PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 21, 1997
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal criminal code to provide penalties against any person who knowingly, and with intent to deceive or defraud, obtains, uses, or attempts to obtain or use one or more means of identification other than that lawfully issued to such person. Authorizes the U.S. Secret Service to investigate such offenses. Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to provide sentencing enhancements in connection with such offenses in relation to the number of victims involved. Provides forfeiture and restitution requirements with respect to such offense. Directs the Secret Service to collect and maintain specified information concerning identity fraud cases. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to study and report to the Congress on the nature and extent of identity fraud as well its threat to financial institutions and payment systems and consumer safety and privacy.
People & committees
Sen. Kyl, Jon [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9501-9504)
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 105-274. Additional views filed.
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 105-274. Additional views filed.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 460.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, Government. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 105-779.
Referred to Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, Government.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2741-2742)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.512 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.512 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.512 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.512 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.