99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–202 

IDENTITY THEFT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2011 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2552] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2552) to amend title 18, United States Code, to change the 

state of mind requirement for certain identity theft offenses, and 

for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 5 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 5 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 5 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 6 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 6 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 6 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 7 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 8 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Purpose and Summary 

H.R. 2552, the ‘‘Identity Theft Improvement Act of 2011,’’ corrects a problem created by the Supreme Court in the case of FloresFigueroa v. United States, llll U.S. llll, 129 S.Ct. 1886 

(2009). The Act specifically alters the state of mind requirements 

of the identity theft statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 

1028 so that the Government need not prove that the defendant 

knew the means of identification was of another person in order to 

prosecute for identity theft. The concern that this bill addresses 

arose when the Supreme Court interpreted section 1028 as requiring proof that an individual using a fake or stolen identification 

have knowledge that the identification belonged to another person. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

Federal law prohibits identity theft and identity fraud, specifically the knowing possession, production, transfer, or use of an 

identification document, a false identification document, or a 

means of identification without lawful authority. Penalties for violating this law range from up to 5 years for garden-variety identity 

theft to up to 20 years if the identity theft facilitates a drug offense, crime of violence, or is a second offense, or up to 30 years 

if the identity theft facilitates an act of terrorism. This statute was 

enacted in 1998 at 18 U.S.C. § 1028. 

In 2004, the law was expanded to add a provision known as ‘‘aggravated identity theft.’’ Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, this statute 

provides for a consecutive 2-year sentence for 

‘‘Whoever, during and in relation to any felony enumerated 

in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, 

without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person . . .’’ 

Subsection (c) contains a list of ‘‘predicate’’ felonies that if accompanied by identity theft can result in the consecutive 2-year sentence that is in addition to the sentence for the predicate felony. 

These felonies include theft, embezzlement, fraud, false statements, 

wire fraud, and false statements in connection to acquiring a firearm. 

Subsection (c) also includes several immigration-related offenses 

in the list of predicate felonies, including fraud relating to citizenship, fraud relating to alien registration cards, failure to leave the 

U.S. following deportation, and harboring and unlawful employment offenses under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Ignacio Flores-Figueroa is a citizen of Mexico. In 2006, Flores 

presented his employer with counterfeit Social Security and alien 

registration cards. But the numbers on both cards were in fact 

numbers assigned to other people. Flores’ employer reported his request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE 

discovered that the numbers on Flores’ new documents belonged to 

other people. The United States then charged Flores with two predicate felonies—entering the United States without inspection, 8 

U.S.C. § 1325(a), and misusing immigration documents, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1546(a). It also charged him with aggravated identity theft, 18 

U.S.C. § 1028A. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Flores moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ‘‘aggravated 

identity theft’’ counts. He claimed that the Government could not 

prove that he knew that the numbers on the counterfeit documents 

were numbers assigned to other people. 

As noted above, the aggravated identity theft statute applies to 

a person who ‘‘knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.’’ At issue 

in this case was whether the statute requires the Government to 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the 

identification he transferred, possessed, or used belonged to another person. 

In Flores-Figueroa v. United States, llll U.S. llll, 129 

S.Ct. 1886, (2009), the Supreme Court held 9–0 that the aggravated identity theft statute requires the government to prove that 

the defendant knew the means of identification belonged to another 

person. 

The Supreme Court’s decision raised several issues. First, how 

does the government prove that the defendant knows the identification belongs to another person? Is it sufficient to introduce testimony from the victim that he or she is the ‘‘owner’’ of that identification and that the defendant did not have permission? Or does 

the government now have to introduce statements by the defendant 

that he knows the identification belongs to someone else? This is 

much more difficult to accomplish. Without this legislative fix, it 

would be a simple matter for a defendant to escape responsibility 

by asserting that while the documents he possessed were improper, 

he did not have knowledge that they belonged to an actual person. 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 2552. 

Committee Consideration 

On July 20, 2011, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 2552 favorably reported without amendment, by 

recorded vote, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

2552. 

