Topeka ? Senators reacted with skepticism Monday to a bill aimed at combatting identity theft, even though the measure passed the House unanimously last year.

The measure would make it a misdemeanor to steal someone’s identity but not cause the victim direct economic harm. Current law says identity theft involves an intent to defraud “for economic benefit.”

Supporters contend the law makes it difficult to prosecute people who steal someone’s identity to obtain employment, or when someone gains access to another person’s credit but doesn’t stick the victim with a bill.

However, the Senate Judiciary Committee took no action on the bill Monday after hearing testimony.

“I think there are some problems with the way the bill is drafted,” said committee Chairman John Vratil, R-Leawood.

Vratil questioned why one form of identity theft would be a misdemeanor, while one that resulted in economic loss would be a felony. Also, he said the bill’s legal definitions may not be clear enough.

Another committee member, Sen. Ed Pugh, questioned whether the bill is even necessary. He said Kansas law already makes it a crime to forge documents or signatures, submit a false document to someone else or to commit fraud.

“Tell me where there can be an identity theft without making a false writing, without forgery or without an intent to deprive,” said Pugh, R-Wamego.

But Rep. Peggy Long-Mast, the bill’s sponsor, said judges sometimes do not think a crime has been committed until a victim has suffered a big financial loss.

“The intent is to allow for earlier intervention, before people suffer great economic losses,” said Long-Mast, R-Madison.

Assistant Attorney General Kyle Smith, a special Kansas Bureau of Investigation agent who also represents the Kansas Peace Officers Association, said the bill would allow prosecutors to crack down on people who steal identities to obtain employment. He also said it would help in cases where a terrorist assumes a false identity.

But Vratil asked Smith to provide examples of district court cases in which a judge required a victim to suffer an economic loss for a prosecution for identity theft to go forward. Smith said he would have to research the question and get back to the committee.