Consular Identification Cards: Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation

CRS Report for Congress
Consular Identification Cards:
Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the
Mexican Case, and Related Legislation
Updated May 26, 2005
Andorra Bruno
Analyst in American National Government
Domestic Social Policy Division
K. Larry Storrs
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Consular Identification Cards:
Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications,
the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation
Summary
The current debate about consular identification cards in the United States has
centered around the matrícula consular, the consular identification card issued by
Mexican consulates to Mexican citizens in the United States. In May 2003, the
Treasury Department issued regulations allowing acceptance of the cards as proof of
identity for the purpose of opening a bank account, and the cards are accepted for
other purposes as well, including issuance of drivers licenses.
Consular identification cards raise issues for domestic policy and foreign policy.
With respect to domestic policy, supporters argue that acceptance of the cards is
necessary in a post-September 11, 2001 America, where photo identification is
required to conduct daily business. They maintain that the card is a secure and
fraud-resistant document that improves security and brings people into the open
financial community where transactions can be monitored more easily. Opponents
argue that the cards are not secure and are needed only by aliens who are illegally
present in the United States and serve to undermine U.S. immigration policy.
In the area of foreign policy, supporters maintain that U.S. acceptance of the
cards has improved bilateral relations with an important neighboring country. They
argue that the cards help U.S. officials to notify consulates of the detention of foreign
nationals and improve the likelihood that U.S. citizens will have the benefit of
consular notification. Opponents contend that regulation of the cards is necessary
to reinforce immigration policy and to defend against terrorism.
On February 10, 2005, the House passed H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005
that would, among other things, establish standards for the issuance of drivers’
licenses that would seem to preclude the acceptance of consular ID cards, The bill
includes provisions that require a determination that the applicant is lawfully present
in the United States and that specify that an official passport is the only acceptable
foreign identity document. This measure was attached by the House to the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005 (H.R. 1268) as Division B on
March 16, 2005. Following conference, H.R. 1268 was passed with the specified
provisions by the House and Senate in early May 2005, and it was signed into law
(P.L. 109-13) on May 11, 2005.
Last year, in November 2004, Congress passed the Transportation-Treasury
Appropriations for FY2005 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005
(H.R. 4818/P.L. 108-447), after restoring funding for Treasury Department
implementation of regulations permitting financial institutions to accept consular ID
cards as identity documents for banking purposes. In December 2004, Congress also
passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (S. 2845/P.L.
108-458), with requirements that the Secretary of Homeland Security propose
minimum standards for identification documents to be used by airline passengers and
minimal standards for the issuance of drivers’ licenses. This report will be updated
as legislative developments occur.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Evolution of the Matrícula Consular...................................1
Acceptance of the Matrícula Consular..................................2
Domestic Policy Implications........................................4
Immigration ..................................................5
Public Safety and Law Enforcement...............................5
Homeland Security.............................................7
Foreign Policy Implications..........................................7
Bilateral Relations.............................................7
Reciprocal Treatment...........................................9
Consular Notification...........................................9
Legislation in the 108^th Congress.....................................11
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards as Identity Documents
for Banking Purposes......................................11
Measure to Set Conditions on Foreign Mission Issuance
of Consular Identification Cards.............................13
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards as Identity Documents
by U.S. Federal Entities....................................14
Measure to Make Possession of a Consular Identification Card
Prima Facie Evidence that the Alien is Deportable...............16
Legislation in the 109^th Congress.....................................16
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards as Identity Documents
by Federal and State Entities................................17
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards as Identity Documents
for Banking Purposes......................................18

Consular Identification Cards:
Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications,
the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation
Introduction
It is fairly common practice for the embassies and consulates of foreign states,
including the United States, to encourage their citizens abroad to register with the
consulates so that they can receive standard consular services, be notified if
necessary, and be located upon inquiry by relatives and authorities. Consular
registration has been widely recognized and protected under international law for
many years, most recently by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.
The current debate about consular identification cards in the United States has
centered around the matrícula consular, the consular card issued by the Mexican
government to its citizens in the United States when they register with a consulate.
As a result, this report focuses mainly on the Mexican identification card, although
Guatemala, Ecuador, and Brazil also issue such cards, and other nations, including
El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, and Poland, are reportedly considering similar
programs. Legislation introduced in the 108^th and 109^th Congresses, discussed below,
would generally apply to consular identification cards from any country.
Evolution of the Matrícula Consular
According to Mexican officials, Mexico has been issuing consular identification
cards since 1871, but demand for the cards has grown dramatically in recent years.
The number of cards issued has increased significantly under the administration of
Mexican President Vicente Fox (2000-2006), who has emphasized service to citizens
abroad, and since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, when identity documents
became increasingly necessary in the United States.
Following the terrorist attacks in the United States, Mexico redesigned and
added new features to the matrícula consular to make it a more useful and secure
document. The new verison of the card, which the Mexican government calls the
“high security consular registration” (matrícula consular de alta seguridad, MCAS,¹
in Spanish), first became available in the United States in March 2002. Each of the
new cards has the photograph, name, signature, date and place of birth, and U.S.
address of the bearer, as well as a serial number, date of issue and expiration, and the

¹ See Government of Mexico, Most Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Matrícula
Consular (MCAS), July 19, 2004.