1. An amendment offered by Mr. Scott to exclude cases of Aggravated Identity Theft from the bill. Defeated 16 to 10. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 10 16 

2. Motion to report H.R. 2552 favorably, without amendment. 

Passed 16 to 10. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

ROLLCALL NO. 2—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 16 10 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this 

report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 2552, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, August 1, 2011. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, CHAIRMAN, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2552, the ‘‘Identity Theft 

Improvement Act of 2011.’’ 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von Gnechten. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

H.R. 2552—Identity Theft Improvement Act of 2011. 

H.R. 2552 would eliminate the state-of-mind requirement in certain identity theft cases. Under current law, prosecuting attorneys 

in identity theft cases must prove that the defendant knew that the 

means of identification belonged to another individual. Based on information from the Department of Justice, CBO estimates that 

H.R. 2552 would not have a significant impact on the Federal 

budget because the bill would probably affect only a small number 

of cases. 

Enacting H.R. 2552 could affect direct spending and revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates 

that the net effects would be insignificant for each year. 

Those convicted under H.R. 2552 would be subject to criminal 

fines; therefore, the Federal Government might collect additional 

fines if the bill is enacted. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, 

deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO expects 

that any additional revenues and direct spending would not be significant. 

Persons prosecuted and convicted under the bill also could be 

subject to the seizure of assets by the Federal Government. Proceeds from the sale of such assets are recorded as revenues, deposited into the Assets Forfeiture Fund, and spent mostly in the same 

year. Thus, enacting H.R. 2552 could increase both revenues deposited into those funds and direct spending from them. However, 

CBO expects that any increase in revenues or spending would be 

negligible. 

H.R. 2552 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. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Martin von Gnechten. 

The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 2552 is intended 

to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of 

the Department of Justice of providing investigatory assistance on 

request of State and local authorities with respect to certain violent 

crimes. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 2552 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Section 1. Short Title. This section cites the short title of the bill 

as the ‘‘Identity Theft Improvement Act of 2011.’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

Section 2. State of Mind Requirement for Identity Theft and Aggravated Identity Theft. This section amends Title 18, United 

States Code, Section 1028, subsection (j), to alter the elements necessary for the Government to prove the crimes of Identity Theft 

and Aggravated Identity Theft. The section specifically states that 

the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the 

means of identification was of another person. 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and 

information 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j) STATE OF MIND PROOF REQUIREMENT.—In a prosecution under 

subsection (a)(7) or under section 1028A(a), the Government need 

not prove that the defendant knew the means of identification was 

of another person. 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(8) 

1 129 S. Ct. 1886 (2009) 

Dissenting Views 

There is no doubt that identity theft is a serious problem confronting American citizens. The crime of identity theft is very damaging to consumers and is particularly harmful during a time when 

so many Americans are facing financial uncertainty. While H.R. 

2552 purports to strengthen identity theft laws, it does so in a 

manner that raises serious policy concerns. 

H.R. 2552 expands the category of persons subject to counterproductive mandatory minimum sentences. Specifically, by lessening the showing necessary for prosecutors to obtain convictions for 

aggravated identity theft offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, the bill 

expands the category of persons subjected to a counterproductive 2- 

year mandatory minimum sentence. In addition, H.R. 2552 is a 

thinly veiled attempt to make felons of undocumented immigrants 

without regard for whether they knew that the identification documents they were using belonged to another person. 

For these reasons, and those stated below, we respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation. 

I. H.R. 2552 EFFECTUATES POOR SENTENCING POLICY

Proponents of H.R. 2552 argue that the bill is necessary to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in Flores-Figueroa v. U.S.1

That case interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, which imposes a mandatory additional penalty of 2 years imprisonment on anyone who, in 

the course of committing certain other crimes, ‘‘knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person[.]’’ The issue in the case was whether 

a defendant could be convicted of violating this statute if he knew 

the means of identification was not his own, but did not know that 

it actually belonged to someone else (e.g., using a Social Security 

number that does not belong to you, but that may or may not be 

assigned to someone). The Court ruled that the mens rea of ‘‘knowingly’’ requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant knew 

that the identification being used was actually that of another person. 

