[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9993-H9998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IDENTITY THEFT AND ASSUMPTION DETERRENCE ACT OF 1998
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4151) to amend chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code,
relating to identity fraud, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4151
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 ``Identity Theft and
Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION.
The constitutional authority upon which this Act rests is
the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several States, and the authority to
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution
in the Government of the United States or in any department
or officer thereof, as set forth in article I, section 8 of
the United States Constitution.
SEC. 3. IDENTITY THEFT.
(a) Establishment of Offense.--Section 1028(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by adding ``or'' at the end;
(3) in the flush matter following paragraph (6), by
striking ``or attempts to do so,''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful
authority, a means of identification of another person with
the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful
activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that
constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local
law;''.
(b) Penalties.--Section 1028(b) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) an offense under paragraph (7) of such subsection
that involves the transfer or use of 1 or more means of
identification if, as a result of the offense, any individual
committing the offense obtains anything of value aggregating
$1,000 or more during any 1-year period;'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or transfer of an
identification document or'' and inserting ``, transfer, or
use of a means of identification, an identification document,
or a''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or (7)'' after
``(3)'';
(3) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 20 years, or both, if the offense is committed--
``(A) to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in
section 929(a)(2));
``(B) in connection with a crime of violence (as defined in
section 924(c)(3)); or
``(C) after a prior conviction under this section becomes
final;'';
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(5) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(6) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) in the case of any offense under subsection (a),
forfeiture to the United States of any personal property used
or intended to be used to commit the offense; and''.
(c) Circumstances.--Section 1028(c) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) either--
``(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use
prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or
foreign commerce; or
``(B) the means of identification, identification document,
false identification document, or document-making implement
is transported in the mail in the course of the production,
transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.''.
(d) Definitions.--Subsection (d) of section 1028 of title
18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(d) In this section--
``(1) the term `document-making implement' means any
implement, impression, electronic device, or computer
hardware or software, that is specifically configured or
primarily used for making an identification document, a false
identification document, or another document-making
implement;
``(2) the term `identification document' means a document
made or issued by or under the authority of the United States
Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a
foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign
government, an international governmental or an international
quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with
information concerning a particular individual, is of a type
intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of
identification of individuals;
``(3) the term `means of identification' means any name or
number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any
other information, to identify a specific individual,
including any--
``(A) name, social security number, date of birth, official
State or government issued driver's license or identification
number, alien registration number, government passport
number, employer or taxpayer identification number;
``(B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice
print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical
representation;
``(C) unique electronic identification number, address, or
routing code; or
``(D) telecommunication identifying information or access
device (as defined in section 1029(e));
``(4) the term `personal identification card' means an
identification document issued by a State or local government
solely for the purpose of identification;
``(5) the term `produce' includes alter, authenticate, or
assemble; and
``(6) the term `State' includes any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and any other commonwealth, possession, or territory of
the United States.''.
(e) Attempt and Conspiracy.--Section 1028 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Attempt and Conspiracy.--Any person who attempts or
conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be
subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the
attempt or conspiracy.''.
(f) Forfeiture Procedures.--Section 1028 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Forfeiture Procedures.--The forfeiture of property
under this section, including any seizure and disposition of
the property and any related judicial or administrative
proceeding, shall be governed by the provisions of section
413 (other than subsection (d) of that section) of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
(21 U.S.C. 853).''.
(g) Rule of Construction.--Section 1028 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Rule of Construction.--For purpose of subsection
(a)(7), a single identification document or false
identification document that contains 1 or more means of
identification shall be construed to be 1 means of
identification.''.
(h) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in the heading for section 1028, by adding ``and
information'' at the end; and
(2) in the table of sections at the beginning of the
chapter, in the item relating to section 1028, by adding
``and information'' at the end.
[[Page H9994]]
SEC. 4. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR
OFFENSES UNDER SECTION 1028.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States
Sentencing Commission shall review and amend the Federal
sentencing guidelines and the policy statements of the
Commission, as appropriate, to provide an appropriate penalty
for each offense under section 1028 of title 18, United
States Code, as amended by this Act.
(b) Factors for Consideration.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the United States Sentencing Commission shall consider,
with respect to each offense described in subsection (a)--
(1) the extent to which the number of victims (as defined
in section 3663A(a) of title 18, United States Code) involved
in the offense, including harm to reputation, inconvenience,
and other difficulties resulting from the offense, is an
adequate measure for establishing penalties under the Federal
sentencing guidelines;
(2) the number of means of identification, identification
documents, or false identification documents (as those terms
are defined in section 1028(d) of title 18, United States
Code, as amended by this Act) involved in the offense, is an
adequate measure for establishing penalties under the Federal
sentencing guidelines;
(3) the extent to which the value of the loss to any
individual caused by the offense is an adequate measure for
establishing penalties under the Federal sentencing
guidelines;
(4) the range of conduct covered by the offense;
(5) the extent to which sentencing enhancements within the
Federal sentencing guidelines and the court's authority to
sentence above the applicable guideline range are adequate to
ensure punishment at or near the maximum penalty for the most
egregious conduct covered by the offense;
(6) the extent to which Federal sentencing guidelines
sentences for the offense have been constrained by statutory
maximum penalties;
(7) the extent to which Federal sentencing guidelines for
the offense adequately achieve the purposes of sentencing set
forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code;
and
(8) any other factor that the United States Sentencing
Commission considers to be appropriate.
SEC. 5. CENTRALIZED COMPLAINT AND CONSUMER EDUCATION SERVICE
FOR VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall
establish procedures to--
(1) log and acknowledge the receipt of complaints by
individuals who certify that they have a reasonable belief
that 1 or more of their means of identification (as defined
in section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, as amended
by this Act) have been assumed, stolen, or otherwise
unlawfully acquired in violation of section 1028 of title 18,
United States Code, as amended by this Act;
(2) provide informational materials to individuals
described in paragraph (1); and
(3) refer complaints described in paragraph (1) to
appropriate entities, which may include referral to--
(A) the 3 major national consumer reporting agencies; and
(B) appropriate law enforcement agencies for potential law
enforcement action.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.
(a) Technical Correction Relating to Criminal Forfeiture
Procedures.--Section 982(b)(1) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows: ``(1) The forfeiture of
property under this section, including any seizure and
disposition of the property and any related judicial or
administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the
provisions of section 413 (other than subsection (d) of that
section) of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853).''.
(b) Economic Espionage and Theft of Trade Secrets as
Predicate Offenses For Wire Interception.--Section 2516(1)(a)
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
``chapter 90 (relating to protection of trade secrets),''
after ``to espionage),''.
SEC. 7. REDACTION OF ETHICS REPORTS FILED BY JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.
Section 105(b) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3)(A) This section does not require the immediate and
unconditional availability of reports filed by an individual
described in section 109(8) or 109(10) of this Act if a
finding is made by the Judicial Conference, in consultation
with United States Marshall Service, that revealing personal
and sensitive information could endanger that individual.
``(B) A report may be redacted pursuant to this paragraph
only--
``(i) to the extent necessary to protect the individual who
filed the report; and
``(ii) for as long as the danger to such individual exists.
``(C) The Administrative Office of the United States Courts
shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives and of the Senate an annual report with
respect to the operation of this paragraph including--
``(i) the total number of reports redacted pursuant to this
paragraph;
``(ii) the total number of individuals whose reports have
been redacted pursuant to this paragraph; and
``(iii) the types of threats against individuals whose
reports are redacted, if appropriate.
``(D) The Judicial Conference, in consultation with the
Department of Justice, shall issue regulations setting forth
the circumstances under which redaction is appropriate under
this paragraph and the procedures for redaction.
``(E) This paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2001, and
apply to filings through calendar year 2001.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
General Leave
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 4151, the Identity Theft and Assumption
Deterrence Act of 1998, amends the fraud chapter of title 18 of the
United States Code to create a new crime prohibiting the unlawful use
of personal identifying information, such as names, Social Security
numbers and credit card numbers. This bill was introduced by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and originally cosponsored by a
number of Members from both sides of the aisle.
Madam Speaker, identity fraud involves the misappropriation of
another person's personal identifying information. Criminals use this
information to establish credit in their name, run up debts on the
another person's account, or take over existing financial accounts.
According to a 1998 GAO study, the consequences of this crime are
enormous. One national credit union reported that two-thirds of the
500,000 annual consumer inquiries it receives involve identity fraud.
MasterCard has reported that its member banks lose almost $400 million
annually to identity theft. The Secret Service, which investigates only
a small portion of identity theft cases under the existing wire and
mail fraud statutes, reported that cases it investigated in 1997
involved over $745 million in losses.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, only a portion of identity fraud cases
are investigated and prosecuted. At present, while the use of false
identity documents is a crime, the gathering, use and sale of personal
identifying information is not. Because of this gap in the law, law
enforcement agencies can only investigate the fraud that occurs after
stolen identity information is used, and as many of these individual
crimes involve relatively small amounts, they are often too small to
justify the use of valuable investigative and prosecutorial resources.
The Secret Service has informed the Committee on the Judiciary that
if the transfer of personal identifiers were a crime, they would be
able to prosecute those persons who traffic in this information and in
many cases prevent the fraud that is later committed by those who buy
this information from those who sell it.
H.R. 4151 gives law enforcement agencies the authority to investigate
these crimes. It amends section 1029 of title 18 to make it a crime to
unlawfully transfer or use a means of personal identification.
I want to point out that only an unlawful use or transfer is
prohibited. The statute will still allow banks, credit card companies
and credit bureaus to conduct their business as they always have.
This bill is similar to a bill that passed the other body by
unanimous consent. It is supported by a number of groups including Visa
USA, the American Bankers Association, the American Society for
Industrial Security, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the
Electronic Privacy Information Center. I particularly again want to
thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for his leadership
[[Page H9995]]
in this important area, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the
bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise to support this legislation, but offer some reservations in
the process. H.R. 4151, the identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence
Act, was never considered by the House Committee on the Judiciary. I
might add that this failure in process is not the most appropriate way
to meet our legislative responsibilities.
Nevertheless, I will say that if there is ever extreme hardship on a
person, it is their loss of identity, Social Security, theft of their
credit cards through the mail system, and other intrusions on their
privacy.
{time} 1045
We can always be reminded of the gasp of the individual who has found
out that, unfortunately, they have left a litany of debts, because
someone has either taken their credit cards or other identifying
features, found their check numbers, and devastated their bank account.
Identity theft is a very important problem that deserves our
attention. Billions of dollars were stolen by identity thieves when
they steal account numbers, identification documents, and social
security numbers. For our elderly, it is most devastating. Ofttimes it
takes a long, frustrating time and thousands of dollars in legal fees
for people to reconcile credit problems caused by identity thieves. In
fact, Members will find that their credit may have been devastated,
their credit record, before they can even determine that something has
happened.
Our current Federal criminal code is inadequate in addressing these
high-tech crimes. Unfortunately, our credit reporting laws and their
lack of accountability and responsible consumer protection are as
responsible for these identity theft problems as a thief's running
credit card scams. We also have a responsibility to address these
serious concerns.
I have expressed my reservations about the process, but I will be
supporting this bill. But I do ask that we continue our work in this
area by addressing related problems in credit reporting and consumer
protection.
H.R. 4151, the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, was
never considered by the House Judiciary Committee. This failure in
process is not the most appropriate way to meet our legislative
responsibilities.
Identity theft is a very important problem that deserves our
attention. Billions of dollars are stolen by identity thieves when they
steal account numbers, identification documents and social security
numbers. It oft times takes a long frustrating time and thousands of
dollars in legal fees for people to reconcile credit problems caused by
identity thieves. Our current federal criminal code is inadequate in
addressing these high tech crimes.
Unfortunately, our credit reporting laws and their lack of
accountability and responsible consumer protection are as responsible
for these identity theft problems as the thieves running credit care
scams. We also have a responsibility to address these serious concerns.
Despite my reservations about the process, I will support this bill.
But, I ask that we continue our work in this area by addressing related
problems in credit reporting and consumer protection.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the prime author of this bill.
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4151, the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998.
Let me begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Florida
(Mr. McCollum), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, for his strong
support of this legislation, and the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for
his support, as well.
I also want to thank my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle.
As Members will hear tonight, many have worked very hard to secure
passage of this legislation, and it is indeed truly bipartisan.
I also, most importantly, want to thank two of my own constituents,
Bob and JoAnn Hartle, of Phoenix, Arizona, who were themselves victims
of identity theft. They took this tragedy in their lives and turned it
into a positive experience by becoming instrumental in passing the
first State law in the Nation to criminalize identity theft, and by
becoming instrumentally involved in passing this legislation.
Mr. and Mrs. Hartle suffered the devastation of identity theft when a
convicted felon took Mr. Hartle's identity and then went out and made
purchases totaling over $110,000. With Mr. Hartle's identity, this
individual obtained a social security card, a driver's license,
numerous bank accounts, and credit cards, and did even more. He bought,
as a matter of fact, trucks, motorcycles, mobile homes, and appliances,
but, incredibly, it did not stop there.
Using Mr. Hartle's identity, he obtained a security clearance from
the Federal Aviation Administration to secure areas of Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport, and beyond that, he used Mr. Hartle's
service record in Vietnam to obtain a Federal home loan and,
stunningly, he used Mr. Hartle's clean record to go around the Brady
gun law, and this previously-convicted felon obtained handguns through
his theft of Mr. Hartle's identification.
Mr. and Mrs. Hartle, as a result of this victimization, were forced
to spend more than 4 years of their lives and more than $15,000 of
their own money just restoring their credit and reestablishing their
good name, because at the time that these acts occurred, there were no
criminal penalties for this conduct. The Hartles were left with no
meaningful remedy whatsoever.
Ultimately the individual involved was caught and prosecuted,
interestingly, for making a false statement to procure a firearm. He
was sentenced in 1995 and served a brief period of time, having been
released earlier this year. Most importantly, he was not required to
and he did not make restitution to the Hartles.
Tragically, the Hartles' story is far from unique, as I am sure we
will hear tonight. Identity theft is the fastest growing financial
crime in America. It is one of the fastest growing crimes of any kind
in America. There are thousands of Americans victimized by this conduct
every day.
Indeed, I think, to the surprise of all of us involved in
cosponsoring this legislation, after its introduction we were contacted
by hundreds of our constituents who have come forward and told their
own stories of victimization, including numerous Capitol Hill staffers
who have been victimized by this conduct.
Identity theft ranges from individual instances, like the Hartles',
involving sometimes small dollar amounts and sometimes large dollar
amounts, all the way to large organized professional crime rings
involving multiple States and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Indeed, one such crime ring established a fictitious home improvement
company and then a credit bureau account, and using that credit bureau
account and a computer link, downloaded over 500 credit reports, and
then, using that information, stole more than $250,000 from an array of
victims.
Incredibly, because there were no laws punishing this conduct, the
leader of the ring could only be charged with the crime of breach of
computer security. He was sentenced to only 2 years of probation, no
jail time, and fined just $500 for the theft of over $250,000. These,
sadly, are just two examples of the thousands, no, tens of thousands,
of identity thefts that occur each year.
H.R. 4151 is critically needed to punish this kind of conduct, which
wreaks far-ranging emotional and personal financial damage on its
victims. It is also needed to deter those who are tempted to engage in
this conduct in the future.
In 1996, Arizona became the first State to enact criminal penalties
for this conduct, and this year seven additional States also enacted
criminal statutes for this conduct: California, Colorado, Georgia,
Kansas, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.
H.R. 4151 complements these State laws already in place. It also,
most importantly, provides Federal law enforcement officials,
particularly the Secret Service, with the tools to prosecute and
prevent identity theft.
In testimony before the Congress, the U.S. Secret Service testified
that under
[[Page H9996]]
current law, `` * * * law enforcement must wait for an overt fraudulent
act or creation of a fraudulent document before it can intercede in a
case * * * involving identity {theft . Establishing identity theft as a
criminal violation would enable law enforcement to prevent the fraud
before it starts. It would'', in the Secret Service's words, ``be a
proactive answer to what is now being handled in a reactive manner.''
To understand the dimension of this activity, we simply have to look
at one national credit bureau, where in 1997, over two-thirds of the
reports to that credit bureau were about identity theft, a total of
over 300,000 reports in one year. The cost of this activity is
monumental to victims, to financial institutions, and to taxpayers.
Those costs have skyrocketed this year more than $2 billion.
H.R. 4151 prohibits the transfer and use of personal identification
information such as a person's personal name, their home address, their
social security number, and other information to acquire the
individual's identity. It will enable law enforcement to investigate
and apprehend these crimes before they occur, before the individual has
obtained credit cards, checking accounts, home loans, or purchased
vehicles, furniture, or appliances, or even handguns, or, in the case
of Bob Hartle, obtained security passes to go to secure areas.
This is incredibly important and critical legislation which will
prevent thousands of dollars of financial loss in the future. More
importantly, it will prevent future victims from having to endure the
months, perhaps even years, of trying to clear their credit and reclaim
their good names.
