House Report 112-202 - IDENTITY THEFT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2011

[House Report 112-202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

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
Flores-Figueroa v. United States, ____ U.S. ____, 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. Sec. 1028.
In 2004, the law was expanded to add a provision known as
``aggravated identity theft.'' Codified at 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 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. Sec. 1325(a), and misusing
immigration documents, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1546(a). It also charged
him with aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1028A.
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, ____ U.S. ____, 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........................................................
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. Sanchez.....................................................
-----------------------------------------------
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
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. Sanchez.....................................................
-----------------------------------------------
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
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.''
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

* * * * * * *

Sec. 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.

* * * * * * *

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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\129 S. Ct. 1886 (2009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to contravene the Court's requirement, H.R. 2552
sets forth a rule of construction for 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 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
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See 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).
\3\Pennsylvania 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/HR_12_
FINAL_REPORT_WEB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\``Overview of Statutory Mandatory Minimum Sentencing,'' United
States Sentencing Commission. http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative--and--
Public--Affairs/Congressional_Testimony_and
_Reports/Submissions/20090710_StC_Mandatory_Minimum.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\The 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/
pdf_lib/
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/pdf_lib/
Statement%20of%20
Michael%20Nachmanoff%20USSC%20Regional%20Hearing%207.9.09.pdf

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. Sec. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Mary Price, Everything Old is New Again, New England Journal on
Criminal and Civil Confinement, 83 (Winter 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\The Conservative Case for Reform: Fighting Crime, Prioritizing
Victims, and Protecting Taxpayers. http://www.rightoncrime.com/
priority-issues/prisons/
\8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1546; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 408(a)(7)(B); 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1542.
\10\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1028A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.