U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2017

115–62 

Calendar No. 79 

SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD PREVENTION 

ACT OF 2017 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 218 

TO RESTRICT THE INCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT 

NUMBERS ON DOCUMENTS SENT BY MAIL BY THE FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

MAY 15, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

DANIEL J. SPINO, Research Assistant 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

STACIA M. CARDILLE, Minority Chief Counsel 

CHARLES A. MOSKOWITZ, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 79 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 115–62 

SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD PREVENTION ACT OF 2017 

MAY 15, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 218] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 218) to restrict the inclusion of 

social security account numbers on documents sent by mail by the 

Federal Government, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 1 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 2 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 3 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 3 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 3 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 4 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 218, the Social Security Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, would 

prohibit the Federal Government from including an individual’s Social Security Number (SSN) in any agency documents that would 

go through the mail, unless the head of the agency determined that 

the inclusion of the SSN is necessary. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Identity theft has been a growing concern for many Americans. 

The Federal Trade Commission had over 889,000 identity theft 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book for January-December 

2016 at 79 (March 2017), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data-book-january-december-2016/csn_cy-2016_data_book.pdf. 2Social Security Administration, Your Social Security Number and Card, at 2 (January 2016, 

available at https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10002.pdf. 3 Id., at 11. 4Memorandum from Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, to Heads of Executive Dep’ts and Agencies, Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information (May 22, 2007). 5Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO–07–1023T, Social Security Numbers: Use is Widespread 

and Protection could be Improved (June 21, 2007), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071023t.pdf. 

complaints filed in 2015 and 2016.1 A large contributing factor to 

identity theft is the unauthorized acquisition and fraudulent use of 

SSNs. SSNs are required for a myriad of verification processes, besides just accessing one’s Social Security benefits. Individuals interested in receiving certain government services, or applying for private sector services, such as a credit card, will need to provide their 

SSN in order to complete the application process.2 The Social Security Administration (SSA) strongly encourages individuals to keep 

their SSN confidential and avoid giving it out unnecessarily due to 

the problems and misfortunes it can lead to.3 As a result of this, 

many citizens refuse to write their SSN down and memorize it to 

ensure it doesn’t get abused by someone else. 

Many Federal agencies require SSNs as a way to confirm the 

identity of individuals that are requesting services, benefits, or 

paying taxes. Using a SSN is an efficient way to confirm an individual’s identity. However, with no Government-wide protocol outlining the use of SSNs, the procedures and security of its use varies 

from agency to agency. In 2007, the Office of Management and 

Budget released a memorandum to Federal agencies ordering them 

to review their use of SSNs to increase protection and eliminate 

any unnecessary use.4 The Government Accountability Office later 

issued a report finding that vulnerabilities are present across the 

Government.5

Having SSNs on Federal correspondence amplifies the possibility 

of SSNs being compromised. An easy way for the Federal Government to mitigate this preventable risk is to reduce the use of full 

SSNs on documents sent through the mail. 

S. 218 restricts Federal agencies from including SSNs in correspondence sent through the mail unless it is deemed necessary 

by the head of the agency. If this is the case, the agency is required 

to partially redact the SSN whenever possible and consider other 

ways to mitigate the risk of identity theft for the individual receiving the mail. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Cory Gardner introduced S. 218, the Social Security 

Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, on January 24, 2017. The bill was 

referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. 

The Committee considered S. 218 at a business meeting on 

March 15, 2017. During the business meeting, an amendment was 

offered by Senator Daines to make clear that agencies are to take 

additional mitigation measures whenever it is necessary to send a 

piece of mail with a SSN. 

Both the Daines amendment and the bill as amended were ordered reported favorably en bloc by voice vote. Senators Johnson, 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Portman, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, 

Peters, Hassan, and Harris were present for the vote. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1: Short title 

The short title of the bill is the ‘‘Social Security Fraud Prevention 

Act of 2017.’’ 

Section 2: Restriction of SSNs on documents sent by mail 

Subsection (a) states that no federal agency or department can 

send out mail that includes a SSN, unless the head of that department or agency deems the presence of the SSN on the document 

necessary. 

Subsection (b) mandates that each agency issue regulations within one year to specify how the agency is to determine when inclusion of a SSN in a document sent through the mail is necessary. 

The regulations issued by the agency must include a direction for 

the agency to: (1) partially redact the SSN whenever possible; (2) 

ensure SSNs are not visible on the outside of any piece of mail; and 

(3) take additional methods to mitigate the risk of SSNs sent 

through the mail when doing so is necessary. 

Subsection (c) provides that the requirements of the bill will take 

affect one year from its enactment. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

MARCH 23, 2017. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 218, the Social Security 

Fraud Prevention Act of 2017. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 218—Social Security Fraud Prevention Act of 2017 

S. 218 would prohibit federal agencies from including social security account numbers on any documents sent by mail unless the 

agency determines that inclusion of the number is necessary. There 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

are many federal laws and regulations that address the protection 

of sensitive information including the Federal Information Security 

Management Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and a 2007 memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget on safeguarding and responding to the disclosure of personally identifiable 

information. Because of those laws and rules, CBO expects that 

most agencies are working to limit the amount of personally identifiable information that they collect and disseminate. As a consequence, CBO estimates that implementing S. 218 would have no 

significant cost over the next five years. 

Enacting the legislation could affect direct spending by agencies 

not funded through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go 

procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net increase 

in spending by those agencies would be negligible. Enacting S. 218 

would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 218 would not increase net direct 

spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10- 

year periods beginning in 2028. 

S. 218 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

On February 24, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

624, the Social Security Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, as ordered 

reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform on February 14, 2017. The two pieces of legislation are 

similar and CBO’s estimates of their budgetary effects are the 

same. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Because S. 218 would not repeal or amend any provision of current law, it would make no changes in existing law within the 

meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS