U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

31–538 PDF 2007

COIN AND CURRENCY ISSUES FACING

CONGRESS: CAN WE STILL AFFORD MONEY?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL 

MONETARY POLICY, TRADE, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 19, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–109

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

CAMPBELL, JOHN, California 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY, TRADE, AND

TECHNOLOGY

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio, Chair

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice Chair 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

BARBARA LEE, California 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 19, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

July 19, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 47

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2006

Bowers, Q. David, Numismatic Director, American Numismatic Rarities, LLC 31

Cipoletti, Christopher, Executive Director, American Numismatic Association 35

Deisher, Beth, Editor, Coin World Magazine ........................................................ 33

Felix, Larry R., Director, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, U.S. Department 

of the Treasury ..................................................................................................... 8

Glass, Brent D., Director, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution .................................................................................................... 13

Johnson, Scott, Deputy Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Investigative Division, U.S. Secret Service ...................................................................................... 10

Lebryk, David A., Acting Director, U.S. Mint ....................................................... 6

Roseman, Louise L., Director, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ................ 11

Weinberg, Fred, Vice Chairman, Industry Council for Tangible Assets ............. 37

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Bowers, Q. David .............................................................................................. 48

Cipoletti, Christopher ....................................................................................... 52

Deisher, Beth .................................................................................................... 56

Felix, Larry R. .................................................................................................. 72

Glass, Brent D. ................................................................................................. 78

Johnson, Scott ................................................................................................... 80

Lebryk, David A. ............................................................................................... 86

Roseman, Louise L. .......................................................................................... 100

Weinberg, Fred ................................................................................................. 109

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Frank D. Lucas: 

Statement of Harvey G. Stack ......................................................................... 113

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney: 

Letter to Hon. Deborah Pryce and Hon. Carolyn Maloney from David 

Ganz, Ganz & Hollinger ............................................................................... 120

Hon. Deborah Pryce: 

Responses to Questions Submitted to Louise L. Roseman ............................ 128

Responses to Questions Submitted to David A. Lebryk ................................ 130

Hon. Michael Castle: 

Responses to Questions Submitted to David A. Lebryk ................................ 132

Hon. Frank D. Lucas: 

Responses to Questions Submitted to David A. Lebryk ................................ 137

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney: 

Responses to Questions Submitted to David A. Lebryk ................................ 138

(1)

COIN AND CURRENCY ISSUES FACING 

CONGRESS: CAN WE STILL AFFORD MONEY? 

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC AND

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY, 

TRADE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Deborah Pryce [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Pryce, Lucas, Neugebauer, Maloney, 

Sherman, and Kelly. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Good afternoon. I am very pleased to welcome all of your here today to this hearing on coin and currency 

issues. I want to thank Representatives Lucas and Castle for their 

support of this hearing and leadership on the issue, and as always, 

my friend, Mrs. Maloney, the co-chair of this subcommittee—the 

ranking member of this subcommittee, and we act like co-chairs. 

The collection of coins in our country can be a charitable act and 

an education piece all at once. Legislation like my own commemorative coin to honor the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 

Chairwoman Kelly’s coin commemorating the sacrifices disabled 

veterans have made for our country can be used in remembrance, 

and in passing on the history of our country from generation to 

generation. 

Additionally, we have seen an overwhelming use and appreciation for the States quarters program. The Mint and Federal Reserve have done a good job of getting word out about the quarters, 

and I hope they will do the same with the newly-enacted Presidential $1 coin. 

Unfortunately, with all the successes we have seen with these 

programs, we are continuing to learn that our coins are costing 

more to make than they are worth. While our Mint works to 

produce new, less-costly coins, our Bureau of Engraving and Printing has put its concentration on protecting our paper currency from 

counterfeiting. 

We welcome the new director of the BEP, Mr. Felix, here today, 

and look forward to hearing from him and the other witnesses on 

steps our Government, and the governments of other countries, are 

taking to address similar problems with the cost of coins and counterfeiting. 

2

Finally, this hearing will also serve in part as a legislative hearing on Representative Lucas’s bill, H.R. 5077, the Numismatic Rarities Certainty Coin Act of 2006. 

We would like to thank our witnesses for being here today and 

look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Ms. Maloney? 

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like very much to thank Chairwoman 

Deborah Pryce, and I welcome the witnesses to this hearing, which 

serves as the regular oversight hearing that this subcommittee 

holds each year to examine the operations of the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. It is also an opportunity to address issues relating to coins and currency, and recently passed or 

pending legislation in those areas. 

Today we have several such issues: the implementation of the 

Presidential Dollar Coin Act, a bill on which I was the lead Democrat with Congressman Castle; the rising cost of manufacturing the 

penny and the nickel; a bill introduced by Mr. Lucas to resolve 

ownership of mint rarities; and a bill introduced by Mr. Colby to 

eliminate both the penny and the dollar bill. 

The Presidential dollar coin bill that Mr. Castle and I initiated 

was bipartisan legislation intending to be a win/win for the taxpayers and the economy. The House passed this bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, and the Senate did the same with 

the same version. 

The Presidential dollar coin will begin in January of 2007 with 

the issuance of the George Washington dollar, and continue at the 

rate of four Presidents a year, until all Presidents who have completed their term in office have been honored, including President 

Bush, and at least one successor. 

Through discussions with Representative Pomeroy, Indian tribal 

chiefs, and women’s groups, the provisions of the bill relating to the 

Sacagawea dollar coin were clarified and strengthened to make 

clear that Sacagawea will continue to be honored on the dollar 

throughout the program and after the program is complete. 

This law was modeled on, and builds on, the remarkably successful program of our 50 State quarter bill. Like the State quarters, 

the Presidential dollar coin is expected to revive interest in the dollar coin, educate the public about our presidents, and make money 

for the taxpayers. 

After 5 years, at the halfway point, the 50 State quarter point 

had made $4 billion, primarily from collectors—including my two 

daughters—taking the coins out of circulation so that the Federal 

Reserve then buys more from the Mint. 

We have similar expectations for the effect of the individuals collecting the Presidential dollar coins. In addition, we expect this bill 

will revive interest in and encourage use of the dollar coin. To some 

extent, however, this depends on the Mint and the Federal Reserve 

taking a strong advocacy position in the implementation of this 

program. And I will be asking those witnesses today what they are 

going to do in this regard. 

On the Lucas bill, I see no reason to reward collectors who happen to have acquired coins illegally taken from the Mint. If we 

want to resolve these ownership issues through legislation, which 

I am not sure is a good idea when the courts are perfectly well suitVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:46 Feb 06, 2007 Jkt 031538 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\31538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
3

ed for this task, we need to do a much more careful job of it. I 

would also like to ask for permission to put into the record the 

comments of David Ganz, a coin expert who has substantial, detailed information on this bill. 

While I understand Mr. Colby’s desire to find new ways to reduce 

Government waste and make our currency more profitable, I cannot support eliminating the penny at this time. First, I am not persuaded that we would save money. Although the penny does cost 

more than what it costs to make the penny, the nickel also costs 

more than a nickel to make. According to the Mint, the penny costs 

1.4 cents and the nickel 6.4 cents. In other words, we lose more per 

unit on the nickel than on the penny. While we are not making 

more nickels than pennies, if we drop the penny, we would need 

to make more nickels. So it is not clear that the Mint would come 

out ahead financially. 

Also, a study by a former Federal Reserve economist shows that 

rounding hurts lower income people the most. And this effect would 

be especially strong if only cash transactions are rounded, since 

lower income people are most prone to be unbanked and to rely 

more on cash. 

That said, I will be asking the Mint and the Federal Reserve for 

their views on these issues, and I hope to learn what they are planning to do to reduce Government spending on currency. I look forward to the hearing, and I thank the chairwoman for calling this 

hearing. Thank you. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you. 

Representative Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to 

thank you and the ranking member for holding this hearing today. 

It is extremely appropriate that we have this opportunity to discuss 

these issues of numismatic importance. 

And I would like to thank our witnesses for coming today. I look 

forward to a complete and thorough discussion by both panels of 

the numismatic and currency issues of the past and of today, and 

how these issues affect the numismatic as a whole. 

I have filed H.R. 5077, the Numismatic Rarities Certainty Act, 

as an effort on my part to address some of our uncertainties in 

present law and perhaps an opportunity to enhance the numismatic experience for everyone, and clearly provide some guidance 

to the United States Government on how to handle some very important issues. 

The bill sets a date, December 31, 1932, before which any coin 

manufactured by the Mint but never properly issued will no longer 

be declared Government property. It would be safe for coin collectors to buy, to own, and to sell. Coins that were manufactured after 

that date would still be considered Government property unless the 

current possessor could demonstrate legal ownership. 

The Mint would be required to preserve any coins that came into 

the Mint’s possession under the provisions of the bill, not destroy 

them, as has been the case sometimes in the past. If a sufficient 

amount of a certain coin has been preserved under the bill, the excess would be legally sold at Government auction to coin collectors, 

with the proceeds going to the Smithsonian for the preservation 

and display of the national coin collection. Once these pieces have 

4

been deemed excess and sold by the Government at auction, they 

would then be legally ownable forever. 

With my bill, I intend to provide certainty to coin collectors who 

currently have coins that may have originally been mysteriously 

manufactured or released from the U.S. Mint, but which have been 

publicly sold at auction several times since then without the Mint 

ever attempting to confiscate them. 

Additionally, the Mint has gone after, as is famously discussed 

by many, any 1933 Double Eagle that has been found, but has ignored other coins, such as the 1913 Liberty head nickels. The bill 

also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct an inventory 

of all coins, medals, or numismatic items that are in the possession 

of the United States Government and report back to Congress the 

inventory before January 31, 2007, and every 5 years thereafter. 

Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for agreeing to appear 

today. I look forward to hearing from the Mint about their thoughts 

on my proposed legislation. As for the Smithsonian, I would like to 

thank them for their efforts in preserving the national coin collection, the largest numismatic collection in the world. 

And I am very curious about what plans the Smithsonian has for 

the national collection if my legislation were to pass and a funding 

stream could be created. It is a tragedy that due to limited resources, the collection is not currently in permanent display. 

Finally, I look forward to hearing from the numismatic experts 

assembled for the second panel. This should be a fascinating hearing. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Mrs. Kelly, do you have a statement? 

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing. 

As a representative of the Nation’s newest Mint at West Point, 

I am keenly interested in ensuring that our circulating coinage 

meets today’s needs while numismatic products remain the most 

commercially appealing in the world. This committee, with your 

support, passed the Presidential Dollar Coin Act that authorized 

the production of the new $50 gold Buffalo coins at West Point. 

These .999 pure gold coins celebrate the numismatic heritage of the 

famous Buffalo nickel while meeting the world’s needs for pure 

gold bullion coins for savings and investment. 