name of the issuing consulate. The cards have a number of security features that are
designed to make the cards tamper-proof and non-duplicable.²
According to Mexican officials, to obtain a matrícula consular card, an applicant
must appear in person and must present the following documentation: (1) a birth
certificate or other document demonstrating Mexican citizenship; (2) a document
with a picture demonstrating identity, such as a voter identification or a driver’s
license; and (3) proof of a local address in the United States, such as a utility bill.
The cards are issued for a five-year period upon payment of a $26 fee. In response
to past criticisms,³ a July 2004 document provided by the Mexican Embassy claims
that Mexico has developed a national database of passport and consular data that can
be used to prevent the issuance of duplicate and fraudulent cards. It also has the
ability to check the persons identity against the large Mexican voter registration
database and against a “stop list” of approximately 13,000 records of non-acceptable
persons, including fugitives or people who have attempted to use fake documents in
the past. According to Mexican officials, 2.2 million of the high security
identification cards were issued from March 6, 2002, to July 18, 2004. They estimate
that almost 4 million Mexicans in the United States have consular ID cards of the
older and newer versions. They note that by March of 2007 all of the old cards will
have expired and will have been replaced by the new high-security cards.
Acceptance of the Matrícula Consular
In recent years, Mexican consulates in the United States and other interested
parties have sought, with some success, to gain acceptance of the matrícula consular
as identification for a variety of purposes. According to the July 2004 white paper
provided by the Mexican Embassy, the matrícula consular is accepted as valid
identification in 377 cities, 163 counties, and 33 states, as well as 178 financial
institutions and 1,180 police departments in the United States. Additionally, 12
states recognize the card as one of the acceptable proofs of identity to obtain a
driver’s license. It is also accepted by numerous telephone and utility companies,
hospitals, and video stores, among other establishments.
Some entities, however, have decided against accepting the cards. Citing
security concerns, the New York City Police Department has declined to recognize

² The security features include that the plastic laminated cards are printed on special green
paper with the official Mexican seal, and have a one-of-a-kind Advantage Seal hologram of
the Foreign Affairs Ministry (SRE) that appears over the holder’s picture. Two additional
security features may be viewed under fluorescent light, while eight additional features are
visible only with special decoder equipment that has been distributed to local law
enforcement authorities.
³ See the statement of Steve McCraw, Office of Intelligence, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, who testified on June 26, 2003, before the Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security and Claims of the House Judiciary Committee that the matrícula consular
was not a reliable form of identification because the Mexican government had no centralized
database to prevent the issuance of duplicate cards, and that Mexican birth certificates and
other required documents were easily forged.

the matrícula consular. The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles has also
refused requests to add the matrícula consular to its list of acceptable identity
documents for obtaining a driver’s license. In Colorado, a recently enacted law states
that public entities can accept only identification documents that are issued by a state
or federal jurisdiction or that are recognized by the U.S. government.
At the federal level, the Treasury Department, along with other agencies, issued
final regulations on May 9, 2003, setting forth the identifying information that banks
had to obtain, at a minimum, from a customer prior to opening an account.⁴ Section
326 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (P.L. 107-56) directed the Treasury Department to
prescribe such regulations. Under the May 2003 regulations, the required customer
information includes an identification number. For non-U.S. persons, this
identification number can be one or more of four specified numbers, one being the
“number and country of issuance of [a] government-issued document evidencing
nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard.”⁵ The rule
became effective on June 9, 2003, and banks had to be in compliance by October 1,
2003. In an October 2002 report to Congress also mandated by Section 326 of the
Patriot Act, which referenced the regulations in proposed form, the Treasury
Department specifically addressed the matrícula consular. A footnote in the report
stated: “Thus, the proposed regulations do not discourage bank acceptance of the
‘matricula consular’ identity card that is being issued by the Mexican government to
immigrants.”⁶
Following publication of the final rule in May 2003, the Treasury Department
re-opened the question of accepting certain forms of foreign government-issued
identification to verify customer identity. On July 1, 2003, it published a notice of
inquiry in the Federal Register requesting additional input on this issue and
recordkeeping provisions.⁷ In the notice, it posed a series of questions about whether
the regulations should preclude financial institutions from accepting certain forms of
foreign government-issued identification. The notice further indicated that after the
comments had been considered a determination would be made about whether to

⁴ U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, National Credit Union Administration. Customer Identification Programs for
Banks, Savings Associations, Credit Unions and Certain Non-Federally Regulated Banks.
Federal Register, vol. 68, no. 90, May 9, 2003, pp. 25089-25113. For additional
information on this subject, see CRS Report RS21547, Financial Institution Customer
Identification Programs Mandated by the USA PATRIOT Act, by M. Maureen Murphy.
⁵ Ibid., p. 25109. According to the section-by-section analysis of the rule: “Treasury and
the Agencies emphasize that the final rule neither endorses nor prohibits bank acceptance
of information from particular types of identification documents issued by foreign
governments. A bank must decide for itself ... whether the information presented by the
customer is reliable.” Ibid., p. 25098.
⁶ U.S. Department of the Treasury, A Report to Congress in Accordance with §326(b) of the
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT), Oct. 21, 2002. p. 16 (footnote

17).

⁷ U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Customer Identification Programs for Financial
Institutions,” Federal Register, vol. 68, no. 126, July 1, 2003. pp. 39039-39041.

propose amendments to the May 2003 regulations. On September 18, 2003, the
Treasury Department announced that after reviewing over 34,000 comments, it had
decided not to recommend any changes to the rules.⁸
Further developments relating to the acceptance or non-acceptance of consular
identification cards are expected. A federal interagency working group chaired by
the Department of Homeland Security, with representatives from various executive
branch agencies, has been developing recommendations for a federal policy on these
cards, and the 9/11 Commission recommended that the United States set standards
for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver’s
licenses. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, approved
in December 2004 in response to the 9/11 Commission recommendations, requires
the Secretary of Homeland Security to propose, subject to congressional approval,
minimum standards for identification documents to be used by airline passengers
(and, after a report, for entry to designated federal facilities) and establishes strict
default standards in the event of congressional disapproval. On February 10, 2005,
the House passed H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Sensenbrenner), that would
establish identity card standards for the issuance of drivers’ licenses that would seem
to preclude the use of consular ID cards for those purposes. This measure was
attached by the House to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005
(H.R. 1268) as Division B on March 16, 2005. Following conference, H.R. 1268 was
passed with the specified provisions by the House and Senate in early May 2005, and
it was signed into law (P.L. 109-13) on May 11, 2005.
Domestic Policy Implications
The acceptance of the matrícula consular for various purposes by the Treasury
Department and by local governments and other public and private entities in the
United States has raised a number of questions for U.S. policy. The possible
domestic policy implications — as well as foreign policy implications — were
initially discussed at two June 2003 oversight hearings on consular identification
cards held by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration,⁹
Border Security, and Claims. Subsequently, these implications have been discussed

