[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19196-19198]
[From the U.S. 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))

[[Page 19197]]

     (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 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. 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

[[Page 19198]]

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.


                             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.

                          ____________________