I am also thankful for your comments in support of H.R. 1951, 

which would pay homage to our Nation’s disabled veterans in two 

very important ways. First, it would mint a coin depicting a veteran disabled for life while defending his or her country. Second, 

the proceeds from the sale of the coin will go toward helping to 

plan, design, and construct a memorial for disabled veterans here 

in Washington, D.C. 

This is a long-overdue tribute. There are over three million living 

disabled veterans in the United States, and the sacrifices that they 

have made to protect our freedom can never be repaid. They should 

be remembered and they should be honored. And this is a tribute 

that is a very timely one because there are over 16,000 U.S. soldiers who have been wounded fighting the current global war on 

terror. 

5

Congress approved this national memorial to be built in October 

of 2000 with the passage of Public Law 106–348. The law created 

the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial Foundation to 

see to the construction of the memorial. The foundation’s work is 

important, but it is not yet complete. They have raised quite a bit 

of money for it, but this will help. The coin will help. And when 

they are finished, they will have created a memorial that is long 

overdue to pay tribute to the Nation’s veterans who have returned 

from the battlefield bearing the scars of war. 

H.R. 1951 currently has over 180 co-sponsors. I urge all of the 

members who are present here who have not co-sponsored this to 

do so soon so we can allow this legislation to move forward. 

I thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to a very 

interesting hearing today, and I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses. Thank you. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you all. 

I will now introduce our panel and ask that, without objection, 

your written statements will be made a part of the record. Each of 

you will be recognized in the order of introduction for a 5-minute 

summary of your testimony. 

We have with us today David Lebryk, the Deputy Director of the 

United States Mint. He is responsible for the day-to-day operations 

of the world’s largest manufacturer of coins, medals, and coin products, with operations in San Francisco, Denver, Philadelphia, West 

Point, Fort Knox, and the District of Columbia. Welcome. 

And Larry Felix, the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and 

Printing. As Director, Mr. Felix is responsible for the overall operations of the Bureau in the production of U.S. currency and other 

Government securities documents. Welcome. 

Also, Scott Johnson, the Deputy Special Agent in Charge, Criminal Investigative Division, U.S. Secret Service. His areas of responsibility include supervision of all domestic and foreign Secret Service criminal investigations, as well as liaison with other Government agencies and local law enforcement with the Secret Service. 

Thank you. 

And Louise Roseman, the Director of the Division of Reserve 

Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, which oversees the Federal Reserve 

Bank’s provision of financial services to depository institutions, fiscal agency services to the Treasury, and other Government agencies in significant support functions. Welcome. 

And last, but not least, Brent Glass, the Director of the National 

Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institute. From 1987 to 

2002, he served as the executive director of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, the largest public history program in the Nation. He has served on the U.S. National Historical 

Publications and Records Commission and on the council of the 

American Association for State and Local History. 

Welcome to all of you. Once again, you can summarize your 

statements, and you will all be given 5 minutes. And Mr. Lebryk, 

we will begin with you. Thank you all. 

6

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. LEBRYK, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. 

MINT 

Mr. LEBRYK. Chairwoman Pryce, Representative Maloney, and 

members of the subcommittee, the United States Mint welcomes 

this opportunity to report to you today. I am pleased to say the 

United States Mint has never been busier, with 35 new coins at 

some stage of design and production, and manufacturing an average of 70 million coins per day. Thank you for keeping us busy. 

In the past year, we have launched many popular coin programs 

and coins that you have authorized—five State quarters, the final 

two nickels in the Westward Journey Nickel Series, the John Marshall and Benjamin Franklin commemorative coins, the sold-out 

Marine Corps commemorative coins, and the American Legacy set. 

Most recently we have introduced the 24-karat American Buffalo 

Gold Proof Coin and Bullion. We are particularly proud of this program, executed and introduced to the public in less than 6 months 

from the enactment of the bill. The men and women of the United 

States Mint at West Point have done a fabulous job in executing 

this program, and I brought samples, not to keep, but if you would 

like to take a look at the proof and the bullion, you are welcome 

to take a look at them as we are going through our testimony. 

As of this morning, we have sold over 320,000 ounces of 24-karat gold, generating more than $200 million in revenue. That is a remarkable introduction, and remarkably successful in such a short 

period of time, since June 22nd. 

Despite rising base metal prices, the United States Mint has increased total revenue and cut costs and made its products more accessible to Americans. In Fiscal Year 2005, the United States Mint 

transferred $775 million to the Treasury General Fund, an increase 

of $110 million from the previous year. Despite the increased spike 

in prices, we expect to transfer close to $800 million to the Treasury General Fund this year. 

We have done that with a focus on efficiency and cost reduction 

throughout the United States Mint. In the last 2 years, for example, we have increased our manufacturing efficiency by 26 percent 

and we have cut our General and Administrative expenses by 13 

percent. In response to lower production of circulating coins, we 

have had staffing levels go from a peak of 2,800 FTE’s in 2000, to 

1,933 FTE’s as of this morning. 

We have improved by between 21 and 141 days the time it takes 

to introduce our products to market. In the last 6 years, we have 

been among the top agencies in customer service and customer satisfaction. The United States Mint has received 12 clean audits, and 

we reduced our lost time accidents from 5 in the year 2000 to .8 

as of this morning. In 2005, our Philadelphia facility won an award 

for safety, the top award OSHA gives. And we recently received a 

White House Closing the Circle Award for environmental management. 

