\[\"The Department of the TREASURY NEWS\" banner, with \"The Department
of the Treasury 1789\" seal on right and \"BUREAU OF THE MINT; WASH.,
D.C. 20220 - W04-5011\" on 2nd line.\]

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARY BROOKS

DIRECTOR OF THE MINT

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

AND COINAGE

OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, CURRENCY AND HOUSING

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1975

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am very pleased to be
here this morning to discuss with you various coinage and medal
proposals, most of them relating to our Bicentennial. This being the
first time for your Subcommittee to hold a hearing on coins and medals,
I am indeed flattered that you have invited me to represent the Treasury
Department.

Before commenting on the long list of bills before your Subcommittee, I
would like to take a moment to report to you on the various Mint
programs which I believe will substantially contribute to the
commemoration of the 200th birthday of our Nation. As I am sure you
know, in the Bicentennial Coinage Act of 1973, Congress provided that
three of our coin denominations---the quarter, half-dollar and the
dollar---issued after July 4, 1975, shall bear a design emblematic of
the Bicentennial and the special date "1776-1976" instead of the regular
coinage date.

For the first time in our history, all our citizens were given a chance
to submit proposed designs for these coins. In March 1974, after a
nation-wide competition, we selected a colonial drummer design for the
quarter, Independence Hall for the half-dollar and a Liberty Bell and
moon combination for the dollar. Shortly thereafter, we started
production of the new coins. The new Bicentennial half-dollar was the
first coin to be released for circulation on July 7 of this year, and
this was followed by the release of the Bicentennial quarters in the
middle of August. The last denomination, the dollar, will be available
to the public in mid-October. Also, under the authority of the 1973 Act,
we are offering to the public the same coins made in 40% silver, which
are available in three-piece sets in proof and uncirculated form. I am
very proud of our Bicentennial coins which will serve as a daily
reminder of this historic occasion to our citizens.

In addition to the production of these special coins, we have undertaken
a very ambitious medal program for the Bicentennial. Beginning with
April of last year and until July 4, 1976, we are offering to the public
a series of America's first medals. These beautiful medals are replicas
of the first ten medals authorized and awarded by the Continental
Congress to various Revolutionary War heroes in recognition of their
accomplishments. Originally struck in gold and silver, we are issuing
them for the Bicentennial in antiqued pewter. Also, under legislation
passed by Congress in February 1972, we have been producing for the
American Revolution Bicentennial Administration

\- 2 -

national medals each year. This program will culminate in the issuance
of a national Bicentennial medal next year, which, for the first time,
will be available to the public not only in bronze and silver but also
in gold. In short, Mr. Chairman, we at the Mint are trying to do all we
can to recognize and honor the 200th birthday of American freedom.

Turning now to the various bills under consideration, perhaps we could
start with

[H.R. 3427]{.underline}, which would authorize a national medal in
commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration
of Independence by Charles Carroll of Maryland, one of the founding
fathers of the Republic. Under this bill, up to 50,000 medals would be
produced by the Mint on a cost reimbursable basis for the Baltimore
Museum of Art.

The Department would have no objection to this proposal and, if the bill
is passed, the Mint could readily produce the medals. In our view, the
issuance of a national medal for Charles Carroll, who was the last
surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, would fall within
the guidelines we agreed on with your predecessor, the Subcommittee on
Consumer Affairs. As provided by the guidelines, a national medal should
honor only those events that have contributed to and advanced the
history of our country, or those persons whose superior deeds or
achievements have embellished our history or who are representative of
the finest of accomplishment in service to the Nation. Under these
guidelines, Charles Carroll certainly deserves to be commemorated by a
national medal.

\- 3 -

The next two identical bills, [H.R. 7561]{.underline} and [H.R.
7808]{.underline}, would direct the Department to strike for the
American Revolution Bicentennial Administration up to twenty-one
different medals in commemoration of those individuals of various ethnic
backgrounds who participated in the American Revolution. Under the
bills, these medals would be permitted to be struck until December 31,
1983. Again, Mr. Chairman, considering the nature of these proposed
medals, they would appear to fall within the guidelines established for
national medals and thus we would have no objection to the passage of
the legislation. Also, since under the proposals the Mint would have
over eight years to strike the medals, assuming that we were requested
to do so by ARBA, we do not foresee any production problems in complying
with the proposals.

Another group of bills, [H.R. 8051]{.underline} and twelve identical
proposals, would authorize the President to present, on behalf of the
Congress, a silver medal equivalent to a noncombat Medal of Honor to
Brigadier General Charles E. Yeager, U.S. Air Force, for his
contributions to aerospace science. The proposals would authorize and
direct the Department to strike the silver medal and to sell to the
general public its bronze duplicates at a price sufficient to cover the
cost of manufacture. I do not believe it would be proper for me to
comment on the merits of the proposed legislation. However, if it is
enacted, the Department would certainly have no objection to designing
and preparing the General Yeager medal within the shortest feasible time
permitted by our production capabilities.

\- 4 -

The only medal proposed before your Subcommittee this morning which I am
unable to support is [H.R. 7667]{.underline}. This bill would provide
that medallions struck on the reactivated Carson City dollar press by
the Nevada American Revolution Bicentennial Commission shall be national
medals within the meaning of section 3551 of the Revised Statutes. In
our view, enactment of this bill would establish an undesirable
precedent since it would for the first time designate a medal which is
designed and manufactured outside the control and supervision of the
Federal government as a national medal of the United States. Under
section 3551 of the Revised Statutes, which was first enacted as part of
the Coinage Act of 1873, all national medals authorized by Congress to
commemorate a person or event of national significance have been
designed or manufactured by the Mint. Passage of this bill authorizing
the production of a national medal outside the Department would
inevitably open the door for similar proposals which, if enacted, would
ultimately erode the special significance and prestige now attached to
national medals of the United States.

