National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003

NATIONAL CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2003

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1753, the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. As we all know, reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a very important issue for the financial services industry and for consumers. When I talk to my friends in this sector, it is always the first thing they ask about. It touches everyone and their money and our national economy. It is critical that we act on it before adjournment. I believe that the Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman Shelby has created a fair, bipartisan bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

We have been talking about this issue for several years. We have held a number of hearings on it. We looked it over pretty thoroughly, and I think we have come up with a reasonable approach. Most importantly, we have to act now because this bill is also important to our overall economy.

Last week we had great economic news. Our economy is roaring back and that is good news for everyone. But if we fail to pass this bill, it could end up being a serious speed bump on the road to a better economy. If there is one thing that markets hate, it is uncertainty. They want to know where we are and where we are going. For better or worse, the markets think we are going to pass this bill. They think we are going to outline a stable path for financial institutions when it comes to the sharing of information. Any talk or any sign from Congress that makes the markets think that we aren't going to pass this bill would create a great deal of uncertainty in the financial markets. Now that our economy is really coming to life, that is the last thing we need. If the markets think we are going to let the FCRA lapse, they are going to get very jittery very quickly. I can understand that. This is a sensitive, complicated area. I don't think any of us wants the FCRA to lapse.

We need Federal preemption in this area. I think it would be a mistake to let States and localities all try to impose their own privacy rules. There are trillions of dollars at stake. We have to be very careful. But if we fail to pass this bill, we open a Pandora's box of States and localities writing their own rules, and the markets and financial institutions just are not prepared for that. We can't let that happen. We don't need that uncertainty now. Who knows what would happen.

On a personal note, I am very pleased that the bill contains strong identity theft and privacy protections, including my amendment on Social Security number truncation that will help prevent thieves who go "dumpster diving" or try to steal credit reports from mail boxes. Identity theft is a growing problem in America. The Internet is making it easier for thieves to obtain consumer information. My amendment will help fight this growing menace. Under this bill, consumers can block out their Social Security number on their credit reports. It is just the sort of simple, commonsense approach that will help consumers without burdening business.

I would also like to talk about the amendments that are going to be offered by my colleagues from California. They are based, in large part, on a California bill, SB1. I am sure California has a fine legislature. And I am sure their representatives try their best to represent their California constituents. But I do not think the California legislature represents the people of Kentucky or the other States very well. That is not their job. If we adopt the amendments to be offered by my friends, it would have the effect of imposing California's rules on the rest of the Nation. That is a bad idea that will only lead to the economic uncertainty we have to avoid.

If California wants to try to craft their own rules and work with Federal regulators, I say more power to them-but not if it puts a crimp on the national economy or starts rewriting the rules for the other 49 States. Our credit system is a national system and it needs a national standard. Standards that may work in California or Kentucky may not work for the country as a whole. Usually I am all for taking power away from Washington and sending it back to the States and local government. But on this bill we cannot ignore the fact that credit rules and markets and money are all part of a broader, national economy that requires a unified, Federal approach. To let States undermine that would be a recipe for disaster.

S. 1753 is a fair and balanced bill that sets a fair and balanced standard for our entire Nation. It is bipartisan, it is common sense, and it is a prudent solution to a pressing problem for our financial institutions.