Last month we launched the 38th quarter in the 50 State Quarters Program. More than 140 million Americans are now collecting 

these coins, and we are now down to the last twelve States. There 

are only 29 months remaining. 

The United States Mint is also energetically implementing the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, and we have had to move quickly. 

7

Within 4 short weeks of the President signing the bill in late December of 2005, we presented design concepts for the Presidential 

$1 coins and a 24-karat bullion coin to our advisory committees. 

These coins and productions have proceeded on schedule. 

On June 22nd, a month ago, as I mentioned, we issued and minted the Nation’s first 24-karat American Buffalo Gold Coin. The research and development work is completed, and the manufacturing 

processes and equipment for edge lettering are being finalized. The 

anti-tarnishing process for the new coins is also finalized. 

Together with the Federal Reserve, we hosted a well-attended 

and well-received dollar coin users group forum on June 8th to discuss, among other things, how to maximize circulation and the acceptance of the Presidential dollar. Additional forums and outreach 

will occur over the course of the fall. We are also implementing a 

demand/acceptance study to see if we can gauge what the demand 

for the new coins will be, and this fall we will launch a public 

awareness and public education campaign to make sure that Americans are aware of the new coin. 

We expect to successfully introduce the George Washington $1 

coin on or about President’s Day of February 19, 2007, to honor our 

Nation’s Presidents. We thank the sponsors and the Congress for 

the opportunity to implement this legislation. We look forward to, 

and are committed to, a successful program. 

I now turn to H.R. 5077, the ‘‘Numismatic Rarities Certainty Act 

of 2006.’’ The most significant provision of this bill would similarly 

terminate the public ownership of any coin, medal, or numismatic 

item made prior to 1933 if such item is not then in the possession 

of the Government. 

The production and security of America’s money and property are 

essential to the Treasury Department’s mission. We recognize the 

concerns of the numismatic community, but they are not unique. 

While the United States Mint appreciates the efforts of Congressman Lucas to lend certainty to numismatic rarities, we are particularly concerned that this bill could transfer title to rare antiquities 

and other ‘‘national treasures’’ currently owned by the public, from 

the Government to the person who happens to possess it—regardless of whether he knew it was public property, knew it might be 

illegal to own, or worse, played a role in its illegal production or 

distribution. 

The Department of the Treasury can either support a small fraction of the numismatic community—a community, I might add, 

that is a vital stakeholder to the United States Mint—or protect 

the Government’s broader national interest in protecting public 

property as trustee of the citizenry. The Administration respectfully supports the latter position. 

In conclusion, we are proud of the work of the men and women 

of the United States Mint who strive to be good stewards of the 

taxpayer’s money and to fulfill our mission of producing coins and 

protecting the Nation’s assets. The question posed by today’s hearing is, ‘‘Can we still afford money?’’ We at the United States Mint 

are determined to prove that the answer is ‘‘yes’’ to that question. 

I thank you and welcome the opportunity for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lebryk can be found on page 86 

of the appendix.] 

8

Chairwoman PRYCE. Well, thank you for being with us today. 

And I am sorry if some of us were just a bit distracted while we 

looked at that beautiful coin that you sent up here. It is very, very 

lovely. 

Larry Felix will be next. Mr. Felix. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY R. FELIX, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Mr. FELIX. Thank you, Chairwoman Pryce, Congresswoman 

Maloney, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding 

this hearing and inviting me to testify. I appreciate the opportunity 

to report on the initiatives of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 

The BEP is the security printer of the United States. While our 

primary product is Federal Reserve notes, we also produce other 

security documents on behalf of Federal agencies. The BEP uses 

state-of-the-art equipment in combination with exceptional technical competence of the workforce, to efficiently produce billions of 

Federal Reserve notes each year. 

The goal of staying ahead of technological threats to our currency 

rather than simply responding to existing threats requires the Government to plan ahead and regularly develop new designs for currency. This means that the new currency must be in development 

several years before the counterfeiting threat is projected to materialize. 

In the mid-1990’s, the Bureau introduced the first redesign of 

U.S. currency in 65 years. The design changes were needed to combat the emergence of a new breed of counterfeiters who were beginning to employ computers and scanners, color copiers, and other 

emerging technologies to replicate notes. All of the notes, all of the 

denominations, with the exception of the $1 and $2, were redesigned. This design of currency was effective in combating counterfeiting that existed then by making it more difficult to produce a 

high quality counterfeit note. 

Nevertheless, due to the increased availability of sophisticated 

digital equipment, the Advanced Counterfeit Deterrence Committee 

concluded that further actions were needed to stay ahead of emerging counterfeit threats. Consequently, U.S. currency was further 

enhanced with the introduction of the current design series, commonly referred to as the 2004 series, which features background 

colors and improved security features. 

The redesigned $20, $50, and $10 notes were introduced into circulation. Recently, the Treasury Department, the BEP, and the 

Federal Reserve announced that the $5 note is expected in 2008, 

with the new $100 note to follow. The Government has no plans 

to redesign the $1 and $2 notes. 

The redesigned 2004 notes contain an array of counterfeit deterrent security features, some of which are visible and easily recognizable to the American public, and some of which are machinereadable only. The signature feature of this redesigned note is, in 

fact, an anti-digital counterfeiting system that was developed 

under the auspices of the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence 

9

Group in cooperation with major digital printer and software manufacturers. 

The United States’ effort on this initiative is led by the Federal 

Reserve. The anti-digital system, which is being used in a number 

of countries, relies on a hidden marker embedded in the note design that can be read or detected by new technology digital printers 

and software. 