Identity theft is a critically important crime. This is essential
needed legislation. It enacts stiff penalties for identity theft and
even stiffer penalties for trafficking in someone's identity when the
offense is connected with drug offenses or violent crimes.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which has truly
bipartisan support.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I would add my appreciation to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg) for his good work. There are so many people this kind of
identity theft impacts, and certainly I want to acknowledge the Members
on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), who had great interest and
worked very hard on this.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), who was very instrumental and worked long months and
years to bring this legislation to this point.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for
yielding time to me.
I am grateful for the rapid work the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
McCollum) and the Committee on the Judiciary did to bring this
important legislation to the floor. I was very pleased to have the
opportunity to work with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), and the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) on creating what is a new and improved and a bipartisan
piece of legislation to combat identity fraud.
I rise in support of the McCollum substitute amendment to H.R. 4151,
the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, which makes technical
modifications to the bill.
As Members have heard from my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Shadegg), identity theft is growing. It is a harmful crime. It
hurts the economy, it destroys consumer credit, and it places a burden
on consumers to keep their identities under lock and key.
It took a nightmare story from my own constituent, Denice, and Denice
does not want her last name known because she continues to be
frightened by what has happened to her and her family, to bring the
issue of identity fraud to my attention.
Denice contacted me 2 years ago and told me her story. Thieves had
used her stolen identification to access credit in her name in Rhode
Island and again in Utah. The thieves made more than $2,000 in
purchases and rented several apartments.
Denice has worked for more than 2 years to clear her good name and
credit through multiple contacts with credit reporting agencies and an
attorney. This identity fraud case has cost her a tremendous amount of
time and huge sums of money.
{time} 2300
The identity thief who stole her identity is continuing to use her
identification to access credit in her name. In response to her case,
and numerous other similar stories brought to my attention, I
introduced the Identity Piracy Act to fight identity fraud.
Today, I am pleased to join forces with my colleagues to pass the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act that incorporates
important changes from the Identity Piracy Act. The bill incorporates
language from my identity fraud bill that eliminates the dollar
threshold making identity fraud a Federal crime. Under other identity
fraud legislation, a thief had to steal both a victim's identity and
$1,000. The new bill will ensure that the theft of identity is a crime,
with enhanced penalties for stealing credit, for drug trafficking, and
for violent crimes.
Identity fraud is a crime that leaves unsuspecting victims open to
years of frustration and debt while they try to clear their credit. It
exposes financial institutions, insurers, and consumers to financial
losses from stolen credit and other fraud.
The base of support for passing this legislation is universal.
Consumer groups, financial service institutions, and privacy rights
groups all support this legislation. And the chairman identified a
number of those groups.
Although ultimately the best weapon to stop crime is awareness and
prevention, the new legislation that we are voting on tomorrow will be
another weapon in the arsenal in the fight against identity fraud, and
I am delighted and pleased and proud to join forces with my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to pass this piece of legislation.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. McCollum) chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), and I rise in strong support of this bill, a
piece of legislation which, when discussed, may seem like something
directly from the Sci-Fi Channel when someone would discuss theft of an
identity and the assumption of that identity. One would think that was
something far off in the future, but in many cases in these pieces of
legislation the anecdotes we have heard, some of them come very close
to home.
In fact, earlier this spring, my district scheduler back in
southwestern Indiana, Erica, experienced this very phenomenon. A person
in Michigan had purchased information such as social security numbers
and family information of Erica. The imposter then ordered a credit
report to learn her credit status. After learning that status, and
armed with that information, the perpetrator went on a 2-day spending
spree, opened numerous charge accounts as Erica, and purchased in
excess of $5,000 in goods, including the purchase of a cell phone.
The individual was caught only when a clerk noticed that the imposter
hesitated at providing certain information and the credit card company
called my district scheduler to verify it.
Madam Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that is very timely,
very important, not only to the individuals that are directly impacted
by it, but our economy as a whole. I commend the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Shadegg) for his work on this very needed piece of bipartisan
legislation, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Madam Speaker, with that let me add my appreciation
for all who have worked so hard on this legislation. It is about time
we protect innocent victims of identity theft and assumption.
