[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 161 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H8100-H8102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PROTECTION ACT OF 2010
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 3789) to limit access to social security account numbers.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 3789
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Number
Protection Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PROTECTION.
(a) Prohibition of Use of Social Security Account Numbers
on Checks Issued for Payment by Governmental Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(x) No Federal, State, or local agency may display the
Social Security account number of any individual, or any
derivative of such number, on any check issued for any
payment by the Federal, State, or local agency.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to checks issued after the date that
is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Prohibition of Inmate Access to Social Security Account
Numbers.--
(1) In general.--Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) (as amended by
subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(xi) No Federal, State, or local agency may employ, or
enter into a contract for the use or employment of, prisoners
in any capacity that would allow such prisoners access to the
Social Security account numbers of other individuals. For
purposes of this clause, the term `prisoner' means an
individual confined in a jail, prison, or other penal
institution or correctional facility pursuant to such
individual's conviction of a criminal offense.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to employment of prisoners, or entry
into contract with prisoners, after the date that is 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced a bill with
my friend, the ranking member on the Social Security Subcommittee, Sam
Johnson, to protect the accuracy of Social Security records and help
shield individuals from identity theft. Our bill prohibited Federal,
State, and local governments from employing prisoners in any capacity
that would allow inmates access to the full or partial Social Security
numbers of other individuals, such as through prison labor contracts.
The bipartisan Senate bill before us today does the same thing and also
prohibits Federal, State, and local governments from displaying Social
Security numbers on paper checks, which will also help protect the
Social Security program and protect fraud. Both are obvious changes
that would protect millions of Americans from identity theft.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I concur with all that's been
said so far.
You know, Americans worry about the security of their personal
information, including their Social Security number, and I don't blame
them. Even though Social Security numbers were
[[Page H8101]]
created to track wages for determining Social Security benefits, these
numbers are widely used as personal identifiers. In fact, in their
April, 2007 report, the President's Identity Task Force identified the
Social Security number as the ``most valuable commodity for an identity
thief.'' And these thieves are working overtime. Identity theft is the
fastest growing fraud in America--last year there were over 11 million
victims.
The Federal Trade Commission says identity theft costs consumers
about $50 billion per year. Today, we are taking a step forward--albeit
a small step--to protect Social Security numbers by preventing prisoner
access to these numbers and prohibiting Social Security numbers from
appearing on government checks.
Believe it or not, the Social Security Inspector General found that
eight States currently allow prisoners to work on jobs that give them
access to Social Security numbers. With today's vote we will be one
step closer to putting an end to that practice.
I am glad to report that over the years the Ways and Means Committee
has been working on a bipartisan basis to stem the tide of identity
theft through restricting the sale, use, and public display of Social
Security numbers, and I thank my colleague for that.
Most recently, these provisions are part of the Social Security
Number Privacy and Identify Theft Prevention Act introduced in this
Congress by then Subcommittee Chairman John Tanner and myself. I was
also pleased to join Chairman Pomeroy when he introduced H.R. 5854, the
No Prisoner Access to Social Security Numbers Act of 2010. This is a
great bill. I urge my colleagues to support this important first step
by voting ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Let me first say I want to thank my
colleague for bringing both these bills up, H.R. 5987 and also S. 3789.
First let me talk about Congressman Pomeroy. He and I came to the
Congress together in 1993, and we worked together on a lot of issues,
he coming from a very rural area. But we found out about 3 or 4 years
ago that--and you can tell my Texas accent--his State has grown
dramatically in the production of natural gas and oil, and also they
have a refinery in North Dakota. I have five refineries, but I'm glad
they have one up in his State.
We have worked together for the last few years on energy issues for
our country, and I want to thank him for his service to our country.
Earl, we will miss you. And I will miss your friendship and your
leadership on the Ways and Means Committee.
I am proud to be here today to support not only S. 3789, the Social
Security Number Protection Act, but also H.R. 5987, the Seniors
Protection Act of 2010. For the second year in a row our Nation's
seniors and veterans and people with disabilities have been denied a
cost of living adjustment, their COLA. The Seniors Protection Act would
provide 54 million Social Security beneficiaries with a one-time $250
payment in lieu of a COLA.