This new systemic design feature heralds a vibrant and growing 

partnership between the public and private sector to protect the 

Nation’s currency, and is intended to thwart increasing counterfeiting of currency using digital reprographic technology. This is a 

significant investment in the future of currency and will greatly assist in preventing counterfeiting as the anti-digital technology becomes much more dominant in the marketplace. 

In addition to the security features mentioned above, plans for 

the redesigned $100 note include the addition of new overt features 

intended to deter increasingly sophisticated counterfeiting activities directed at the $100 note. 

In cooperation with the Federal Reserve, the BEP administers a 

public education program to support the introduction of new currency designs. The goal of this program is to build an adequate 

threshold of awareness to ensure seamless transitions as the new 

currency designs are introduced into the public. 

The BEP is progressing with its solicitation to acquire public 

education services over the next 5-year period. Most of the duties 

associated with that contract will entail providing educational support for the introduction of the $5 note in the spring of 2008, and 

the redesigned $100 note in Fiscal Year 2009. 

Public education outreach to support the $100 effort is especially 

vital given that the value of $100 notes comprise roughly 72 percent of the estimated $762 billion of outstanding United States currency, of which, by the way, an estimated two-thirds of which are 

held outside our borders. 

There are a number of initiatives that the BEP is in the process 

of implementing to continue to enhance efficiency and effectiveness 

of the organization, such as the introduction of the new 50-subject 

printing production process, and enhancing our employee development to be able to achieve those production capabilities. 

While my tenure at the BEP is only a few months old, I am eager 

to push the BEP to securely produce products of the highest quality 

in the most cost-effective manner possible. 

This concludes my opening remarks, Madam Chairwoman, and I 

would be happy to respond to any questions you or the subcommittee members may wish to ask. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Felix can be found on page 72 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Felix. 

Mr. Johnson. 

10

STATEMENT OF SCOTT JOHNSON, DEPUTY SPECIAL AGENT IN 

CHARGE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, U.S. SECRET 

SERVICE 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Price. I would like to 

thank you as well as the distinguished Ranking Member, Mrs. 

Maloney, and the other members of the subcommittee for providing 

an opportunity to discuss currency issues and the trends in counterfeiting, as well as the introduction of new Federal Reserve notes. 

The United States Secret Service was established in 1965 to protect our financial infrastructure through the investigation of counterfeiting U.S. currency. Our mission to protect our payment systems and financial infrastructure continues as we mark 141 years 

of service to this country. 

Though our agency was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, we continue to maintain our historic ties in 

a robust partnership with the Department of the Treasury in the 

safeguarding of our currency and other payment systems. 

The Secret Service strongly believes that the economic security 

is a central element of homeland security. Therefore, the safeguarding of our financial infrastructure and monetary framework 

continues to be a paramount objective of our worldwide investigative efforts. 

We continue to see the expanded international use of the U.S. dollar as the world’s currency of choice. Of the approximately $762 

billion of U.S. currency in circulation, as much as two-thirds of that 

amount circulates outside of our borders, making the U.S. dollar a 

truly global currency. In addition to the dollarized economies, those 

nations that have adopted the U.S. dollar as their own currency, 

businesses and individual interests worldwide depend upon the integrity and the stability of the U.S. dollar. 

Recent trends in the counterfeiting of U.S. currency indicate a 

growing globalization in production and distribution of counterfeit 

notes. Because not all nations report U.S. counterfeit currency activity, it is difficult to provide precise figures detailing how much 

counterfeit U.S. currency is passed on a global scale each year. 

However, being the U.S. depository for the counterfeit currency, the Secret Service received approximately $56 million in counterfeit that was passed successfully to the U.S. public in Fiscal Year 

2005. Approximately $52.6 million in counterfeit U.S. currency was 

seized last year by the United States Secret Service and other authorities worldwide. Of this amount, approximately $14.7 million 

was seized in the United States. The remaining notes were seized 

overseas, with over $14.4 million seized in Colombia alone. 

It is also interesting to see the different methods utilized by 

counterfeiters both within the United States and outside of our borders. Currently, more than 44 percent of all counterfeit currency 

passed domestically was printed outside of the United States using 

traditional offset printing techniques, predominately offset printing. Virtually every note that was produced overseas and passed in 

the United States was produced by offset printing. In contrast, 46 

percent of the counterfeit currency passed domestically last year 

was produced within the United States by individuals using digital 

technology such as computers, scanners, printers, and multi-function devices. 

11

Today, Colombia is the second largest source of counterfeit U.S. 

currency in the world, accounting for approximately 14 percent, or 

$8 million of the $56 million in counterfeit dollars passed in the 

United States. A trend has emerged that indicates counterfeiting 

activity may increase in Latin America as Colombian organized 

crime and others take advantage of counterfeiting opportunities associated with the widespread use of the U.S. dollar in Latin America. 

Counterfeit printing plant suppressions and seizures in Colombia 

show that a number of Colombian counterfeiters are producing 

lower denomination counterfeit U.S. currency for distribution in 

fully dollarized countries. 

As a result of our collaborative efforts with the Colombian national police, there has been a 56 percent reduction in Colombianproduced counterfeit currency passed in the United States since 

2001. The collaboration with the Colombian Government has been 

a success story, and the Secret Service is eager to work with Congress to obtain the authority to continue these efforts in Colombia 

and other troubled regions. 

As new technologies continue to emerge, the challenges facing 

law enforcement are significant as large quantities of counterfeit 

currency and other obligations can be reproduced quickly and efficiently. 

Domestically, the Secret Service is attacking counterfeit production and circulation from several fronts. First, with our partners in 

the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, we are 

continuing with the redesign of our currency. We have an active 

role in the research, design, and introduction of our new currency, 

and the Secret Service is continually evaluating the methods currently employed by counterfeiters and studying the cutting edge 

anti-counterfeiting technology to enhance future redesigns of U.S. 

currency. 

The Secret Service is also continuing our public education and 

training efforts both domestically and abroad. Secret Service personnel conduct training seminars on topics such as financial crimes 

and computer forensics in an effort to assist our domestic and foreign counterparts in their local law enforcement communities and 

augment the Secret Service mission. 

Chairwoman Pryce, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions that you or the members of the 

subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson can be found on page 

80 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. 

Ms. Roseman? 

STATEMENT OF LOUISE L. ROSEMAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

RESERVE BANK OPERATIONS AND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, 

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Ms. ROSEMAN. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss Federal Reserve activities related to currency and coin. My written testimony 

provides an update on the new currency designs and currency 

counterfeiting generally, in addition to some specific coin issues. In 

12

the time I have before you today, I would like to focus my comments on our planning for the Presidential dollar coin program. 

The Presidential Dollar Coin Act of 2005 establishes a program 

under which the U.S. Mint will issue four new Presidential dollar 

coin designs and a Sacagawea coin each year starting in 2007. In 

February, Federal Reserve and Mint staff began meeting regularly 

to establish plans for effectively distributing the new coins. And 

last month, as Dave mentioned, we hosted the first dollar coin 

users group forum. We will continue to consult with a wide range 

of coin users to gather ideas, advice, and information to gauge demand and anticipate circulation obstacles. 

It is unclear at this point whether the Presidential dollar coin 

program will have a substantial effect on the use of dollar coins in 

everyday transactions. The last redesign of the dollar coin did not 

lead to a sustained increase in demand. Net payments of dollar 

coins into circulation did rise sharply in 2000, but once the public 

satisfied its initial interest in collecting Sacagaweas, demand has 

returned to historic levels. 

The Sacagawea has not been successful in substantially increasing ongoing demand because it appears that some of the largest obstacles to dollar coin circulation don’t relate to the design. Vending 

machine operators, transit authorities, and other organizations 

that accept payment at automated equipment have indicated that 

dollar coins are less costly than dollar notes for them. 

Other sectors of the retail industry, however, have indicated that 

their costs for using dollar coins would be much higher than those 

associated with dollar bills. In addition, dollar coins do not have 

widespread consumer acceptance. Consumers seem to prefer to 

carry dollar bills rather than weigh down their pockets with dollar 

coins. 

A 2002 GAO study concluded that the continuing circulation of 

the dollar bill is the biggest barrier to the widespread use of the 

dollar coin. So should the Government eliminate the dollar bill so 

the public has no choice but to use the dollar coin? We believe, at 

this stage, that market forces, rather than Government action, 

should determine the relative use of the dollar bill and dollar coin 

in our economy, particularly given that there is no compelling evidence that societal costs will decrease as a result of a shift to a 

greater use of dollar coins. 

The Reserve Banks and the Mint currently hold large inventories 

of dollar coins, enough to meet current demand for the next threeand-a-half years. If this new program does not spark broad use of 

dollar coins for everyday transactions, we expect Federal Reserve 

inventories will further increase with the issuance of each new 

Presidential dollar coin design. 

The Presidential Dollar Coin Act requires the Treasury to mint 

and issue Sacagawea coins each year in quantities equal to no less 

than one-third of the total Presidential dollar coins issued. Given 

our already ample inventories, which may increase further under 

this program, the Reserve Banks may not need to order more 

Sacagaweas from the Mint for a number of years. 

If the Presidential dollar coin program does not substantially increase demand for dollar coins in everyday transactions, the requirement that the Mint must nonetheless produce Sacagaweas 

13

would result in a cost to the taxpayers without any offsetting benefits. In those circumstances, we would strongly recommend that 

Congress reassess this one-third requirement. 

We are working with the Mint on how best to address the demand for the Presidential dollar coin for ordinary commerce as well 

as from casual collectors, while effectively managing Reserve Bank 

inventories. For example, we are exploring options for providing 

dollar coins to depository institutions in increments that are smaller than our current standard of 2,000, and are planning to conduct 

a pilot program in conjunction with the Mint to assess the benefits 

of packaging dollar coins in smaller rolls. 

In addition, for about the first month after each new Presidential 

dollar coin design is issued, the Reserve Banks will suspend their 

normal practice of first paying previously circulated coins to depository institutions and instead will pay out only the new design. 

In conclusion, the Federal Reserve will continue to work with the 

Mint to successfully implement the Presidential dollar coin program. More broadly, we will continue our focus on meeting the 

public’s demand for currency and coin in an effective and efficient 

manner. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you, and 

would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roseman can be found on page 

100 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you very much, Ms. Roseman. 

And Dr. Glass. 

STATEMENT OF BRENT D. GLASS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

Mr. GLASS. Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairwoman Pryce, Ranking Member Maloney, and other members of 

the subcommittee, for inviting me to testify before you here today. 

As you know, the legislation offered by Congressman Frank 

Lucas, H.R. 5077, the Numismatic Rarities Certainty Act of 2006, 

would require that the proceeds from a Government coin auction 

be deposited in an endowment fund for the National Numismatic 

Collection at the Smithsonian. The purpose of my testimony today 

is to tell you about this collection, and how these proceeds would 

be used if we were to receive them. 

The National Numismatic Collection is one of the largest numismatic collections in the world, and is the largest in North America. 

Located in the National Museum of American History, the collection includes approximately 1.6 million objects, more than 450,000 

coins, medals, and decorations, and 1.1 million pieces of paper in 

the collection highlight the numismatic history of the world. 

Also, the collection contains many great rarities, from the earliest coins created 2,700 years ago up to the latest innovations in 

electronic monetary exchange, as well as fascinating objects such as 

beads, wampum, and other commodities once used as money. 

The collection’s emphasis is the development of money and medals in the United States. The core of the United States collection 

came to the Smithsonian during the 1920’s from the United States 

Mint, and includes many exceptional rarities. Later transfer to the 

14

museum from the U.S. Mint included two examples of the world’s 

most valuable coin, the 1933 Double Eagle. 

It is also important to note at this time that the museum is going 

through a major transformation. We are about to undergo a renovation. Beginning in September, the museum will close for approximately 2 years. That will allow us to make some important architectural changes and to replace critical infrastructure in the museum, as well as develop a new gallery for the Star Spangled Banner, the flag that inspired our National Anthem. 

In August 2004, initial preparations for this renovation required 

us to close the History of Money and Medals exhibition, which had 

been home to a small portion of the coin and currency collection for 

over 40 years. However, this closing of the gallery, the coin and 

currency gallery, actually created more opportunities for us to display and to use the collection in new ways that we think are more 

meaningful and engaging to our visitors. 

For example, several of the coins that had formerly been in the 

Hall of Money and Medals, as well as some that had not been on 

view for years, are now in a new exhibition called Legendary Coins 

and Currency, which is on display through March 2007 in the 

Smithsonian Castle. This exhibit contains 56 objects, including 

coins, bills, medals, and captivating oddities, while a companion 

Web site allows the museum to reach audiences far beyond those 

who come to Washington, D.C. With the help of private funding 

from the numismatic community, we are initiating a new traveling 

exhibition program beginning this August, when a selection of objects under the title Frontier Gold will be on view at the American 

Numismatic Association’s convention in Denver. Other displays will 

travel in 2007 to numismatic conferences in Orlando, St. Louis, and 

Baltimore, so that more Americans, especially young audiences, can 

learn about these coins and currency and their history. 

To facilitate the traveling exhibitions, as well as other plans for 

the numismatic collection, we would like to establish a National 

Numismatic Collection Endowment to provide a dedicated funding 

source for the preservation, continued security, and display of these 

national treasures. The size of this endowment is proposed at $10 

million. Importantly, any funds directed to the Smithsonian as a 

result of the legislation offered by Mr. Lucas would be made part 

of this endowment, and hopefully would help us reach and even 

surpass this fundraising goal. 

Funding from an endowment would allow us to hire additional 

curatorial and administrative staff to oversee the collection, 

present rotating exhibitions at the museum, and to collaborate with 

others, such as the U.S. Mint and the American Numismatic Association, to develop additional exhibitions that could travel. 

The funds in the endowment would allow us to pursue opportunities to secure new objects for the collection. In addition, we would 

hope to increase outreach to individuals in communities outside of 

Washington, D.C., by enhancing our existing Web site with virtual 

exhibitions and a searchable database. Educational outreach and 

public programs, including school curricula, symposiums, guest 

speakers, and visiting scholars, would be possible with an endowment. 

15

We at the Smithsonian know that American history cannot be 

told without understanding the history of America’s coins and currency. In order to understand the American dream and American 

identity, one has to know about American money and economics. 

That is why it is very important to us to protect and share the National Numismatic Collection with the American public, a task that 

would be greatly supported by the funds generated by this legislation. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glass can be found on page 78 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you very much to our whole panel for 

their excellent testimony this morning. 

Let me begin the questioning with Mr. Johnson. We are all impressed with the anti-counterfeiting efforts of the Secret Service, 

and this committee in the past has given the Secret Service extra 

tools with which to do that job. And we are wondering, is there 

anything else we can do to give you additional tools to be helpful? 

Is there any new technology on the horizon? Are there new developments that we should be aware of, or make ourselves become 

aware of, as time goes on to be helpful to you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Chairwoman Pryce, we are working with the Administration at this point in time to enhance our counterfeiting 

laws. If you could support those, and the committee could support 

those, the Secret Service would really appreciate that. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Roseman, I was interested to hear your testimony about the 

Sacagawea coin and the mandate that a third of the new Presidential coins be Sacagawea. 

And when should that reevaluation happen? 

Ms. ROSEMAN. Well, we have been concerned for some time that 

this may require the Mint to produce coins for which there is no 

public demand. So it may be useful to start the evaluation now. 

But I think fairly early next year, we may start getting more information with respect to the demand after we have gone through 

a cycle of at least one or two coins to better gauge both what depository institution ordering practices are going to be—whether they 

are going to group their orders for dollar coins that they may need 

during just the 1-month introductory periods we have for each design, and maybe our orders will go down significantly during the 

other 2 months before the next design goes out. 

So I think we may have some fairly early indications in the first 

half of next year of what the situation is going to be like. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. And what happens traditionally if there is 

a glut, if there is no adjustment made? Is there a history that tells 

us how to handle ths? 