Deterrence is very important, and I would hope our colleagues would
support it.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H9997]]
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the explanatory
statement on the substitute amendment to this bill:
Explanatory Statement of Rep. Bill McCollum on the Substitute Amendment
to H.R. 4151
The substitute amendment to H.R. 4151 is very similar in
substance, and identical in intent, to H.R. 4151 as it was
introduced by Mr. Shadegg. The amendment modifies the bill so
that its language will be similar to the text of S. 512, a
bill on this same subject that passed in the other body by
unanimous consent. The text of S. 512, as passed by the other
body, incorporated amendments to the Senate bill that were
suggested by the Justice Department.
There are four substantive changes accomplished by the
substitute amendment. First, the substitute requires the
government to prove that the person who unlawfully transfers
or uses a means of identification of another person did so
with the intent to commit, or aid and abet, a violation of
federal law or any state felony. As introduced, the bill did
not require that the government prove the intent behind a
defendant's transfer or use of another's identifying
information. Second, as amended, the bill deletes the mere
possession of personal identifying information from the
offense and requires that the government prove an unlawful
use or transfer to another person of the personal information
in order to prove the crime.
Third, the House bill as introduced differentiated between
transferring the information and using it when determining
whether a crime had been committed. It required that the
government prove that a defendant transferred five or more
means of identification in order to prove the crime had been
committed. The substitute amendment eliminates this
distinction. I believe that allowing even one person's
identity to be sold to another person unlawfully should be
punished. We need not wait until the criminal has jeopardized
the financial security of five or more people before we act
to stop him.
Fourth, the substitute amends the penalty for committing
this new crime in conjunction with a violent crime from that
originally set forth in the bill. The substitute will make
this penalty the same as that for committing the new crime in
conjunction with a drug trafficking crime, thus continuing
the usual practice of punishing acts related to violent
crimes and serious drug crimes in a similar manner.
The substitute also amends the Ethics in Government Act
provision dealing with the release to the public of financial
disclosure statements filed by federal judges. The substitute
amendment will allow for some of the personal information in
those filings to be redacted when they are released to the
public if threats have been made against the judges who have
filed those statements.
Finally, the substitute also makes two purely technical
amendments to previously enacted statutes.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act and I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of this legislation. In order to clearly demonstrate
the need for this bill, let me lay out a frightening scenario that
could happen to any of us.
Imagine getting a bill from a credit card company for thousands of
dollars that you didn't charge. Then, the next day, getting several
more bills from other credit card companies, and getting overdue phone
bills for an address you never lived at, and getting an invoice for a
car you never bought. This sounds like something out of the Twilight
Zone, but this nightmare is real. Someone, perhaps someone living in a
country on the other side of the globe, has stolen your name, your
financial history, your identity, and used it to run up huge debts--
debts creditors want you to pay.
Once your identity has been ``stolen,'' you must now spend many hours
on the phone with credit card companies trying to clear up these
misunderstandings. You may spend many months or even years with the
three major credit bureaus trying to clear up your credit record, and
you may find yourself having trouble getting a loan or a mortgage.
If someone with a prior criminal record assumes an individual's
identity and is using that person's name, the victim can be denied jobs
without knowing why. And, if the victim's credit is in disarray due to
identity theft, an innocent consumer can be turned down for a car loan
or mortgage.
You may spend the rest of your life worrying if this nightmare will
happen again. But the worst part is that even if you or the law
enforcement community knows who has committed this act against you,
there is currently no law to punish the offender or to provide you with
any compensation for all you've been through.
Current federal law only prohibits the misuse of false identification
documents. But with the growth of information that can be found on the
Internet, identity thieves don't need an actual document. They can go
on-line and find or purchase your Social Security number, unlisted
address and phone number, and date of birth, which are often the key
pieces of information to unlocking the door to your personal financial
history.
According to law enforcement authorities, identity theft is one of
the nation's fastest growing crimes, and it's a crime federal
authorities need help to combat. A recent GAO study reports that at one
of the nation's 3 largest credit bureaus, victim inquiries rose from
35,000 in 1992 to 522,000 in 1997. That's a 15-fold increase. The
Social Security Administration reported that complaints about stolen
Social Security numbers, one of the most commonly stolen identifiers,
doubled from 1996 to 1997. The U.S. Secret Service, which has
jurisdiction over financial crimes, estimates that actual losses due to
identity theft were $745 million last year.
We need to discourage this intrusion of privacy by making it a
federal crime to take over someone's identity. In order to protect
Americans from this financially and emotionally devastating crime,
Reps. Shadegg, DeLauro, Clement, and I introduced H.R. 4151, the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. This needed legislation
will make it a federal crime to assume someone else's identity. It also
establishes a clearinghouse at the Federal Trade Commission for
identity theft victims to get assistance in clearing their credit
records. The bill allows victims of identity theft to receive
restitution from the criminals who steal their identity. Previously,
they were not entitled to restitution because identity theft was not a
crime.