⁸ U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Public Affairs, Treasury Announces Results
of PATRIOT ACT Section 326 Notice of Inquiry, Sept. 18, 2003. Available at
[http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js743.htm], visited Sept. 23, 2003. On the question
of accepting foreign government-issued identification documents, the press release stated:
“Treasury concluded that the risk-based approach taken by the final rules, combined with
the ability to notify financial institutions if concerns arise with specific identification
documents, provide an ample mechanism to address any security concerns.”
⁹ U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims, oversight hearing on The Issuance, Acceptance, and Reliability of
Consular Identification Cards, June 19, 2003 (hereafter cited as House Judiciary, Issuance,
Acceptance, and Reliability of Consular Identification Cards.); U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims,
oversight hearing on The Federal Government’s Response to the Issuance and Acceptance
(continued...)

in the context of the Treasury Department July 2003 reopening of the question of
accepting certain forms of foreign government-issued identification to verify
customer identity, and in the context of the consideration of the various legislative
proposals mentioned below, especially the REAL ID Act of 2005. Domestic policy
questions about acceptance of the matrícula consular fall mainly in the overlapping
areas of immigration, public safety and law enforcement, and homeland security.
Immigration
In important respects, the debate over the matrícula consular is a debate about
how to address the issue of unauthorized immigration to the United States. Those
who support domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular emphasize that the card
is issued solely for identification purposes and does not confer any type of legal
immigration status on the bearer. They maintain that acceptance of the card is
necessary in a post-September 11, 2001 America in which photo identification is
required to conduct daily business and that such acceptance is beneficial not only for
the holders but for the banks and other institutions as well. Some supporters address
the unauthorized immigration issue more directly, arguing that it is time to
acknowledge that there are millions of unauthorized aliens living and working in the
United States and to take steps to more fully integrate them into society. They argue
that it is better for these individuals to have an identity and to participate openly in
the financial institutions where their transactions can be monitored, rather than to
engage in surreptitious actions that encourages the acquisition of fraudulent
documents.
Opponents of domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular argue that the card
is needed only by aliens who are illegally present in the United States and do not
possess other acceptable identification documents. They maintain that the matrícula
consular helps unauthorized Mexicans live and conduct business in the United States
by, for example, enabling them to open bank accounts. In so aiding illegal aliens,
opponents charge, the card effectively confers quasi-legal status on them in
subversion of U.S. immigration law. They view efforts to gain widespread
acceptance of the card as part of a larger strategy to legalize the status of
unauthorized Mexicans in the United States. More broadly, opponents argue that
acceptance of the matrícula consular has negative implications for the country’s
ability to set future immigration policy.
Public Safety and Law Enforcement
Public safety and law enforcement figure prominently in the debate surrounding
domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular. Supporters argue that the card is a
secure, fraud-resistant document that reliably identifies the bearer. Mexican officials
maintain that the documents presented to obtain the card are properly authenticated.
With respect to verifying birth certificates, the primary document used to obtain a
matrícula consular, Mexican officials assert that consular staff work closely with

⁹ (...continued)
in the U.S. of Consular Identification Cards, June 26, 2003. (Hereafter cited as House
Judiciary, The Federal Government’s Response.)

document registries in Mexico when they have any doubts about the legitimacy of a
birth certificate. These officials also argue that Mexico has developed a
comprehensive database that would prevent the issuance of duplicate and fraudulent
cards, and that it has the ability to check the applicant’s identity against the large
Mexican voter registration database and against a “stop list” of non-acceptable
persons. They note that the matrícula consular cards are as secure as, if not more
secure than, many U.S. documents, including birth certificates and social security
cards and some state’s driver’s licenses.
Supporters take the position that acceptance of the matrícula consular by law
enforcement agencies improves public safety by, for example, helping police officers
identify witnesses, victims, and suspects. If individuals do not possess acceptable
identification, they explain, law enforcement agencies must expend time and
resources to try to identify them. Supporters also maintain that aliens with
identification are more likely to report crimes and cooperate in police investigations.
Supporters further argue that acceptance of the matrícula consular by entities
other than law enforcement agencies has public safety benefits. As an example, they
cite acceptance of the card by financial institutions to open bank accounts and
participate in various economic activities, usually at a reduced cost . They maintain
that individuals who are able to deposit their money in banks do not have to carry
around large amounts of cash or keep large sums in their homes and, thus, are less
likely to become crime victims.
Opponents of domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular challenge the
assertion that the card is a secure document. They argue that despite its fraud-
resistant features, the card is not secure because the underlying documentation used
to obtain it is not properly authenticated. They express particular concern about the
Mexican birth certificate, which, they say, is easily forged. Opponents of domestic
acceptance of the matrícula consular assert that the authentication process relies on
visual inspection of documents by Mexican consular personnel, which, they claim,
is inadequate. They also argue that there are inadequate mechanisms to prevent the
issuance of multiple cards to the same person. They cite cases in which a single
individual has been found with multiple cards, each containing the individual’s
photograph but a different name.
Opponents argue that acceptance of the matrícula consular by law enforcement
agencies threatens public safety. They maintain that in cases of minor infractions,
police departments that recognize the card are not conducting background checks or
taking fingerprints of card holders. Given this practice, opponents argue, the card
helps conceal past criminal activity. They further speculate that the acceptance of the
matrícula consular by the police will encourage drug traffickers and other criminals
to obtain the cards.
The potential use of the matrícula consular to establish false identities is of great
concern to opponents. They argue that cards issued to individuals under false names
can be, and have been, used to obtain driver’s licenses and other documents in those
names to create multiple identities. According to opponents, individuals can use
these false identities to facilitate criminal acts, such as money laundering and alien
smuggling, and to avoid detection by authorities.

Homeland Security
Supporters of domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular argue that the card
improves homeland security by enabling the authorities to easily and accurately
identify Mexican nationals in the United States. They maintain that individuals who
are isolated and marginalized pose a greater potential security threat than those who
are known. They emphasize that Mexico is not a terrorist-supporting country and
that Mexicans come to the United States to work, not to commit terrorist acts.
Opponents argue that domestic acceptance of the card threatens homeland
security. According to June 2003 congressional testimony by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), “the ability of foreign nationals to use the Matricula Consular to
create a well-documented, but fictitious, identity in the United States provides an
opportunity for terrorists to move freely in the United States without triggering name-
based watch lists.” The FBI also expressed concern about the possible use of false
identities to transfer funds to support terrorist acts.¹⁰ In arguing against acceptance
of the matrícula consular on security grounds, opponents state that the lax issuance
procedures have enabled non-Mexicans, including at least one known individual of
Middle Eastern descent, to obtain valid cards.¹¹ They further contend that accepting
the Mexican consular card sets a dangerous precedent, since other less friendly
countries may decide to issue consular identification cards to their nationals in the
United States.
Foreign Policy Implications
The foreign policy implications of the matrícula consular may be viewed under
three main headings: the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship, reciprocity of treatment
of citizens abroad, and consular notification in law enforcement situations.
Bilateral Relations
During the 2000 Mexican presidential campaign, the major candidates
discovered that the status of Mexican migrants in the United States was one of the
top concerns among the Mexican people. A large portion of the population has a
relative in the United States, and there is widespread concern about the plight of
migrants who die enroute, or are exploited in some way in the United States.
As a result, when President Fox of the conservative National Action Party
(PAN) was elected in July 2000 and inaugurated in December 2000, he began
pressing proposals with the United States for legalizing undocumented Mexican
workers in the United States through amnesty or guest worker arrangements, while

¹⁰ See House Judiciary, The Federal Government’s Response, hearing testimony of Steven
McCraw, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Office of Intelligence.
¹¹ In his testimony, Steven McCraw mentioned the arrest of an Iranian man attempting to
enter the United States from Mexico who was carrying a matrícula consular card identifying
him as a Mexican citizen.

offering improved relations in other areas, including trade, drug control, and foreign
policy cooperation. At two major presidential meetings in 2001, the two Presidents
launched cabinet-level negotiations to address migration and labor issues between the
countries. However, following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the migration
talks stalled and no legislation was enacted, despite several legislative initiatives and
an immigration proposal by President Bush in January 2004.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, both major candidates called for
immigration reform, and since President Bush’s re-election in November 2004 and
his re-inauguration in January 2005, he has asserted that immigration reform will be
a priority in his second term. He called again for immigration reform that would
provide temporary legal status for foreign guest workers in his State of the Union
address on February 2, 2005.¹²
Given the lack of progress so far on the bilateral migration talks, some observers
have argued that the Mexican government’s campaign to issue consular identification
cards was a way to provide limited benefits to the migrant population in the United
States, giving them access to banking services, permitting them to transfer money to
Mexico at cheaper rates through established institutions, and permitting them to have
more normal access to regular activities in the United States. Supporters of the
matrícula consular argue that by improving the lives of Mexican citizens the card has
improved the relationship between the United States and Mexico, despite falling
short of the desired migration agreement. They cite improved bilateral cooperation
in many areas, most notably in enhanced Mexican efforts to control drug trafficking
activities, to cooperate on border control plans, and to deploy soldiers to secure
access points to the United States during the war in Iraq, although Mexico favored
a more multilateral approach to that problem. These supporters argue that restricting
the issuance and acceptance of the identity cards might have an adverse effect on the
bilateral relationship between the countries, and Mexican officials did criticize the
passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005 as part of the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental
in May 2005.
Opponents of the matrícula consular may acknowledge that the card has
improved bilateral relations to some extent, but they argue that regulations covering
issuance and acceptance are necessary to achieve the more important U.S. goals of
control of immigration policy and defense against a possible threat of terrorism.
They argue that Mexican officials have been inappropriately involved in the domestic
affairs of the United States when they have promoted acceptance of the cards.

¹² For more information on the broader bilateral relationship, see CRS Report RL32724,
Mexico-U.S. Relations: Issues for the 109^th Congress, by K. Larry Storrs. For more specific
information on the bilateral dialogue on migration issues, see CRS Report RL32735,
Mexico-United States Dialogue on Migration and Border Issues, 2001-2005, by K. Larry
Storrs. For more information on the President’s January 2004 immigration proposal and the^th
congressional initiatives in the 108 Congress, see CRS Report RL32044, Immigration:
Policy Considerations Related To Guest Worker Programs, by Andorra Bruno.

Reciprocal Treatment
As indicated above, it is traditional practice for consulates abroad, including
U.S. consulates, to register and maintain some record of their nationals abroad for the
purpose of notifying and protecting them. This practice is recognized and protected
under international law through the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of
1963, which provides that states will accord this right to each other on a reciprocal
basis.¹³ In addition, it is traditional practice for many institutions in one country to
accept the official documents of another country for a variety of transactions, such
as accepting a U.S. driver’s license for driving automobiles in Mexico.
According to Roberta Jacobson, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in testimony at a June 2003 House Immigration
Subcommittee hearing on consular identification cards, the Department of State
“issues documentation other than a passport for U.S. citizens abroad and at times
occasionally issues similar identity cards or travel documents.” “Should a foreign
country decide to limit acceptance of such documentation or other traditional
documentation such as state-issued identifications or driver’s licenses,” she
counseled, “the actions of American citizens abroad could be seriously restricted.”¹⁴
Proponents of the matrícula consular argue that the United States should accept
the cards, so that the U.S. government will receive reciprocal treatment in the
issuance of identification cards abroad, and Mexico and any other foreign state will
recognize the documents of U.S. citizens for a variety of activities. Critics of the
matrícula consular rarely comment on this aspect, but may argue that U.S. documents
would continue to be recognized by foreign states, even if U.S. acceptance of the
matrícula consular were to be restricted, because they facilitate tourism and the
transaction of highly-desired business.
Consular Notification
In her June 2003 testimony, State Department official Jacobson mentioned
another benefit of consular identification cards, namely that they facilitate the
notification by U.S. law enforcement officers of foreign consulates when foreign
nationals are detained for suspected illegal activity. The Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations provides that foreign nationals who are arrested or detained have
a right to protection and assistance from their own consulates. It establishes that the
detaining state is required to inform the detainee of his or her right to request that the
relevant consular officials be notified of the detention without delay. Consular
notification is relatively easy when the detainee is carrying a card that identifies him
as a national of another state, but it is difficult, and not always achieved, when the
detainee lacks any documentation, and his identity, relatives, and nationality are

¹³ For further information on this subject, see CRS Report RS21627, Implications of the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations upon the Regulation of Consular Identification
Cards, by Michael John Garcia.
¹⁴ See House Judiciary, The Federal Government’s Response, hearing testimony of Roberta
S. Jacobson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Western
Hemisphere Affairs.

unknown and often withheld out of fear. According to Ms. Jacobson, consular
notification is a very serious issue for the Department of State, and it is “working
assiduously to ensure U.S. compliance,” in part so that U.S. consulates will be
informed when U.S. citizens are detained abroad.
Consular notification is a major issue for the Mexican government. For years,
Mexican officials have been complaining about Mexican citizens who they claim
were executed for crimes or who are awaiting execution in the United States without
the benefit of consular assistance and adequate defense because the consulates were
never notified. In mid-August 2002, President Fox was reported to have cancelled
his August 26-28 trip to Texas and his meeting with President Bush in Crawford to
protest the execution by Texas authorities of convicted police killer Javier Suarez
Medina despite Mexican claims that he had not been afforded consular assistance.
In January 2003, Mexico brought a case against the United States in the
International Court of Justice on behalf of Mexican citizens sentenced to death in the
United States, charging that U.S. officials have violated the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations by systematically failing to inform Mexicans of their right to
consular assistance under the treaty. After several preliminary decisions, on March
31, 2004, the International Court found that the United States had breached its
obligations under the Vienna Convention by failing to notify and enable Mexican
consular officials to assist 51 Mexican suspects who are now on death row, and it
ordered the United States to review the convictions and sentences of the Mexican
nationals.¹⁵ On February 28, 2005, President Bush directed state courts to review the
cases of the Mexicans in order to comply with the ICJ decision, but on March 7,
2005, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol that gives the
International Court of Justice jurisdiction over these disputes. On March 28, 2005,
the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case of a Mexican inmate on Texas’
death row who claims that the state violated international law by failing to notify
Mexican consular officials before his trial for murder. On May 23, 2005, the
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal to permit the lower courts to resolve the issue
under President Bush’s directive.
Proponents of the matrícula consular argue that consular identification cards
make it easier for U.S. law enforcement officials to notify consulates of the detention
of foreign nationals, and thereby improve the likelihood that U.S. citizens under
arrest abroad will have the benefit of consular notification and protection. In the case
of Mexico, achieving a better record on consular notification would remove a major
irritant in the bilateral relationship. Opponents of consular identification cards would
argue that there should be other means and other indications of identity that would
permit law enforcement officials to adhere to the consular notification obligations,
without establishing a system, which, in their view, provides non-legislated
immigration benefits.

¹⁵ International Court of Justice, Press Release 2004/16, Avena and Other Mexican
Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), March 31, 2004.

Legislation in the 108^th Congress
Legislation related to consular identification cards was considered by the 108^th
Congress. One set of measures related to acceptance of the cards for banking
purposes. The major measure in that area was the Transportation-Treasury
Appropriations for FY2005, incorporated into the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for FY2005 (H.R. 4818/P.L. 108-447) approved in November and December 2004.
As enacted, the measure restored funding, without the previously passed prohibitions,
for Treasury Department implementation of regulations permitting financial
institutions to accept the matrícula consular cards as identity documents for banking
purposes. A second set of measures attempted to set conditions on the issuance of
consular cards by foreign missions. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for
FY2004-FY2005 (H.R. 1950), with conditions on foreign missions’ issuance of these
cards, was passed by the House in July 2003, but the Senate never took similar
action. A third set of measures related to acceptance of consular identification cards
by U.S. federal government entities, and the major legislation in that area was the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (S. 2845/P.L. 108-458),
approved in December 2004, that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to
propose, subject to congressional approval, minimum standards for identification
documents to be used by airline passengers (and, after a report, for entry to
designated federal facilities). A fourth set of measures would have made possession
by an alien of a consular identification card prima facie evidence that the alien is
deportable.
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards as Identity
Documents for Banking Purposes
Four measures related to acceptance of consular identification cards as identity
documents for banking purposes. The first measure would have amended existing
provisions of the U.S. Code to clearly authorize financial institutions to accept
matrícula consular cards as a valid form of identification. The second measure would
have disapproved Treasury Department regulations issued in May 2003 that permit
the use of the matrícula consular card for the purpose of opening a bank account.
The third measure would have amended the existing provisions to prohibit the use
of identification issued by foreign governments, other than passports, for opening
financial accounts. The fourth measure, Transportation-Treasury appropriations,
was passed in final form without the previously passed prohibitions on funding, with
the final result that the Treasury Department could continue to implement regulations
permitting financial institutions to accept the matrícula consular cards.
H.R. 773. Introduced on February 13, 2003, by Representative Ruben Hinojosa,
H.R. 773 would have amended the Section 5318 provisions relating to customer
identification enacted in the USA PATRIOT Act to clearly authorize financial
institutions to accept a matrícula consular issued by the Mexican government as a
valid form of identification for opening a bank account. Among the findings in the
bill was the following: “Accepting matricula consular as a form of identification
allows Mexican immigrants to enter the financial mainstream and provides banks and
other financial institutions with a new, fast-growing market.” H.R. 773 was referred

to the House Financial Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit.
H.J.Res. 58. Introduced on May 22, 2003, by Representative Thomas
Tancredo, H.J.Res. 58 would have disapproved the Treasury Department regulations
issued on May 9, 2003 (discussed above) relating to customer identification¹⁶
requirements in Section 5318 of the U.S. Code. One “whereas” clause stated that
the Treasury Department rules “permit financial institutions to accept certain
unverifiable forms of identification from ‘non-United States persons’ in direct
violation of the clear intent of Congress ... [in] the USA PATRIOT Act.,” Another
stated that “there is abundant evidence of the non-verifiable and unreliable nature of
identification documents issued by foreign governments to foreign nationals residing
within the United States, including the ‘Matricula Consular’ card.” H.J.Res. 58 was
referred to the House Financial Services Committee and its Subcommittee on
Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, but no action was taken within the
normal 60-day period for resolutions of disapproval to take effect.
H.R. 3674. Introduced on December 8, 2003, by Representative Scott Garrett,
H.R. 3674 would have amended Section 5318 to prohibit the use of identification
issued by foreign governments, other than passports, for purposes of verifying the
identity of a person opening an account at a financial institution, including a
matrícula consular card. H.R. 3674 was referred to the House Financial Services
Committee and its Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
H.R. 4818/P.L. 108-447. Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, which
included the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations for FY2005 as Division H,
restored funding for Treasury Department implementation of regulations permitting
financial institutions to accept the matrícula consular cards.
The House Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee voted 9-7,
on July 15, 2004, to approve an amendment by Representative John Culberson to
H.R. 5025, Transportation-Treasury Appropriations for FY2005, to prohibit the use
of funds by the Secretary of the Treasury “to publish, implement, administer, or
enforce regulations that permit financial institutions to accept the matrícula consular
identification card as a form of identification.” Representative Culberson claimed
that his amendment had the support of the Department of Homeland Security, the
FBI, the Justice Department, and a U.S. Attorney in Texas. He argued that the
amendment was aimed at ending the use of a totally unreliable form of identification
that could be obtained by criminals and terrorists. Those opposing the amendment
argued that the consular cards were safe and that the Subcommittee was acting
precipitously and without adequate information.¹⁷

¹⁶ H.J.Res. 58 references final rules issued by the Treasury Department on Apr. 30, 2003.
In a telephone conversation on Aug. 20, 2003, however, Representative Tancredo’s office
confirmed that the date should read “May 9, 2003.”
¹⁷ See “House Subcommittee Targets Elimination of Mexican ‘Matricula’ ID Cards,” CQ
Today, July 15, 2004; and Appropriations: As House Subcommittee Trims Amtrak, IRS,
Enforcement, Congress Daily, July 15, 2004.

The full Appropriations Committee approved the overall measure on July 22,
2004, after voting 25-26 to defeat an amendment by Representative Ed Pastor that
would have stricken the language of the Culberson amendment described above.
This action left intact the previously approved prohibition on Treasury funding for
implementation of regulations permitting financial institutions to accept the matrícula
consular cards. Representative Culberson argued that the cards are unreliable and
could be used by terrorists to falsify their identities. Representative Pastor and others
argued that the cards were reliable and that the Department of Homeland Security
could write regulations to deal with their concerns, without blocking the use of the
cards for financial transactions.¹⁸
When the House considered the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations for
FY2005 (H.R. 5025) on September 14, 2004, Representatives Oxley and Frank,
Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Financial Services,
offered an amendment that was approved 222-177 to strike the Culberson
amendment described above, thereby restoring funding for the Treasury Department
so that it could continue to implement regulations on identity cards for banking
services in effect since May 2003. The sponsors of the amendment argued that the
existing regulations were working effectively and that they had the support of the
Administration. Opponents of the amendment argued that the Treasury regulations
were too lax in that they permitted the use of documents that are easily forged, that
might be used by terrorists, and that are largely used by persons who are illegally in
the United States. After consideration of other amendments, the overall measure was
passed by the House on September 22, 2004, thereby restoring previous authorities
with respect to consular ID cards. Since the Senate never completed action on the
separate appropriation measure, the act was incorporated into the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4818) that was approved by both houses of
Congress on November 20, 2004, and, after passage of a corrective measure, was
signed into law (P.L. 108-447) on December 8, 2004.
Measure to Set Conditions on Foreign Mission Issuance of
Consular Identification Cards
On July 15, 2003, the House approved an amendment sponsored by
Representatives John Hostettler, Elton Gallegly, and Thomas Tancredo to restrict and
set conditions on the issuance of consular identification cards by foreign missions in
the United States, but the Senate did not take any similar action during the 108^th
Congress. In the mentioned House floor action on the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act for FY2004-2005 (H.R. 1950), the lower house voted, 226 to198,
to accept House Amendment No. 246, which was added to the bill as Section 232.
The amendment would establish a series of restrictions on the issuance of consular
identification cards by foreign missions. It would direct the Secretary of State to
issue regulations requiring foreign missions to: (1) notify the Secretary of each
consular identification card issued in the United States, including the name and
address of each recipient; (2) issue cards only to bona fide nationals of the country;
(3) maintain complete and accurate records of all cards issued and do so in an

¹⁸ See “Transportation-Treasury Appropriations: Mexican Identity Card Provision
Complicates Debate on Bill,” CQ Today, July 22, 2004.

automated system that can be accessed to prevent duplicate or fraudulent issuance;
(4) require card recipients to notify the mission of any change of address; and (5)
make available the records of all cards issued for audit and review at the request of
the Secretary. If the Secretary of State determined that a foreign mission had violated
these regulations and that such violation threatened national security or facilitated
fraudulent or criminal acts, the Secretary would notify the relevant government that
the mission must suspend issuance of consular identification cards until it was in
compliance. If the foreign mission failed to suspend issuance of the cards, the State
Department would cease issuance of immigrant or non-immigrant visas, or both, to
nationals of that country until the mission was in compliance with the regulations.¹⁹
Supporters of these proposed restrictions argued that foreign governments have
been issuing consular identification cards in the United States for purposes other than
those intended by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, namely to
circumvent U.S. immigration law, and that the issuance of the cards should be subject
to U.S. regulation. They argued that the cards are not a reliable form of identification
because the Mexican government has no automated and secure system to assure that
the cards are not forged or shared, or issued to more than one individual or to
individuals relying on fraudulent documents. They further argued that the cards are
susceptible to being used to establish false identities that may facilitate money-
laundering, alien smuggling, and terrorist activity.
Opponents of the proposed restrictions argued that the restrictions are directed
against consular identification cards in general, the Mexican matrícula consular in
particular, and persons of Hispanic heritage. They argued that the requirements,
especially the requirements that the records be given to the United States and be
subject to audit by the United States, pose unreasonable restrictions on a foreign
government’s right under the Vienna Convention to register and monitor its nationals
abroad. They further argued that the penalties for non-compliance were extremely
onerous. To the extent that the issuance of the matrícula consular has been viewed
as improving Mexico-U.S. bilateral relations, the House-passed restrictions would
likely be seen as harming the bilateral relationship. The restrictions would also be
viewed by opponents as making consular notification more difficult, and raising the
possibility that reciprocal action by other nations might harm the U.S. government’s
ability to register and monitor U.S. nationals abroad.
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards as Identity
Documents by U.S. Federal Entities
Three bills would have restricted acceptance of consular identification cards by
federal entities. The first measure, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 (S. 2845/P.L. 108-458), was among measures to reform the intelligence
services and to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations and it may restrict
the use of the consular ID cards. The legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland
Security to propose, subject to congressional approval, minimum standards for
identification documents to be used by airline passengers (and, after a report, for

¹⁹ For more detail on the provisions, and for the arguments of the supporters and opponents
of the provisions, see the debate in the Congressional Record on July 15, 2003.

entry to designated federal facilities), and it requires the establishment of minimal
standards for the issuance of drivers’ licenses. Another measure would have
prohibited the acceptance of documents for providing federal benefits unless the
documents were issued by federal or state authorities. Still another measure would
have prohibited federal employees from accepting identification documents issued
by foreign governments.
S. 2845/P.L. 108-458. S. 2845, as originally passed by the House on October
16, 2004, contained a number of related provisions. Section 3006 would have
provided that for the purpose of establishing identity to any federal employee, an
alien in the United States could present (1) any document issued by the U.S. Attorney
General or the Secretary of Homeland Security under the authority of an immigration
law, (2) a domestically issued document that the Secretary of Homeland Security had
designated as reliable and that could not be issued to an alien unlawfully present in
the United States, or (3) any unexpired, lawfully issued foreign passport as
determined by the Secretary of State. This provision would likely have precluded the
presentation of the Mexican consular ID as an identity document to federal officials.
Section 3052 would have barred Federal agencies three years after enactment from
accepting drivers licenses or other identification unless such licenses satisfied
standards set by the Secretary of Homeland Security, including verification of the
authenticity of the documents and proof that the person possesses or is ineligible for
a social security account. It would also have prohibited states from issuing drivers
licenses to individuals who could not prove legal residency in the United States. S.
2845 and H.R. 10 were among the measures to reform the intelligence services and
to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations that received expedited
treatment in late September and October 2004. S. 2845 was passed, amended, by the
Senate on October 6, 1004. H.R. 10 was approved, amended, by the House on
October 8, 2004, after which the text was incorporated into S. 2845 and was
considered passed by the House on October 16, 2004. Proponents of the specified
immigration provisions argued that they were necessary to prevent the acquisition by
possible terrorists of identity documents that would permit entry to airplanes and
federal buildings where they could cause harm. Opponents argued mostly that the
measures were not central to the main purpose of the legislation, namely reform of
the intelligence services, and that the measures had not been adequately considered.
Some of the mentioned provisions were among the most difficult to resolve in
conference, however. Eventually, after lengthy negotiations and an agreement to
consider the left out matters early in the 109^th Congress, the conferees agreed upon²⁰
a report and bill (H.Rept. 108-796) that was filed on December 7, 2004. The
conference report was approved by the House and the Senate on December 7 and 8,
respectively, and was signed into law (P.L. 108-458) as the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 by the President on December 17, 2004. Section
7220 of the enacted legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to
propose, subject to congressional approval, minimum standards for identification
documents to be used by airline passengers (and, after a report, for entry to
designated federal facilities), and establishes strict default standards in the event of

²⁰ See Cleared Intelligence Rewrite is Big Finish for the 108^th, CQ Weekly, Dec. 11, 2004,
p. 2937.

congressional disapproval. Section 7212 requires the establishment of minimal
standards for the issuance of drivers’ licenses.
H.R. 502. Introduced by Representative Tancredo, H.R. 502 would prohibit
entities of the federal government, in providing federal public benefits or services
that require the recipient to produce identification, from accepting any identification
document, unless the document was issued by a federal or state authority and subject
to verification by the federal government. H.R. 502 was referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform and its Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources, to the Committee on House Administration, and to the
Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security.
H.R. 687. Introduced by Representative Gallegly, H.R. 687 would prohibit
federal employees from accepting, for purposes of establishing identity, forms of
identification issued by foreign governments. The bill would exempt passports from
the prohibition if federal law authorized passports to be used for a specific purpose
on the date of enactment. H.R. 687 was referred to the House Committee on
Government Reform and its Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources, to the Committee on House Administration, and to the Committee
on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
Measure to Make Possession of a Consular Identification
Card Prima Facie Evidence that the Alien is Deportable
H.R. 4440. Introduced on May 20, 2004,by Representative Gallegly, H.R. 4440
would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make possession by an alien
of a consular identification card issued by a foreign mission prima facie evidence that
the alien is deportable, and make any illegal alien who presented a consular ID card
for federal identification-related purposes inadmissable for entry for 10 years. H.R.
4440 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
Legislation in the 109^th Congress
Legislation related to the acceptance of consular identification cards as identity
documents by government and banking institutions is being considered in the 109^th
Congress. The REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) that would establish identity card
standards was passed by the House on February 10, 2005, and this measure was
attached by the House to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005
(H.R. 1268) as Division B on March 16, 2005. Following conference, H.R. 1268 was
passed with the specified provisions by the House and Senate in early May 2005, and
it was signed into law (P.L. 109-13) on May 11, 2005.

Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards as Identity
Documents by Federal and State Entities
Three measures have been introduced that deal with the acceptance of consular
ID cards by federal and state entities, and one of the measures (H.R. 418) was
subsequently attached to the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental (H.R. 1268) as
Division B and was enacted into law (P.L. 109-13) on May 11, 2005. As introduced,
two related measures, H.R. 368, which deals solely with drivers’ license standards,
and H.R. 418, which contains additional provisions, would establish identity card
standards for the issuance of drivers’ licenses that would seem to preclude the use of
consular ID cards. As enacted, P.L. 109-13 includes provisions that require a
determination that the applicant is lawfully present in the United States and that
specify that an official passport is the only acceptable foreign identity document. A
third measure (H.R. 925) would prohibit a federal agency from accepting a form of
individual identification issued by a foreign government, except for a passport
authorized for certain uses by existing legislation.
H.R. 368, Drivers’ License Security and Modernization Act. This bill was
introduced on January 26, 2005, by Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, and
referred to the House Committees on Government Reform and the Judiciary. H.R.
368 would establish identity card standards for federal recognition and the issuance
of drivers’ licenses. The provisions are similar to Title II — Improved Security for
Drivers’ Licenses and Personal Identification Cards, Sections 201-207, in H.R. 418,
and Title II (with the same title) of Division B of the FY2005 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations (see below).²¹
H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005/H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for FY2005. H.R. 418 was introduced on January 26, 2005, by
Representative Sensenbrenner, as a holdover from consideration of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (S. 2845/P.L. 108-458) in December^th
2004 (see above under Legislation in 108 Congress). The bill was referred to the
House Committees on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Government Reform,
but no formal consideration was undertaken. It would, among other things, establish
identity card standards for the issuance of drivers’ licenses to be used for official
federal purposes. These standards would seem to preclude the use of consular ID
cards for those purposes. H.R. 418 was considered on February 9-10, 2005, under
a structured rule, and was approved, with amendments, by a 261-161 vote on
February 10, 2005.²² The bill was attached to the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for FY2005 (H.R. 1268) as Division B, on March 16, 2005.
Following conference, H.R. 1268 was passed with the specified provisions by the
House and Senate in early May 2005, and it was signed into law (P.L. 109-13) on
May 11, 2005.

²¹ For more detail on current state policy regarding the issuance of drivers’ licenses to aliens,
see CRS Report RL32127, Summary of State Laws on the Issuance of Drivers’ Licenses to
Undocumented Aliens, by Alison M. Smith.
²² For more detail on this measure, see CRS Report RL32754, Immigration: Analysis of the
Major Provisions of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, by Michael John Garcia, Margaret
Mikyung Lee and Todd Tatelman.

As enacted, Subsection 201 (3) of H.R. 1268 states that the term “official
purpose” includes but is not limited to accessing federal facilities, boarding federally
regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes
that the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall determine. Subsection 202(a)
provides that beginning three years after the date of enactment, a federal agency may
not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by
a state to any person unless the state is meeting the specified standards. In addition
to proof of identity, birth, and principal residence, the minimum issuance standards
in Subsection 202(c) include (1) proof of the person’s social security number or
verification that the person is not eligible; and (2) evidence of lawful status in the
country in one of several specified categories, with issuance of easily recognizable
temporary drivers’ licenses for those with temporary authorized stays. Subsection
202(c)(3) under the heading of verification of documents requires that the state shall
not accept any foreign document, other than an official passport, to meet the
minimum standards, and it requires that not later than September 11, 2005, the state
shall agree to use the national automated system known as Systematic Alien
Verification Entitlements to verify the legal presence of non-U.S. citizens in the
country. Subsection 202(d)(5) provides that in the event that a presented social
security account number is already registered to another person, “the state shall
resolve the discrepancy and take appropriate action.” Section 203 requires that for
a state to be eligible for financial assistance it must participate in the interstate
compact regarding the sharing of drivers’ license data, known as the Driver License
Agreement.
H.R. 925, Identification Integrity Act of 2005. Introduced on February 17,
2005, by Representative Gallegly, this bill would prohibit a federal agency from
accepting a form of individual identification issued by a foreign government, except
for a passport if it is authorized for certain uses by federal law at the date of
enactment of this legislation. This would seem to clarify that consular ID cards
would not be accepted by federal agencies. H.R. 925 was referred to the House
Government Reform, Judiciary, House Administration and Armed Services
Committees.
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards as Identity
Documents for Banking Purposes
One measure (H.R. 815) has been introduced to prohibit the use of any
identification documents issued by foreign governments other than passports for
opening banking accounts. This would seem to preclude the use of consular ID cards
for such purposes.
H.R. 815, Financial Customer Identification Verification Improvement Act.
Introduced on February 15, 2005, by Representative Garrett, this bill would amend
Section 5318(1) of title 31, United States Code (relating to identification and
verification of account holders) to prohibit the use of any identification documents
issued by foreign governments other than official passports for the purpose of
opening accounts with financial institutions. H.R. 815 was referred to the House
Committee on Financial Services.