This bill would provide targeted economic relief for our Nation's
most vulnerable citizens. I have seniors in our district who get Social
Security, they're married, and some of them are in terrible shape
because of their circumstances--I have one who, her husband is
disabled, she takes care of him, but because of a family situation she
is taking care of three of her grandchildren. This is the second year
she would not get any assistance or any increase in her Social
Security. That is why this bill is so important.
Almost two out of three seniors and 70 percent of people with
disabilities rely on Social Security for half or more of their income.
One-third of seniors get more than 90 percent of their income from
Social Security. It's important that our Nation continue the promise
that Americans should be allowed to retire with dignity, which has
lasted for 75 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank you. And I just urge my colleagues to
vote for H.R. 5987, but also for S. 3789.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
{time} 1100
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the time and thank him for his
leadership on both the issues before us regarding Social Security.
The protection of our Social Security numbers is vital. I once had a
reporter come to my office and say, I have something to show you. She
pulled out a piece of paper, and she said, Here's your Social Security
number. I bought it for $15 online. That should not be allowed. That
should be an illegal activity in this country.
But the other issue that just preceded this is equally important to
40 million people who collect Social Security and a number of people
who collect veterans benefits, and that is a meaningful and well-
deserved cost-of-living adjustment for real increases in the costs of
living for seniors in America.
Now, yeah, the pointy heads down at the Department of Labor have this
jiggered up kind of cost-of-living index which puts heavy weight on
buying a 4G iPhone and the reductions in costs, and second generation
or third generation of expensive computers and things like that. But it
doesn't go to basics. It doesn't go to the cost of pharmaceuticals,
which unfortunately many seniors have to consume to maintain their
health. It doesn't go to the cost of, you know, hospital care or
physicians visits. It doesn't go meaningfully to basics, like utility
costs or rent or taxes on your property. None of those things are given
heavy weight or any weight, in some cases, in the cost-of-living index
that they are using to say to seniors, Your costs didn't go up last
year, so you'll get no cost-of-living adjustment.
I have introduced legislation over a number of years to have a
specific cost-of-living index for seniors called a CPI-E, elderly,
because they consume from a different so-called market basket than do
young consumers in this country. You'd get laughed out of the room if
you went to any senior center in this country or any coffee klatch in
some little coffee shop in your district with retirees and said, Hey,
your costs didn't go up this last year. You don't need a cost-of-living
adjustment on Social Security. Give me a break. Seniors need a cost-of-
living adjustment, and we need to protect our Social Security numbers.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are digressing from the
business at hand to something that has already happened. He needs to
know that the people out there do understand the cost-of-living
adjustment. It is fixed under Social Security rules, and they don't
need it this year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation. It is good for America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, by way of close, let me say that the
legislation before us is important and reflects what has been a pattern
of bipartisan work between the ranking member and myself as I have
chaired the Social Security Subcommittee. I have enjoyed working with
Sam Johnson. It is a pretty thrilling thing for a kid from North Dakota
to get to work with an American hero, and I have appreciated his
conscientious service as ranking member of the Social Security
Subcommittee.
I also, to colleagues, have deeply appreciated the opportunity to
chair the committee. I received a Social Security check in my own life
when my dad died as I was a teenager. To have the opportunity to chair
the subcommittee, protecting the United States' most important domestic
program, Social Security, was a deep honor and a responsibility that
I'll always treasure, having had that chance.
I want to thank the staff members who helped throughout, keeping this
subcommittee superbly supported with the important policy work before
it. Kathryn Olson, Joel Najar, Morna Miller, Jennifer Beeler on the
majority. We have certainly appreciated working with Kim Hildreth on
the minority. It has been a terrific experience.
[[Page H8102]]
General Leave
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on S. 3789, the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Dakota?
There was no objection.
Mr. POMEROY. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, S. 3789.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________