Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of and as a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I want to thank my colleagues for all their support, especially the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for offering this amendment. Mr.…
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of and as a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I want to thank my colleagues for all their support, especially the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for offering this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have been working on the matricula consular I.D. card issue for quite some time with a number of different groups and individuals. I want to express my particular appreciation for all the assistance that the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and their staff have provided during that time.
On February 13, 2003, I introduced H.R. 773, entitled the 21st Century Access to Banking Act. My legislation would authorize U.S. financial institutions to accept the matricula consular I.D. card as valid forms of identification for the purpose of opening an account, thus bringing unbanked individuals into the U.S. banking system and resulting in a more efficient regulation of currency in the United States.
My legislation would result in an increased infusing of cash into our banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions and, ultimately, our economy on the whole.
This legislation would allow hardworking families to enter the mainstream U.S. financial system. It would enable them to open checking and savings accounts, establish a credit history and possibly even eventually purchase a car or home. It would help improve our sagging economy by enabling these struggling families to avoid being preyed upon by sometimes unscrupulous check cashers and payday lenders.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), was kind enough to hold the first hearing on the importance of the matricula consular card to the U.S. economy and to the economies of our trading partners, And I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bachus for holding this hearing at my request and for supporting the card.
I was also pleased when Treasury promulgated its rule on section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, allowing financial institutions to accept the matricula card as a form of identification. However, I was deeply disappointed when the House Committee on Appropriations adopted an amendment to this legislation that would ban certain Hispanics from using their matricula consular I.D. card to open an account at a financial institution in the United States.
When it is adopted, this amendment we offer today will right that wrong. Because the United States is a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we do not have the authority to prevent Mexican consulates from issuing the matricula consular I.D. card to Mexican nationals residing in this country. Similarly, foreign countries do not have the right to prevent United States consulates from issuing similar cards to its citizens overseas.
I want to stress this latter point. Our United States does issue cards similar to the matricula card to its own citizens in foreign countries. It seems to me that the question then becomes whether or not we should allow financial institutions in the United States to accept the card as a valid form of I.D. to open an account. The answer to that question is a very simple yes.
Should my colleagues vote to overturn the misguided anti-matricula card language currently in this bill? The answer is yes. The card is a safe, reliable form of identification. The card has over a dozen security features, including a hologram and infrared band. As the Washington Times reported in 2002, the matricula card is ``A high-tech I.D. that is more fraud proof than many State driver's licenses.''
Approximately 163 counties, 1,180 police departments, 377 cities, 33 States and 178 financial institutions accept the matricula card as a valid form of identification.
The police departments support the use of the card because it helps undermine the market for illegal identification and fraudulent documents. It helps them to quickly identify witnesses, victims, and suspects.
Immigrants with consular identification are more likely to report crimes and cooperate in police investigations. These police departments do not believe that the acceptance of the card by financial institutions will increase immigration.
Despite what its detractors and opponents might claim, the card does not legalize the status of any immigrant.
It cannot be used to obtain any immigration or citizenship benefits such as work authorization or to obtain public benefits. It cannot be used to cross the U.S./Mexico border, and it is only available to foreign nationals already in the United States. Moreover, Mexican consulates clearly explain the nature of the document to assure their Nationals know that the card does not regularize their immigration status.
If we allow financial institutions to continue to use the card, with consultations between the U.S. and Mexican governments, the result will not only be an improvement in the U.S. economy. It will also lead to increased transparency and strength in our line of defense against terrorists gaining access to our financial institutions.
For these reasons and more, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support and vote ``yes'' on the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe-Pastor-Hinojosa amendment.