[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 ILLEGAL USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to call to my colleagues' attention 
a situation that arose recently in my Las Vegas office concerning the 
illegal use of a Social Security number.
  A constituent of mine applied for public assistance benefits. 
Thereafter what followed was a routine Social Security check that 
turned up an illegal immigrant using her son's Social Security number.
  Parenthetically, it was also later discovered that this same 
individual using the illegal Social Security number belonging to the 
son of my constituent was also using a forged INS card at his place of 
employment.
  Now, when this information was brought to the attention of the Las 
Vegas Social Security office, my constituent was informed that no 
investigation of this fraudulent card use would be undertaken because 
of Social Security Administration policy.
  You can imagine what her reaction was--one of anger and one of 
disbelief. Here is a person who applies for public assistance benefits, 
discovers that someone is illegally using her young son's Social 
Security card number, and then learns there is nothing that can be done 
about it.
  Mr. President, tragically, such a response only tends to confirm our 
citizens' disappointment, disillusionment and, indeed, mistrust of the 
Federal Government.
  It was suggested that this is because of the January 1994 Social 
Security Administration Fraud Referral Guidelines. And so I reviewed 
those guidelines and, lo and behold, I discovered that Nevada, 15 other 
States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were all listed as 
``geographic areas with limited investigations.''
  What this means, Mr. President, is that no fraud investigations are 
initiated in these States and possessions by the Office of 
Investigations, unless the Social Security management requests an 
``exception'' from the Office of Investigations, and the Office of 
Investigations and the Social Security management mutually agree that 
there are aggravating factors present to warrant such an investigation.
  The guidelines further state that if fraud cases occur involving more 
than $10,000, the Office of Investigations would receive and refer such 
cases to other investigative agencies for investigation, that is if 
they are over $10,000.
  Now, to say the least, I was further surprised that there is another 
provision--this applies to four States--and that Nevada, along with 
Alaska, Hawaii, and Idaho were listed as States where no 
investigations--let me make that point again--no investigations would 
be initiated, even in those cases involving fraud of $10,000 or more 
unless there were ``mutually aggravating circumstances.''
  Essentially, Mr. President, we have a policy that creates ``safe 
harbors'' for those who would blatantly and fraudulently use a Social 
Security card number in those 16 States and 2 territories; and a 
particularly safe harbor for abusers in Nevada, Alaska, Idaho, and 
Hawaii. For even if the fraud amounts to $10,000 or more there, it 
requires a mutual agreement before a case goes forward to 
investigation.
  Since 10 of these 16 States lie in the Western half of the United 
States, this means that, for all intents and purposes, the Western part 
of our Nation is especially inviting for those who want to fraudulently 
use Social Security numbers properly belonging to someone else.
  Mr. President, what do I tell my constituents who are trying to 
conduct their lives in an honest and straightforward manner, and 
discover that someone is fraudulently using their Social Security 
number?
  ``Oh, well, this is Nevada, and Nevada is one of 16 `safe harbor' 
States where illegal use of a Social Security number is simply not 
important enough to warrant prosecution.''
  As I read the SSA Fraud referral Guidelines, the Office of 
Investigations Field Office can be contacted for Social Security number 
violations that are ``media sensitive,'' or have ``congressional 
interest.'' It might, then, under the guidelines be possible, so we are 
told, for the appropriate Federal judicial district to accept this case 
for prosecution.
  So, as a Senator whose State is listed as one where no investigations 
are to be initiated, what am I to do? Every time I discover the 
possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number, I must indicate 
that there is congressional interest to ensure a case is even 
considered for possible referral to a Federal judicial district for 
prosecution? That policy is patently ridiculous.
  As a former Nevada attorney general, I can understand that there need 
to be priorities in terms of what cases are selected for prosecution. I 
understand that where there is limited staff and funding, those can be 
very, very difficult decisions about those priorities. And reasonable 
people can certainly disagree with the priorities. But to isolate, for 
all intents and purposes, an entire region of the country and say we 
are not going to prosecute Social Security fraud in your part of the 
country absolutely makes no sense at all. It makes a mockery out of any 
kind of process that would reach such a conclusion.
  It is absolutely indefensible. I cannot comprehend what reasoning 
process must have led to that conclusion.
  The Social Security Administration might as well put signs on the 
Nevada State borders, inviting people to come in, take a Social 
Security number of your choice, and go forth and use it with absolute 
impunity.
  So, Mr. President, today I am sending to the Commissioner of the 
Social Security Administration a letter, and I am making two requests. 
First, with respect to the case that was called to my attention by my 
constituent in Las Vegas, I am asking that case be accepted for 
investigation and possible prosecution. Second, I am asking for a 
complete review of the fraud referral guidelines as they apply to the 
State of Nevada. I want an explanation as to how those guidelines were 
established and, more important, I want that corrected.
  I must admit, in recent weeks this has not been my only concern about 
the Social Security Administration. Just a few weeks ago we all learned 
that more than two-thirds of the agency's employees received bonuses 
for exemplary performance. Given the complaints my State offices 
receive from constituents who deal with the Agency, I find it difficult 
to believe that the Agency is using the appropriate criteria in 
determining which employees ought to receive performance-based bonuses. 
Now I have been made aware of the Agency's policy with respect to the 
safe harbor in my State for Social Security fraud.
  I am a cosponsor of the bill to make the Social Security 
Administration an independent agency. I made that decision because I 
truly believe the Agency can establish the trust of all Americans by 
making it a separate and independent agency. But it is obvious to me 
that this Agency has a long road yet to travel before all of us can 
once again place our trust in this Agency, and feel confident its 
judgments are in the best interests of the American people and those 
dependent upon the Social Security System.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________