[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13667-13671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 IDENTITY THEFT PENALTY ENHANCEMENT ACT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 1731) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
establish penalties for aggravated identity theft, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1731

       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 Penalty 
     Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after section 1028, the following:

     ``Sec. 1028A. Aggravated identity theft

       ``(a) Offenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever, during and in relation to any 
     felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly 
     transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a 
     means of identification of another person shall, in addition 
     to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a 
     term of imprisonment of 2 years.
       ``(2) Terrorism offense.--Whoever, during and in relation 
     to any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), 
     knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful 
     authority, a means of identification of another person or a 
     false identification document shall, in addition to the 
     punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term 
     of imprisonment of 5 years.
       ``(b) Consecutive Sentence.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       ``(1) a court shall not place on probation any person 
     convicted of a violation of this section;
       ``(2) except as provided in paragraph (4), no term of 
     imprisonment imposed on a person under this section shall run 
     concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on 
     the person under any other provision of law, including any 
     term of imprisonment imposed for the felony during which the 
     means of identification was transferred, possessed, or used;
       ``(3) in determining any term of imprisonment to be imposed 
     for the felony during which the means of identification was 
     transferred, possessed, or used, a court shall not in any way 
     reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to 
     compensate for, or otherwise take into account, any separate 
     term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation 
     of this section; and

[[Page 13668]]

       ``(4) a term of imprisonment imposed on a person for a 
     violation of this section may, in the discretion of the 
     court, run concurrently, in whole or in part, only with 
     another term of imprisonment that is imposed by the court at 
     the same time on that person for an additional violation of 
     this section, provided that such discretion shall be 
     exercised in accordance with any applicable guidelines and 
     policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission 
     pursuant to section 994 of title 28.
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `felony violation enumerated in subsection (c)' means any 
     offense that is a felony violation of--
       ``(1) section 641 (relating to theft of public money, 
     property, or rewards), section 656 (relating to theft, 
     embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee), 
     or section 664 (relating to theft from employee benefit 
     plans);
       ``(2) section 911 (relating to false personation of 
     citizenship);
       ``(3) section 922(a)(6) (relating to false statements in 
     connection with the acquisition of a firearm);
       ``(4) any provision contained in this chapter (relating to 
     fraud and false statements), other than this section or 
     section 1028(a)(7);
       ``(5) any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to 
     mail, bank, and wire fraud);
       ``(6) any provision contained in chapter 69 (relating to 
     nationality and citizenship);
       ``(7) any provision contained in chapter 75 (relating to 
     passports and visas);
       ``(8) section 523 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 
     6823) (relating to obtaining customer information by false 
     pretenses);
       ``(9) section 243 or 266 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1253 and 1306) (relating to willfully failing 
     to leave the United States after deportation and creating a 
     counterfeit alien registration card);
       ``(10) any provision contained in chapter 8 of title II of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1321 et seq.) 
     (relating to various immigration offenses); or
       ``(11) section 208, 811, 1107(b), 1128B(a), or 1632 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408, 1011, 1307(b), 1320a-
     7b(a), and 1383a) (relating to false statements relating to 
     programs under the Act).''.
       (b) Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections 
     for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1028 the 
     following new item:

``1028A. Aggravated identity theft.''.

       (c) Application of Definitions From Section 1028.--Section 
     1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``and section 1028A'' after ``In this section''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING IDENTITY THEFT PROHIBITION.

       Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(7)--
       (A) by striking ``transfers'' and inserting ``transfers, 
     possesses,''; and
       (B) by striking ``abet,'' and inserting ``abet, or in 
     connection with,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(D), by striking ``transfer'' and 
     inserting ``transfer, possession,'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``three years'' and 
     inserting ``5 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting after ``facilitate'' 
     the following: ``an act of domestic terrorism (as defined 
     under section 2331(5) of this title) or''.

     SEC. 4. AGGREGATION OF VALUE FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 641.

