history, or no file, despite the fact that they have a full file with the smaller bureau. Do you believe that regional bureaus should be under some legal obligation to disclose the depth of their file coverage in specific areas? Do you believe that consumers should be given a legal right to demand that creditors go to bureaus having their file and that bureaus claiming to serve their areas establish a file without charge? These small bureaus also complain that the regional bureaus claim to cover their area without establishing a local office to make disclosures. Do you believe that any bureau that claims to cover a particular town should have to establish an office in that town or provide free disclosures by mail and a toll free number for disputes? If you should have any questions concerning this request for information, please contact the Subcommittee counsel, John Quinn, at 202-224-7391. Statement by John L. Spafford President of Associated Credit Bureaus, Inc. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, my name is John L. Spafford. I am President of Associated Credit Bureaus, Inc., known as accompanied by James R. Jordan, Chairman of the Board of D. Barry Connelly, Senior Vice President and T. Monty Skiles, Vice President and Secretary. We appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of credit bureaus in support of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which effectively provides essential privacy protection for consumers and in opposition to S.1928, the - Fair Financial Information Practices Act. We are in fundamental agreement with the general concepts recommended by the Privacy Protection Study Commission, but we maintain that since long before the Commission was created, credit bureaus had established a record of compliance with those concepts. From public statements issued by representatives of the Carter Administration, we are not at odds with the goals for personal privacy advocated by the President. But since 1971, credit bureaus have been operating under a law which was the bellwether of all consumer privacy legislation in this country. The Fair Credit Reporting Act anticipated and met the need for all the essential safeguards. It prevents unwarranted privacy intrusion, maximizes accuracy and fairness in use of information and establishes consumer rights and expectations of confidentiality in support of each goal articulated, first by the Privacy Commission and now by the Administration. Coupled with the Fair Credit Billing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the three existing statutes afford ample privacy protection in the area of consumer credit information practices. Let me review five major concerns and the corresponding mechanisms already in place through existing law to effectively answer those concerns: Under existing law (FCRA, ECOA, FCBA), do consumers: 1. Know who has credit records about them and where 4. 5. Have the ability to challenge the accuracy or Have easily available recourse against the misuse or abuse of records about them? Again the answer Mr. Chairman, what the Administration is proposing in Titles One and Two is to take a tested, straightforward statute, tear it down and start over. From its public statements and testimony, the Administration would have you believe that it is proposing only two or three changes, but in truth it would compose numerous new restrictions on the flow of consumer credit information. It would attempt to anticipate and deal with all sorts of potential abuses which nobody has demonstrated actually occur. It would stray far from the field of privacy protection. It would inflict grievous costs in time, red tape and money, especially on credit grantors. It would pass on higher credit costs to consumers and limit the availability of consumer credit. It would virtually wipe out nine years of legal decisions, FTC、 Interpretations, and compliance familiarity. It would change long-standing definitions of terms contained in the FCRA. It would complicate the law unbelievably by attempting to apply it to extraneous activities such as independent authorization services. Yet, Mr. Chairman, it would not add any real, substantive consumer privacy protections not already guaranteed by the FCRA and ECOA. Mr. Chairman, ACB and its members historically have supported constructive, reasonable and justifiable legislation. When we first appeared before this subcommittee (then under Senator Proxmire) in 1969, our industry had adopted a code of privacy policies and procedures for self-regulation. However, although these policies were a sincere attempt to address legitimate privacy concerns, and although they were used to form most of the framework for the eventual bill, it became evident to us as reasonable people that there was a demonstrated need for a federal law, area where no law existed. in an The record will show that ACB worked closely with Senator Proxmire and the drafters of the FCRA and supported its pass age. It was not a popular position with all of our members. We are, therefore, justifiably proud of the commitment of our members to become educated in the law, to exert and expect a high degree of compliance with the FCRA, and to publicize and explain the law and the functions of credit bureaus to consumers. Since the passage of the Act in 1970, ACB and its members have distributed thousands of helpful, explanatory pamphlets to consumers and cooperated in hundreds of news interviews to try to make the public aware of consumer rights in the consumer credit area. 64-069 0 - 80 - 56 |