American consumers deserve to have their privacy protected. Identity
theft can affect anyone at any time. We need to pass the Identity Theft
and Assumption Deterrence Act to not only throw these identity thieves
in jail, but also to give victims help with cleaning up their own
credit records.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R.
4151, the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. The measure
would establish tough penalties for the crime, as well as direct the
Federal Trade Commission to log reports of identity theft, provide
information to victims, and refer complaints to appropriate law
enforcement agencies.
Identity theft is one of the fastest-growing financial crimes, with
reports of 2,000 cases occurring each week. Credit-card fraud losses--
the major financial loss in personal-identity thefts--amount to as much
as $2 billion a year. The act is called identity theft, yet it is not
illegal. The notion that someone can steal your personal information
and essentially pretend to be you without penalty is frightening.
I was first acquainted with this growing problem when one of my
staffers became a victim of identity theft. The story my staffer told
me was incredible. Someone stole her name and social security number to
open up eight credit card accounts and charged over $17,000 in her
name. This thief switched my staffer's phone service and opened two
cellular phone accounts. This imposter even had a government agency
identification badge forged with my staff's name, social security
number, and address on it.
But the most incredible part of the story is that my staffer had
absolutely no recourse. The only crime committed, she was told by
police, was against the stores where the thief had charged merchandise.
There is another story of a woman in my home State of Tennessee, Mrs.
Conjohna Mixon, who was actually arrested and sent to jail because
someone had stolen her identity and had written worthless checks on a
phony account. This innocent woman was even brought into court with leg
shackles. After her release, she had to endure hours of paperwork and
spend personal time and money because she was a victim. And the
nightmare didn't end. Two months later, local authorities were still
threatening this innocent woman with arrest on more bad check warrants.
One of my constituents, Mr. Paul White, wrote me a letter describing
how someone had stolen the identify of his 18-year-old son, setting up
a bank account in Colorado and issuing fraudulent checks. Mr. White
made the following statement:
As I do a great deal of legal work representing a local
bank, I am well aware of the increasing incidence of identity
fraud in this country and the necessity for federal
legislation to outlaw this type of fraudulent activity.
The people who are being victimized have no recourse under law and
must sacrifice their own time and money to repair the wrongdoings of
others against them. This system is not fair, and that is why I urge
immediate passage of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.
In addition, I call on my colleagues to continue to monitor this crime,
so that we can be sure that no future identity theft goes unpunished,
and that every victim is served by the law.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker. It's been called the crime that isn't a
crime. How can that be? Ask Jessica Grant, a Wisconsin woman whose
identity was stolen through use of her Social Security number. Her name
was used by a
[[Page H9998]]
thief to buy two cars and a mobile home. Under her name, the thief
racked up $60,000 in fraudulent charges. Yet, there was no federal law
to protect her.
Or, ask the thousands of consumers across the country whose names,
Social Security numbers, and personal credit information are pilfered
every day. This ``crime that isn't a crime'' cost consumers $745
million in 1997, according to a recent GAO report I requested.
While Jessica Grant and thousands of individuals have indeed been
violated, current federal law provides protections only for lenders and
credit card companies.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this legislation. Today, there
is no standard definition of identity theft. There are no fines. No
prison penalties. No protections for people like Jessica Grant. In
short, ID theft is not a crime.
Passage of this legislation addresses two critical aspects of
identity theft. First the bill would authorize the FTC to acknowledge
and log reports of this new--and rapidly expanding--category of crime.
At last, we will learn about the real impact identity theft.
Second, the bill clearly defines ID theft. People like Jessica Grant
and prosecutors across the country can pursue these thieves and lock
`em up.
While HR 4151 is a positive step there is much more work to be done
to thwart this growth industry in crime.
Under my bill, HR 1813, the Personal Information Privacy Act, the
sale or purchase of a person's personal credit information without the
express written consent of the owner would be explicitly prohibited. My
bill, which I will re-introduce in the 106th Congress, also prohibits
the use of Social Security numbers as a condition of doing business.
Mr. Speaker, with these two bills we at long last will have the one-
two punch needed to strike back at identity thieves.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4151, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________