In order to contravene the Court’s requirement, H.R. 2552 sets 

forth a rule of construction for 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028 and 1028A. It provides that, ‘‘In a prosecution under subsection [1028](a)(7) [identity 

theft] or under section 1028A(a) [aggravated identity theft], the 

Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the 

means of identification was of another person.’’ Because section 

1028A provides for the mandatory additional 2-year penalty, relaxing the mens rea requirement reduces the showing necessary to obtain such a mandatory sentence. Consequently, the reduced mens 

rea requirement expands the category of defendants subject to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

2See Andrew von Hirsch, et al, Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An Analysis of Recent Research (1999); Michael Tonry, Purposes and Functions of Sentencing, 34 CRIME AND JUSTICE: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH 28–29 (2006); David Weisburd et. al., Specific Deterrence in a 

Sample of Offenders Convicted of White-Collar Crimes, 33 CRIMINOLOGY 587 (1995). 3Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing: Report to the House of Representatives, House 

Resolution 12, Session of 2007, A Study on the Use and Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences, (Harrisburg, PA: October 2009) 3, available at http://pcs.la.psu.edu/HRl12l FINALlREPORTlWEB.pdf. 

mandatory minimum sentences to include even those who did not 

know that the identification they were using belonged to another 

person. 

Mandatory minimum sentences take a charge-centered approach 

to sentencing. Conviction for certain crimes results in a pre-determined and generally inescapable sentence. Historically, they have 

been adopted to deter would-be criminals, incapacitate offenders, 

and combat disparity by promoting uniformity of punishment for 

similarly situated defendants. Nevertheless, mandatory minimum 

sentencing has not lived up to its promise, it is plagued with problems, and has led to extraordinary injustice, prison overcrowding 

and excess costs to taxpayers. 

While criminologists of all stripes agree that greater reliance on 

prison has some impact on the crime rate, there is no evidence that 

sentence length or lengthy mandatory minimums have had any 

impact.2 The Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission, for example, 

was ordered by the state legislature to study its mandatory minimum laws and concluded that ‘‘neither length of sentence nor the 

imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence alone was related to 

recidivism.’’ 3

Intended to, among other things, reduce unwarranted disparity 

among similarly situated defendants, mandatory minimum sentencing has instead produced both unwarranted uniformity and 

disparity. For example, in drug offenses, the type and weight of a 

drug are alone sufficient to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence. The type and quantity of drugs are, however, poor proxies 

for culpability, because very different offenders, with varying degrees of culpability, can be subject to the same mandatory minimum sentence. This unwarranted uniformity means that a drug 

‘‘mule’’ carrying a backpack filled with drugs on several occasions, 

for relatively small amounts of remuneration, receives the same 

sentence as the drug kingpin, who arranges the trips and enjoys 

enormous profits. In its 1991 study of mandatory minimums, the 

United States Sentencing Commission called the exaggerated role 

of drug quantity the ‘‘tariff’’ effect, and criticized it for prohibiting 

the consideration of traditional sentencing factors. 

At the same time, the mandatory minimum sentencing regime 

has had the effect of transferring discretion from judicial to prosecutorial control, creating unwarranted disparity in application. 

Prosecutors control what crime to charge and which sentencing factors to bring to the court’s attention, whether to drop a charge or 

‘‘fact bargain’’ sentencing elements, and whether to charge a crime 

that carries a mandatory minimum sentence or one that does not. 

All of those decisions are made away from the public record and 

are unreviewable. This has the result of treating similarly situated 

people differently based not on the offense committed but on the 

prosecutor in charge. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

4 ‘‘Overview of Statutory Mandatory Minimum Sentencing,’’ United States Sentencing Commission. http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative—and—Public—Affairs/CongressionallTestimonyland lReports/Submissions/20090710lStClMandatorylMinimum.pdf 5The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: 25 Years Later, Public Hearing Before the U.S. Sentencing Commission, New York, New York, July 9, 2009 (Statement of Michael Nachmanoff, 

Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia), available at http://www.fd.org/ 

pdfllib/Statement%20of%20Michael%20Nachmanoff%20USSC%20Regional%20Hearing%207.9. 

09.pdf. Public Hearing Before the United States Sentencing Commission, The Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984: 25 Years Later http://www.fd.org/pdfllib/Statement%20of%20 

Michael%20Nachmanoff%20USSC%20Regional%20Hearing%207.9.09.pdf 6Mary Price, Everything Old is New Again, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL ON CRIMINAL AND CIVIL

CONFINEMENT, 83 (Winter 2010). 

There are 172 statutes with mandatory minimums in the Federal 

code. In 2008, 21,023 individuals were sentenced to 31,239 counts 

of conviction carrying mandatory minimum sentences at an average cost of $28,000 per individual per year.4 Mandatory minimums 

cause other unintended, but very real, consequences beyond the 

daily and personal injustice of subjecting many defendants to sentences that are too long. They contribute to over-incarceration. 

As Federal Public Defender Michael Nachmanoff testified before 

the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2009: 

The Federal prison population is currently at 206,786 inmates, a nearly five-fold increase since mandatory minimums and mandatory guidelines became law. The major 

cause of the prison population explosion is the increase in 

sentence length for drug trafficking, from 23 months before 

the guidelines to 73 months in 2001. About 75% of this increase was due to mandatory minimums, and 25% was due 

to guideline increases above mandatory minimum levels. 

Today, the average sentence length for drug trafficking is 

even higher than in 2001, at 83.2 months.5

Since Mr. Nachmanoff delivered his testimony 2 years ago, the 

Federal prison population has climbed more than 210,000 and the 

annual average cost to incarcerate an offender is more than 

$28,000. 

Mandatory minimums make no pretense of accommodating the 

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that account for individual characteristics at sentencing. They are impervious to the studied inquiry of 

that law, and wholly unable to honor parsimony. They are frequently longer than needed to comply with the purposes of punishment, only crudely reflect the seriousness of the offense, and completely fail to account for individual characteristics of the offense 

or the offender.6

For all of these reasons, opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing laws is growing, including in some unexpected quarters. In 

the past couple of years, numerous high-profile national conservative leaders have expressed opposition to mandatory minimum 

sentencing laws. Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, American Civil Rights Institute President Ward Connerly, 

National Rifle Association President David Keene, and Justice Fellowship President Pat Nolan have called mandatory minimum sentences into question. 

More recently, these conservative leaders joined former House 

Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Attorney General Ed Meese, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and former drug czar 

Bill Bennett and others to form Right on Crime, a group dedicated 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

7The Conservative Case for Reform: Fighting Crime, Prioritizing Victims, and Protecting Taxpayers. http://www.rightoncrime.com/priority-issues/prisons/ 8 Id. 

9 18 U.S.C. § 1546; 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 1542. 

10 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. 

to achieving a cost-effective criminal justice system that ‘‘protects 

citizens, restores victims, and reforms wrongdoers.’’ 7 Included in 

the group’s proposals for reform is a call to consider ‘‘eliminating 

many mandatory minimum sentencing laws for nonviolent offenses. 

These laws remove all discretion from judges who are the most intimately familiar with the facts of a case and who are well-positioned to know which defendants need to be in prison because they 

threaten public safety and which defendants would in fact not benefit from prison time.’’ 8

II. H.R. 2552 MAKES FELONS OUT OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

Although H.R. 2552 purports to address identity theft, it is really 

intended to make felons out of undocumented immigrants. Current 

law already makes it a crime to knowingly use or possess a false 

identification document, Social Security number, or passport.9 The 

crime of aggravated identity theft further penalizes the knowing 

use of another person’s identifying information in connection with 

an additional criminal offense.10 By removing the requirement that 

a person know that the identifying information he or she is using 

belongs to another person, H.R. 2552 adds additional criminal 

charges and mandatory minimum punishment on top of behavior 

that already is criminalized. 

If H.R. 2552 were to become law, an individual could be guilty 

of aggravated identity theft and subject to a 2-year mandatory minimum sentence in prison even if such individual did not know that 

he or she used identifying information that belonged to someone 

else. In essence, the bill takes the theft out of identity theft, and 

subjects undocumented immigrants who use a false identification 

document for employment purposes only—even if they do not know 

that the identification document belongs to another person—to 

mandatory prison time. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because this bill expands the reach of mandatory minimum sentences, with particularly serious concerns with respect to its application to undocumented immigrants, it does not constitute an advance in the fight against the serious problem of identity theft. 

Rather, it would reduce the ability of courts to apply appropriate, 

case-specific sentences and would waste scarce resources through 

over-incarceration. We respectfully dissent. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS