There were accounts in there that did not belong to me. Those are accounts that did not exist anywhere in the world.

Mr. BARNARD. You did not get any previous notice from those creditors that it was going on your credit report?

Mr. GUIMOND. No. I received none at all.

Mr. BARNARD. Mr. Evans, did you get some bills that you knew you didn't owe?

Mr. EVANS. Yes. The only reason I found out my credit was messed up was through a bill collector who said I better pull my credit report. You not only have one credit company out there. You have got three. It is no good for me to go to TRW and pull a credit report. That may be fine and I may think I am OK. But I have still got to go to Equifax and Trans Union and get a report.

Mr. BARNARD. The direction I am taking at this particular time is I am concerned as to whether or not consumers are getting as much information as they should from creditors. I feel I at least ought to be prewarned before they send a report to the credit bureaus that I owe them money. At least, Mr. Evans, in your instance that is how you discovered you had problems. Mr. Guimond didn't get-until you were turned down for credit, which is too late.

Mr. GUIMOND. If you could address that 1 second? If the accounts belong to you on your credit report, there may be a way for you to have advance notice. A collection notice would let you know that there is the possibility of derogatory data appearing on your report. Mr. BARNARD. I am not saying that the creditors-that would answer the entire problem. I know if I got a notice that another so and so and so Bernard, who spelled his name B-E-R and I spell my name B-A-R-if I got a dun for somebody else named B-E-R, I would do something about it.

We may have a dual responsibility here, a responsibility from the creditors as well as the credit bureau.

The third leg would be the consumer to follow up any notice of obligation that may be out there.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TORRES. Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Wiggins, I assure you I don't have anything against you. I have not met you yet. I don't know anybody at Equifax Services, Inc., nor do I know anybody at District Cablevision. But I can understand how names are similar. My wife's name is Carol Hubbard. I receive lipstick samples in my office.

Mr. BARNARD. In tubes or otherwise?

Mr. HUBBARD. Tubes.

Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to Mr. Barnard.

We do have the same name, my wife and I. I assume in Washington, DC, there may be more than one James R. Wiggins. In fact, in my district, there is a James R. Wiggins. You are saying this was intentional, deliberate. The error was really made by the District of Columbia Superior Court, Washington, DC, when they checked your records at the request of Equifax Services, Inc. Wouldn't you agree the mistake was made by the District of Columbia in picking out the wrong James R. Wiggins?

Mr. WIGGINS. OK. Let's go with that scenario. An initial telephone conversation, is that what you are referring to?

Mr. HUBBARD. No. I'm just saying wasn't the mistake really made by the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, in giving the information about the wrong James R. Wiggins?

Mr. WIGGINS. Let me answer that first. There is a Tammy Plummer, who is a college graduate, many years experience as investigator for Equifax Services, who went down to the court three times, pulled the records physically off the shelf, had them in her hand. This is not anything to do with the court clerk at the courthouse. This is an Equifax paid employee in the line of her-scope of her duties, goes down to the court, pulls the files, gets hard copies in her hand. It has two different James R. Wiggins.

Equifax after that takes the criminal charges of one James Ray Wiggins, puts my birth date, address, Social Security number, everything, and created a new report. Not a mistake. Not when you have two different people in your hand at the same time with different birth dates, different addresses.

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Wiggins, have you ever been employed by Phillip Morris, Inc.?

Mr. WIGGINS. Yes.

Mr. HUBBARD. How long?

Mr. WIGGINS. Fifteen years.

Mr. HUBBARD. At the time you were employed by District Cablevision, at the time you were fired, were you not on a 6-months' disability full pay from Phillip Morris, Inc.?

Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, I was.

Mr. HUBBARD. You were being paid by Phillip Morris, Inc., full pay. You were on a 6-month disability?

Mr. WIGGINS. Correct.

Mr. HUBBARD. Did you go back to Phillip Morris?

Mr. WIGGINS. I went back to Phillip Morris. Phillip Morris has a policy. You must come back at the full capacity that you left before you were injured. Phillip Morris-I signed and gave them a notice

Mr. HUBBARD. You were not able to work at Phillip Morris, but you were able to work at District Cablevision?

Mr. WIGGINS. That is not correct. Phillip Morris said you must also be able to-I hurt my back on the job. I went back to Phillip Morris 4 months later and said, my doctor is releasing me to come back to work as long as I do not have to do the lifting aspect of the job. I could also do the administrative work, I could do all paper work, the same kind of work I was going to do at District Cablevision.

Phillip Morris says, no, you must stay out until your back is completely healed.

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUBBARD. Sure, I yield to my friend, Maxine Waters.

Ms. WATERS. As I understand it, you have an attorney?

Mr. WIGGINS. Correct.

Ms. WATERS. And you are litigating in some way or investigating. It seems that this hearing is taking a turn where you are trying to answer some questions that I think maybe you should have legal counsel with you before you do that. I don't know if you anticipat

ed this turn.

I think, Mr. Chairman, and my good friend, Mr. Hubbard, that we are dealing with a larger issue than the personal history of this witness as it relates to his job and some other kinds of things where they maybe have interest if you are trying to determine the credibility of the witness. I think that has taken a little bit far afield. I would ask my colleague to consider that we may be going a little bit far afield and consider not continuing this line of questioning.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly concur with Ms. Waters on that.

Mr. WIGGINS. I think, Ms. Waters, I want to let Mr. Hubbard know I have nothing to hide. It depends on how you present the facts. If he presents the facts in totality, that is the reason I spoke on it.

But I will take your warning. If my attorney needs to come up here and save me, come on.

Ms. WATERS. Before you do that, I think my colleague may want to consider whether or not that is the line that he would like to continue.

Chairman TORRES. The Chair would also note that the witnesses here today are not under subpoena, for one. Nor are they sworn. I would advise them that they are not in any position to have to answer questions at this time. I would just ask Mr. Hubbard to understand that and perhaps resume another line of questioning that does not require the presence of his attorney.

Mr. HUBBARD. I was trying to bring out some points Mr. Wiggins failed to list in his testimony-the fact that he was being paid full time for 6 months by Phillip Morris, Inc., at the time he was employed by, fired by District Cablevision.

This error was corrected within 7 days, was it not?

Mr. LAPRADE. Mr. Hubbard, I am counsel for Mr. Wiggins. I think you are getting way afield here.

Chairman TORRES. Would the gentleman please identify himself. Mr. LAPRADE. John LaPrade, attorney for Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Walton is also here.

Chairman TORRES. The Chair would like to say at this point that we are not in a trial situation.

Mr. LAPRADE. It has taken an adversarial tone.

Chairman TORRES. This is why the Chair advised the witnesses and the members of the subcommittee that we are not in a trial situation. The witnesses are not sworn witnesses nor were they subpoenaed.

I would like to dispense with the line of questioning that was taking place here and proceed along more relevant questions about what the witnesses are here about.

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Chairman, I would surely consider it relevant to ask Mr. Wiggins if you were employed full time or were you actually on a part-time basis working on weekends and evenings.

MS. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that my colleague is tired of my asking him to yield.

Mr. HUBBARD. No, I am not tired.

Ms. WATERS. All right. Would you yield?
Mr. HUBBARD. Sure.

Ms. WATERS. I had asked my colleague to please not pursue that line of questioning, and the Chair has admonished the members of this subcommittee. These witnesses are not on trial. These witnesses are here to talk about the Fair Credit Reporting Act and try and help us to understand how we can make it more effective.

Now given that my colleague continues this line of questioning, and my good friend-may I say I am going to further support the chairman and tell-ask-Mr. Wiggins not to respond and to discontinue his testimony as it relates to this line of questioning. I think it is patently unfair.

Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you so much.

Mr. LAPRADE. I might add, Mr. Hubbard, this is fully developed in the record in the court.

Chairman TORRES. The subcommittee will be in order, please.

Mr. Hubbard, you have the time. I again want to ask you to keep your questions

Mr. HUBBARD. I think I made my point clear. The witness says in the second sentence in his testimony that he was fired by District Cablevision after a willful and deliberate report resulting from a criminal record. I will ask no more because I think it is obvious you were not willfully and deliberately fired.

Mr. WIGGINS. I disagree and thank you so much.

Chairman TORRES. The Chair would yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. McCandless. Again, Mr. McCandless, try to keep to the relevant questions.

Mr. MCCANDLESS. I try to be relevant, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that I agree with the relevancy. I would say this for purposes of this hearing. All three of these gentlemen are telling personal experiences, private experiences, confidential experiences which they are sharing with this subcommittee for the benefit of the legislation before us.

I thank the gentleman for giving me the time.
Chairman TORRES. I thank the gentleman.

I think that concludes the questioning of the witnesses by the subcommittee. I would like to now excuse the witnesses, again thanking you for your time and being with us.

The Chair would call for panel III to come forth-Jean Noonan, Associate Director for Credit Practices, Federal Trade Commission; Ann Wallace, Director of the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs.

Thank you, Ms. Noonan, for being with us here this morning, and Ms. Wallace. I would like to have you present your testimony in the order that I called you up here.

Once again, may I implore upon you that, given the time limitations, you attempt to summarize your testimony. We have your entire testimony for the record. It will be printed as such with any documents that you may wish to attach therein. We simply would ask you to attempt to summarize.

STATEMENT OF JEAN NOONAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR CREDIT PRACTICES, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY KATHLEEN BUFFON, ASSISTANT CREDIT DIRECTOR FOR CREDIT PRACTICES, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Ms. NOONAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

With me this morning is Kathleen Buffon, Assistant Director for Credit Practices at the Federal Trade Commission.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here again today to present the Commission's testimony on the three proposed bills to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The proposed legislation represents a thoughtful effort to update the statute and address issues of privacy, accuracy and fairness in consumer reporting. These are issues of great concern to consumers, and the Commission shares these concerns.

I turn first to the problem of inaccuracy in consumer reports, a subject of frequent consumer complaints. The number of letters to the Federal Trade Commission by consumers about credit bureaus increased by 50 percent in 1990 over the previous year.

Consumers are understandably concerned when they find inaccurate information in their reports, errors that may cause the denial of credit or cost them a job. They are further frustrated when they find it difficult or impossible to correct the situation, as sometimes happens.

Several aspects of the proposed legislation have the potential to improve the accuracy of consumer reports. First, the proposed bills would facilitate low cost or free access by consumers to their credit reports. Consumers are best situated to know whether the information in the reports is accurate and to appreciate the significance of inaccurate reporting on their daily lives. By encouraging consumers to review information in their reports and to correct it when necessary, the proposed laws could promote greater accuracy in the system of consumer reporting.

Second, the proposed bills would require creditors and others who furnish information to credit bureaus to meet the same standard of care in reporting information that the credit bureaus currently must meet. This change in the law could do much to promote greater accuracy in consumer reporting. It is creditors, not credit bureaus, who have direct access to the underlying facts of the credit transaction, but nothing in the existing law requires them to report accurately.

The proposed change would correct this imbalance to help ensure that creditors report information accurately and if the information is later disputed to discourage creditors from automatically confirming it without further inquiry.

This provision, of course, would do nothing to address inaccuracies that result from mixed files. That is, files that combine information about more than one consumer in a single report. Such inaccuracies result from assumptions made by credit bureaus in deciding which information should be attributed to a given consumer. Thus, creditor liability reaches only a part of the accuracy problem, but we believe it is an important first step.