Particularly in this case, if Congress were to grant national medal
status to medallions produced by the Bicentennial Commission of the
State of Nevada, it is difficult to see how Congress could refuse
similar requests by the Bicentennial commissions of all our other
States. Refusal to do so could well be viewed by the other States as
treating preferentially the Nevada Bicentennial medals. On the other
hand, if Congress were to confer national medal status on the medallions
sponsored

\- 5 -

by other State Bicentennial commissions, they would unnecessarily
compete with the medals we are producing for the American Revolution
Bicentennial Administration under the 1972 statute. This would be
unfortunate since the proceeds derived from the sale of these medals are
used by ARBA in support of various Bicentennial programs throughout the
Nation. In sum, as much as we endorse the Bicentennial efforts of the
various States, we are not in favor of [H.R. 7667]{.underline}.

This leaves for discussion the two Bicentennial coinage proposals, Mr.
Chairman. The first one, [H.R. 8155]{.underline}, would authorize and
direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a two-cent piece
emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution. This bill
would permanently add the two-cent piece to the nickel and the penny as
the third minor coin of the United States and, by providing that this
coin shall bear a Bicentennial design and date, would make the new
two-cent piece our fourth Bicentennial circulating coin.

While it may ultimately be desirable to include a new low denomination
in our coinage system, I believe it would be premature to authorize the
issuance of a two-cent piece as proposed by [H.R. 8155]{.underline}.
Before any new coin denomination issued, we must take into account a
broad range of the relevant considerations, including the need for the
particular denomination, its public acceptability and the impact it may
have on business establishments, banks and coin-operated devices. At the
present time, we do not have such information concerning a two-cent
piece. There is, however, a comprehensive coinage study

\- 6 -

currently being conducted for the Mint, which will examine these factors
in detail. The study, which is expected to be completed within the next
six to eight months, will contain recommendations concerning the coinage
requirements of the Nation through the year 1990, including the possible
need for any additional or substitute coin denomination. A major aspect
of the study will deal with the public acceptability and overall
economic effects of any recommended change in our current coinage
system. Once the study is completed and the findings are evaluated, the
Department will consult with Congress to determine what implementing
legislation may be needed.

Additionally, since this bill would direct us to issue the proposed coin
for the Bicentennial, we are much concerned with the impact it would
have on private industry. In our view, the abrupt introduction of a new
denomination into circulation could adversely affect the Nation's
commerce. The physical characteristics of a new coin, particularly its
diameter, require considerable changes in, and in some cases the
replacement of, a whole array of con-handling devices across the Nation.
The necessary re-tooling or replacement of these devices, which include
sorting machines, vending machines, change makers and counting and
wrapping machines, could take several years. Thus, before a new
circulating denomination is issued, the directly affected businesses and
industries must have ample lead-time to implement the required equipment
changes. By making the proposed two-cent piece a part of our
Bicentennial circulating coinage, this bill would preclude the orderly
introduction of the new coin into our trade and commerce.

\- 7 -

Because of these considerations, Mr. Chairman, the Department does not
favor the passage of [H.R. 8155]{.underline}.

Lastly, [H.R. 7056]{.underline} and other identical bills would direct
the Secretary to issue commemorative gold coins bearing the symbol of
the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration. The design, gold
content and quality would be left to the Secretary and these coins would
be sold as numismatic items. The bills provide, however, that the coins
would be legal tender.

The Department opposes the issuance of commemorative gold coins. The
domestic monetary role of gold was essentially terminated when the
United States left the gold standard by a series of actions taken in
1933 and 1934. In addition, it has long been the policy objective of the
United States to diminish the international monetary role of gold---an
objective substantially advanced by agreements reached a few weeks ago
at the IMF meeting here in Washington. Admittedly, the bills before the
Subcommittee contemplate that the gold coins would be commemorative
only. However, since these gold coins would be legal tender and would
constitute a part of our currency system, the Department is concerned
that their issuance could well be interpreted abroad as being
inconsistent with the position of the United States that the special
status and monetary role of gold should be eliminated.

Apart from these policy objections, the Department has serious
reservations whether, as a practical matter, we could produce a gold
coin of a size and quality which would appropriately commemorate the

\- 8 -

American Revolution and, at the same time, could be issued at a price
within the means of the average American. On the basis of the current
gold price of approximately \$140 per ounce, a gold coin in the size of
the half-dollar would have to be sold for over \$100 and would thus be
within the means of relatively few of our citizens. On the other hand, a
coin minted and sold at prices the average American could afford would
either contain a negligible amount of gold or would be very small and
unimpressive as a commemorative piece for our Bicentennial.

I want to emphasize, at the same time, that those Americans with
substantial means who desire a Bicentennial gold commemorative will have
an opportunity to purchase a gold national medal. This gold medal, as I
mentioned earlier in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, will be produced by the
Mint for the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration and offered
to the public in 1976.

This, Mr. Chairman, concludes my statement. I want to thank you again
for having given me the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee
this morning.

\- 9 -