       The penultimate paragraph of section 641 of title 18 of the 
     United States Code is amended by inserting ``in the 
     aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which 
     the defendant is convicted in a single case,'' after ``value 
     of such property'' .

     SEC. 5. DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section 
     994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance 
     with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall review and amend its guidelines and its policy 
     statements to ensure that the guideline offense levels and 
     enhancements appropriately punish identity theft offenses 
     involving an abuse of position.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the United 
     States Sentencing Commission shall do the following:
       (1) Amend U.S.S.G. section 3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of 
     Trust of Use of Special Skill) to apply to and punish 
     offenses in which the defendant exceeds or abuses the 
     authority of his or her position in order to obtain 
     unlawfully or use without authority any means of 
     identification, as defined section 1028(d)(4) of title 18, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives, other sentencing guidelines, and statutory 
     provisions.
       (3) Make any necessary and conforming changes to the 
     sentencing guidelines.
       (4) Ensure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes 
     of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, 
     United States Code.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       In addition to any other sums authorized to be appropriated 
     for this purpose, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Department of Justice, for the investigation and 
     prosecution of identity theft and related credit card and 
     other fraud cases constituting felony violations of law, 
     $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $2,000,000 for each of 
     the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1731, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to 
refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and 
uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or 
deception, typically for economic or other gain including immigration 
benefits.
  The Federal Trade Commission received 161,819 complaints of someone 
using another's information in 2002. In 2003 the FTC performed a random 
sampling of households. The results from the survey suggest that almost 
10 million Americans were the victim of some form of ID theft within 
the last year, which means that despite all of the attention to this 
type of crime since September 11, 2001, the incidence of this crime is 
increasing.
  As border security and international cooperation increases to combat 
terrorism, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations increasingly turn 
to stolen identities to hide themselves from law enforcement. For 
example, according to testimony from the Inspector General of the 
Social Security Administration, five Social Security numbers associated 
with some of the September 11 terrorists appeared to be counterfeit. 
One was assigned to a child and four of the terrorists were associated 
with multiple Social Security numbers.

                              {time}  1615

  Since September 11, 2001, Federal and State officials have taken 
notice of this crime because of the potential threat to security. But 
the cost to the consumer and corporations is equally alarming. The FTC 
estimates that loss to business and financial institutions from 
identity theft to be $47.6 billion per year. The costs to individual 
consumers is estimated to be approximately $5 billion a year.
  As this crime increases, we must find new ways to combat it. Web 
sites developed by the FTC and consumer groups encourage consumers to 
protect themselves by shredding mail and keeping a close watch over 
their credit report. Yet the FTC statistics suggest that identity 
thieves are obtaining an individual's personal information for misuse 
not only through ``dumpster diving'' but also through accessing 
information that was originally collected for an authorized purpose, a 
so-called ``insider threat.''
  In one such case, U.S. attorneys charged a 33-year-old customer 
service representative from Long Island, New York with identity theft 
and fraud. This individual was using his position at a company that 
provided computer services to banks and lending companies to access 
personal consumer credit information from three credit reporting 
agencies. The scheme allowed him to access personal information of over 
30,000 victims.
  The insider threat from identity theft and identity fraud is a threat 
to personal security as well as national security. The U.S. Attorney in 
Atlanta charged 28 people as a part of a fraud ring to supply over 
1,900 individuals with fraudulent Social Security cards. The cards were 
supplied by a Social Security Administration clerk in exchange for 
$70,000 in payoffs.
  Under current law, many identity thieves are receiving short terms of 
imprisonment or probation; however, many of these thieves will use 
false identities to commit much more serious crimes. Thus H.R. 1731 
provides enhanced penalties for persons who steal identities to commit 
terrorist acts, immigration violations, firearms offenses,

[[Page 13669]]

and other serious crimes. The bill would amend current law to impose a 
higher maximum penalty for identity theft used to facilitate acts of 
terrorism.
  This legislation will allow prosecutors to identify identity thieves 
who steal an identity, sometimes hundreds or even thousands of 
identities, for purposes of committing one or more crimes. Importantly, 
it will facilitate the prosecution of terrorists who steal identities 
with the intent of subsequently committing terrorists acts. It also 
directs the Sentencing Commission to apply the guidelines for abuse of 
trust to an insider who uses his position to steal identities.
  I support this common sense legislation and urge my colleagues to 
join me in its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1731. Although I agree with 
the purpose of the bill, my position is based on the reliance in the 
bill of mandatory minimum sentencing. By adding mandatory minimum 
sentencing and denying probation and concurrent sentences, the bill 
imposes unnecessary and unproductive restrictions on the ability of the 
Sentencing Commission and judges, in individual cases, to assure a 
rational and just system of sentencing as a whole and for individuals.
  The notion that Congress is in a better position to determine at the 
front end what the sentence has to be for an individual case than the 
judge who has heard the case and applies guidelines established by the 
sentencing professionals not only defeats the rational sentencing 
system that Congress adopted but also makes no sense in our separation 
of powers scheme of governance. Moreover, the notion of mandating a 2-
year or 5-year sentence to someone who is already willing to risk a 15-
year sentence is not likely to add any deterrence.
  Mandatory sentences do not work. They have been studied extensively 
and have been shown to be ineffective in preventing crime. They distort 
the sentencing process. They discriminate against minorities in their 
application, and they waste money. In a study report entitled 
``Mandatory Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key or the Taxpayers 
Money?'' The Rand Corporation concluded that mandatory minimum 
sentences were less effective than either discretionary sentencing or 
drug treatment in reducing drug-related crime and far more costly than 
either. The Judicial Conference of the United States has reiterated its 
opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing over a dozen times to 
Congress, noting that though sentences ``severely distort and damage 
the Federal sentencing system . . . undermine the Sentencing Guideline 
regimen'' established by Congress to promote fairness and 
proportionality,'' and ``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging 
charge and fact plea bargains.'' The U.S. Sentencing Commission 
indicated its opposition to the Senate bill, which is virtually 
identical to this bill, for similar reasons.
  Both the Judicial Center in its study report entitled ``The General 
Effects of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: a Longitudinal Study of 
Federal Sentences Imposed'' and the United States Sentencing Commission 
in its study entitled ``Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal 
Criminal Justice System'' found that minorities were substantially more 
likely than whites under comparable circumstances to receive mandatory 
minimum sentences. The Sentencing Commission also reflected that 
mandatory minimum sentences increased the disparity in sentencing of 
like offenders with no evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing had 
any more crime-reduction impact than discretionary sentences.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist has spoken often and loudly about these 
wasteful cost increases. One quote attributed to him says: ``Mandatory 
minimums are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended 
consequences.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is one good part of the bill, and that is an 
authorization for funding to investigate consumer credit card fraud 
cases. I introduced in the committee a newspaper report of an identity 
theft case in which a Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, was 
the victim. It involved about $800 worth of fraudulent credit card 
purchases. We checked with the FBI. No action is being taken on this 
case because of limitations on resources. That is not surprising 
because these cases often involve stolen credit cards with the card 
stolen in one jurisdiction, purchases made in another jurisdiction, a 
suspect living entirely somewhere else, and so the local place cannot 
effectively investigate these cases. They can be solved because there 
is usually a paper trail leading right back to the suspect, but it 
takes resources. Mandatory minimum sentences will do nothing in cases 
that are not investigated and not prosecuted, and this bill does 
provide funds to investigate and prosecute cases such as Senator 
Domenici's.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, because this bill primarily focuses on 
the narrow piece of the identity theft problem, much of which has 
nothing to do with consumer identity theft, through the discredited and 
ineffective and costly mechanism of mandatory minimum sentencing, I 
cannot support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the author and sponsor of 
H.R. 1731, the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, and appreciate 
the support of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) 
and the fact that he advanced this important legislation. I would also 
like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for his 
support as the lead co-sponsor on this bill.
  This legislation addresses the growing occurrences of identity theft. 
It will facilitate the prosecution of criminals who steal identities in 
order to commit felonies.
  Felonies arising from identity theft are a very serious problem. Four 
years in a row, the Federal Trade Commission has reported identity 
theft as the number one consumer-reported complaint filed with the 
Commission. More than 200,000 identity theft complaints were reported 
in 2003.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the mentions of ID theft are becoming all 
too commonplace. Just recently, last month, I believe, two brothers 
were convicted in Dallas of running an ID theft ring to buy luxury cars 
and obtain bank loans worth over $1 million, sometimes using the names 
of dead people. In Collin County, Texas, a former Texas driver's 
license bureau clerk pleaded guilty to selling ID cards to illegal 
immigrants using stolen information from immigration papers.
  Just as concerning, the trafficking of identities aids terrorist 
crimes. Terrorists can move more freely in the United States with 
illicit IDs, credit cards, and other documentation. Insufficient 
legislation and prosecution has allowed a situation to arise where 
identities are easy to steal without fear of reprisal. Last year, the 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned that would-be terrorists 
may try to use stolen IDs, uniforms, and vehicles to enter sensitive 
facilities in order to carry out an attack.
  The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act gives prosecutors greater 
power in convicting and sentencing identity theft. First, it creates a 
new separate crime of aggravated identity theft for any person who uses 
the identity of another person to commit certain felonies. It provides 
a separate sentence of 2 years for most felonies and 5 years for 
terror-related felonies is mandatory. It would run consecutively to any 
other sentences.
  Second, the bill lessens the burden prosecutors face when seeking 
convictions of aggravated identity theft. Under this bill, if a thief 
uses the stolen identity in connection with another Federal crime and 
the intent of the underlying Federal crime is proven, the prosecutor 
may not need to prove the intent to use the false identity in a crime.

[[Page 13670]]

  H.R. 1731 addresses the improper receipt that Social Security, 
Medicare, disability, veterans and other benefits by misuse of 
illegally obtained Social Security numbers. We have a responsibility to 
protect the benefit programs of the Social Security Administration from 
these identity thieves.
  This legislation also addresses a prevalent mode of identity theft 
which is committed by insiders of organizations who illegally use or 
transfer individuals' identifying information which has been entrusted 
to them. This is an increasing problem which we must protect all our 
consumers from. Last year Texas witnessed an example of this when a 
University of Texas student who was trusted with access to the 
University's database stole 55,000 Social Security numbers, including 
one of my staffers.
  A recent report by researchers at Michigan State University estimates 
about half of all identity crimes were the result of personal 
information being stolen from corporate databases. This legislation 
directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend its guidelines to 
appropriately punish ID theft offenses involving the abuse of a 
position.
  I urge my fellow colleagues to favorably support H.R. 1731. And, 
again, I thank the chairman for his support and the hard work of his 
staff on behalf of this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and a former assistant U.S. Attorney.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), our distinguished chairman; and the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), subcommittee Chair, for moving this 
legislation through the Committee on the Judiciary and onto the House 
floor.
  I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) in introducing this 
legislation in response to the plague of identity theft that has beset 
the country. Identity theft has now topped the list of consumer 
complaints filed with the FTC for the last 4 years in a row, impacting 
millions of Americans and costing consumers and businesses billions of 
dollars.
  My home State of California ranks number three in the number of 
victims of identity theft per capita with over 37,000 complaints 
reported by consumers, costing over $40 million just last year alone. 
Nationally, California cities crowd the top ten list of metropolitan 
areas with the highest per capita rates of identity theft reported. The 
Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area, which includes my district, 
is particularly prone to such crimes and ranks number two nationally 
with over 13,000 victims.
  A victim of identity theft usually spends a year and a half working 
to restore his or her identity and good name. Many of my constituents 
have contacted me. Many of my colleagues have heard similar urging that 
Congress act quickly and effectively to crack down on this growing 
epidemic. For this reason, I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Carter) in introducing the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, 
legislation that will make it easier for prosecutors to target those 
identity thieves who steal an identity for the purpose of committing 
other serious crimes. The bill will stiffen penalties to deter such 
offenses and strengthen the ability of law enforcement to go after 
identity thieves and prove their case.

                              {time}  1430

  Our legislation also makes changes to close a number of gaps 
identified in current Federal law. Identical legislation was introduced 
by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, passing by unanimous consent in the 
Senate in January of last year. H.R. 1731 has also been endorsed by the 
Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.
  I am very mindful of the reservations that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has expressed about mandatory 
minimums in general, and I share those concerns about the practice of 
mandatory minimums. I think my difference with the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) comes in where there are appropriate exceptions. 
In this case, I believe there is an appropriate exception, and I 
believe the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) believes this is not an 
appropriate case for an exception. But let me outline why I believe 
that this is an appropriate exceptional case.
  First, we have the epidemic nature of the crime, which rather than 
abate has merely grown and proliferated over the last several years.
  Second, because the enhanced penalties are reserved for aggravated 
identity theft, they must be committed in connection with other serious 
felony offenses. But since the underlying offense and the identity 
theft are generally merged for sentencing purposes, prosecutors have 
little incentive to charge identity theft. This current sentencing 
structure and practice is flawed because it does not reflect the impact 
on the victim, in addition to the impact and loss to the financial 
institution.
  I was pleased to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) as 
well as sponsors from the other body in order to make some additional 
improvements to the bill in committee. These improvements respond to 
specific concerns that were raised by the Social Security 
Administration. In addition, we respond to the ever-growing problem of 
insider theft. A peer review study will be coming out later this year 
that will show perhaps as much as 70 percent of identity theft cases 
are facilitated through the workplace.
  Homeland security concerns have certainly highlighted the need to 
protect against identity theft, given the potential ease with which a 
terrorist can assimilate to or move about in our society with stolen 
identity documents.
  In order total protect the good credit of hard-working Americans and 
their reputations and to protect the homeland, the time to strengthen 
the law is now. I also support the effort of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) to increase the resources for the enforcement of 
these laws. Merely increasing the deterrent value is not enough if the 
resources lag behind.
  I want to thank my colleague for all his efforts along those lines, 
and again want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for acting on this 
piece of legislation, and urge their support.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks 
and also for his hard work on this legislation. As I have indicated, I 
agree with the purpose of the legislation. However, I disagree with the 
use of the mandatory minimums.
  With mandatory minimums, low level offenders frequently get too much 
time. The more serious violators often get too little time. That is why 
we have the Sentencing Commission, that is why we have judges who will 
hear the evidence and impose the appropriate punishment in the 
individual case.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would reject the legislation so 
that we could eliminate the mandatory minimums.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the only opposition to this bill appears to come from 
those who are opposed in principle to mandatory minimum sentences. I 
think that opponents of mandatory minimums would have a much more 
compelling case if they could assure Congress that the judges are 
faithfully following the sentencing guidelines that were passed 20 
years ago at the time when Congress abolished parole and passed the law 
establishing determinant sentencing. Sadly, I am afraid the evidence 
does not support that.
  The most disturbing recent example of judges deciding to ignore the 
sentencing guideline's recommendations comes from Supreme Court justice 
Anthony Kennedy's testimony before a

[[Page 13671]]

House appropriations subcommittee in which he stated that judges who 
depart downward are courageous, and the judges should not have to 
blindly follow unjust guidelines.
  Now, Congress creates crimes, Congress prescribes the penalties for 
crimes, and the reason that there were sentencing guidelines passed to 
begin with was to prevent both prosecutors and defense counsel from 
shopping around for judges to try cases that met with their own 
particular views on what the sentence should be, should the defendant 
be convicted.
  Well, because of statements like Justice Kennedy's, we now have to 
have mandatory minimums when we feel the crime is important enough that 
somebody should at least spend a day in jail or more. That is why there 
are mandatory minimums in the bill that is before us that deals with 
identity theft and identity fraud.
  I would urge the House to reject the argument that mandatory minimums 
are bad per se. We need a mandatory minimum in this burgeoning crime. I 
urge support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 
1731, 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.

                          ____________________