[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 118 (Friday, June 26, 2020)]
[House]
[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 ([email protected]) 
     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 (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 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 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.
  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.

                          ____________________