comprehensive CREDIT Act to
overhaul our broken credit reporting system and enhance cybersecurity
of the credit reporting bureaus. Republicans voted no.
Representative Gottheimer offered this bill that would strengthen
cybersecurity of Equifax and other credit bureaus, and now Republicans
are saying no.
We have some Republicans who oppose giving the CFPB expanded
authority, although I would note Ranking Member McHenry introduced H.R.
3821 that would do just that, giving the CFPB authority of
cybersecurity for the credit bureaus. The bill before us would do the
same.
I would urge Republicans to reconsider their opposition to the bill.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on this commonsense bill.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record support for this bill from the
Americans for Financial Reform, the National Consumer Law Center,
Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports,
National Association of Consumer Advocates, World Privacy Forum, and
also the National Association of Realtors.
June 23, 2020.
Dear Chairwoman Waters: The undersigned consumer
organizations write to support H.R. 5332, the Protecting Your
Credit Score Act of 2019 (Gottheimer). This bill will address
serious problems in the credit reporting system and empower
consumers by providing them with much greater access to and
control over their own information.
Credit reports and credit scores play a huge role in
determining a consumer's financial health. Not only do they
determine a consumer's ability to obtain credit at a fair
price, but they are used by many other sectors--insurance
companies, landlords and even employers. Despite their
importance, credit reports are also full of errors, which can
cost a consumer thousands of dollars in higher-priced credit,
or worse yet, result in the denial of a job, insurance
coverage, an apartment rental, or the ability to open a small
business or buy a house. The Federal Trade Commission's
definitive study showed that 21% of consumers had verified
errors in their credit reports, 13% had errors that affected
their credit scores, and 5% had errors serious enough to
cause them to be denied or pay more for credit.
Trying to fix these errors can be a Kafka-esque nightmare
in which the Big Three nationwide consumer reporting agencies
(CRAs)--Equifax, Experian and TransUnion--consistently favor
the side of the creditor or debt collector (``the
furnisher'') over the consumer. As documented in NCLC's
report Automated lniustice Redux (2019), some of the most
serious problems include consumers having their credit files
``mixed'' with the wrong person, being unable to remove
negative information even after court judgments in their
favor, the after-effects of identity theft when CRAs don't
believe the victim, and being labeled as dead when they are
alive and breathing. The report also documents the massive
number of credit and consumer reporting complaints to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), over 380,000
since July 2011, which is often the top category of
complaints to the CFPB.
The irony of these problems is that credit reports consist
of our information. Yet consumers are only entitled to free
access to this information once a year and in certain other
limited situations, despite the fact that the Big Three
nationwide CRAs are making tens of millions selling our
financial data. Also, consumers are not entitled to our own
credit scores for free, while these same scores are being
sold to creditors and others for hefty profits.
Last, but not least, there are serious issues with data
security at the nationwide CRAs, of the type that led to the
massive Equifax data breach in 2017. These data security
issues have not yet been adequately addressed.
The Protecting Your Credit Score Act of 2019 would address
these issues by:
Fixing the broken system for credit reporting disputes by
(1) creating a CFPB ombudsperson that will have the power to
resolve persistent errors when CRAs don't fix them properly,
and to make referrels to the Office of Supervision or the
Office of Enforcement for supevisory or enforcement action
when CRAs don't comply with their disput investigation
reponsibilities and (2) requiring CRAs to dedicate sufficient
resources and provide proper training to personnel who handle
disputes.
Giving consumers the tools they need to access their
rights, understand their creditworthiness, and control their
financial destinies by (1) giving consumers the right to
unlimited free credit reports and free credit scores online;
(2) requiring the Big Three nationwide CRAs to create a
simple, easy-to-use portal tool to access online credit
reports and credit scores, as well to exercise other
important rights such as placing a security freeze,
initiating a dispute, and opting out of prescreening (i.e.,
the use of credit report information to generate offers of
credit).
Improving credit reporting accuracy by (2) requiring CRAs
to conduct periodic audits to check for accuracy and (2)
mandating that Big Three nationwide CRAs use all 9 digits of
the consumer's Social Security number when matching
information from a lender to a consumer's file, thus
preventing mixed files, which are one of the worst types of
errors.
Improving data security for credit reports by giving the
CFPB the authority to write rules under the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act to govern the Big Three nationwide CRAs.
Give consumers a tool to compel CRAs to fix a credit report
by providing them with a right to seek injunctive relief so
that a court could order a CRA to correct an error or
otherwise follow the law.
There are a number of other important reforms in the bill,
such as giving consumers the right to opt out of the selling
or sharing of information about them that does not fall into
the FCRA's current definition of ``consumer report'' and
creating a comprehensive registry of all consumer reporting
agencies.
The above reforms are urgently needed in order to ensure
that consumers are treated fairly by the credit reporting
system and that they have the access and control that they
should be entitled to. Thus, we support the Protecting Your
Credit Score Act of 2019 an look forward to working with you
to swiftly enact it into law.
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions
about this letter, please contact Chi Chi Wu (cwu@nclc.org)
at (617) 542-8010.
Sincerely,
Americans for Financial Reform,
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income
clients),
Consumer Action,
Consumer Federation of America,
Consumer Reports,
National Association of Consumer Advocates,
USPIRG,
World Privacy Forum.
____
National Association of Realtors,
Washington, DC, June 23, 2020.
Hon. Josh Gottheimer,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Gottheimer: On behalf of the 1.4
million members of the National Association of
REALTORS<register> (NAR), I am pleased to support several
provisions of H.R. 5332, the Protecting Your Credit Score Act
of 2020.
NAR has a long history of involvement in issues concerning
the use and disclosure of consumer credit data. Nearly 90
percent of home sales are financed, and a borrower's credit
report and credit score form a critical gateway to obtaining
a mortgage. Unfortunately, inaccurate credit reports and
unfair credit reporting methods raise the cost to borrow and/
or limit access to mortgage credit for many prospective
borrowers.
REALTORS<register> believe that access to free credit
scores, transparency in the reporting process and use of
consumer credit information, high standards for vetting
credit information, and a reliable method for contesting and
correcting inaccurate information are critical to a vibrant
housing market and economy. To this end, NAR applauds your
efforts in H.R. 5332, the Protecting Your Credit Score Act of
2020. We are particularly supportive of sections two through
six, which reflect NAR's principles on credit reporting.
While NAR has no position on the primary regulator of the
CRAs, we appreciate your efforts in clarifying that important
point.
Creditor and consumer confidence are critical in the home
financing process, and our nation's housing market and
overall economy benefit tremendously from balanced financial
regulation and appropriate consumer protection.
REALTORS<register> thank you for your diligent work to
improve the accuracy and accountability of consumer credit
information.
Sincerely,
Vince Malta,
2020 President, National Association
of REALTORS<register>.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
[[Page H2571]]
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 5332 is postponed.
____________________