[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14172-S14173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   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.

[[Page S14173]]

  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.

                          ____________________