Ms. ROSEMAN. I will defer to Dave on this. I am not aware of previous legislation that required the Mint to mint circulating coins in 

particular quantities. So I don’t know if there has been a precedent 

for this or not. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Well, there being no precedent, what would 

you imagine would happen? 

Ms. ROSEMAN. My best guess is that the Presidential dollar coins 

will largely meet the public’s demand for dollar coins during the 

16

course of the program. We already have substantial numbers of 

Sacagawea coins that are already minted. And I suspect that there 

probably isn’t additional demand, at least in the next several years, 

to warrant minting additional Sacagaweas, at least in any material 

quantity. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. But if the law is not changed, you would be 

required to do that, and they would just sit there? Or what would 

happen? 

Ms. ROSEMAN. I think that is what would happen. The Mint 

would mint them and they would just sit there because there 

wouldn’t be a demand to have them issued. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. All right. That is very interesting. Well, if 

you have data that would be useful to this committee, please provide it any time that it is available. 

Ms. ROSEMAN. We will do so. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Mrs. Maloney? 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Pryce. 

Mr. Lebryk, I would like to ask you about a letter that the Mint, 

or you, sent to Chairman Oxley earlier this year. And you estimated the Mint would lose about $12 million on the nickel and $20 

million on the penny. 

And my question is, do you have the ability to calculate how 

much the Mint would lose if we were to eliminate the penny and 

make more nickels? 

Mr. LEBRYK. We can do that calculation and get back to you on 

what it would do. There would be—as you mentioned in your opening statement, there would be a demand dynamic that would occur, 

that you would move from pennies to nickels as the lowest denomination, and that in turn would—you know, if you are losing money 

on the production of that coin, it would then have an impact along 

the way. 

You know, with respect to the penny and the nickel, what I 

would say is that metal prices have been rising significantly over 

the course of the last 3 or 4 years. And in some ways, we have not 

had this debate or this discussion any earlier because the United 

States Mint has become so much more efficient in its production; 

we have been able to offset those metal price increases through increased efficiencies. 

What we have seen recently, though, particularly in the case of 

the nickel, is that nickel prices are just spiking significantly, and 

that is why you are now seeing the nickel as costing more to 

produce than face value as well. 

Mrs. MALONEY. So could you go back and get back to the committee an analysis on whether or not the Mint would make money 

as a result of eliminating the penny, but with the price of nickel 

going up, in fact it might cost you more money because then you 

would have to mint more nickels? Could you look at that and get 

back to us? 

Mr. LEBRYK. We sure can. I think in your—in the letter that I sent on May 1st, it was $20 million as it related to the penny because of penny production levels. Seven or 8 billion pennies are 

made a year. By contrast, there are only a billion or so nickels produced every year. So the loss that we incur on the nickel is only 

$12 million relative to the penny losses. 

17

Mrs. MALONEY. But if you minted more nickels, you might, in effect, lose more money. Correct? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Correct. 

Mrs. MALONEY. So could you give us a little look at that? Because we are all concerned about the Treasury and the deficit, the 

growing deficit, that we have in the country. 

I would like to ask you a little bit about the new dollar coin. And 

I am very excited about it. I am a former teacher, and I see it as 

a way that we can involve young people in learning more about 

their Presidents, their First Ladies, the history of this country—not 

just well-known Presidents, but lesser-known Presidents, as well. 

And I would like to know if you have any ideas of coming forward with educational materials. I can tell you that in my district, 

some of our teachers came forward with very creative teaching 

tools with the quarter program, learning about the States and the 

important parts about the States. It was tremendously successful 

on all levels. And I would like to know if you have any ideas of 

partnering with educational tools or ways that we can develop an 

interest educationally with our young people. 

I would also like to ask you about how you are going to market 

the new dollar coin. Obviously, with support for it and packaging 

and distributing it to various places, you would increase the use of 

it. I want to specifically mention the success that you had with the 

quarter coin in partnering with large retail establishments, such as 

Costco and Wal-Mart and dime stores, so that they had them, and 

it helped generate the use for it. 

So I am interested in what you are going to do to promote the 

dollar coin. There was one study that I read from the Department 

of Defense, and that was on the dollar coin. And they said—it was 

a GAO study that they did on the use of the dollar coin earlier in 

the 2000 introduction. And they literally criticized the Mint for 

having it in 2,000-coin bags, and they said that this was just—the 

volume was too large for their commissaries, and they would prefer 

to have a—they would have used it more in the commissary if it 

was fewer dollars in the bag. 

So I just would like to hear your comments on how you hope to 

work to bring this new dollar coin, which I am very excited about, 

into the public in a way that is successful. 

Mr. LEBRYK. Well, I think that the drafters and the sponsors of 

this bill did a wonderful job of addressing many of the fundamental 

underlying issues. As you look through some of the barriers that 

we face introducing a coin, the circulating design, your mentioning 

about the educational value, our ability to promote and to educate 

the American public and school children about out great leaders in 

our Nation’s history. 

Unlike the golden dollar, that provision, I think, is going to sustain interest in the program beyond an introductory period because 

you are going to have the opportunity to learn more about succeeding Presidents as we go through the list. 

The second piece I would mention is the anti-tarnishing provision 

in the bill, making sure that the coin retains its luster over a 

longer period of time. We have had success with that, and we are 

expected that as we are moving forward introducing the bill, that 

that will be fully in place and will be successful. 

18

Another is the packaging requirement found within the bill, 

which says, during the introductory period we need to have special 

packaging—that people should be able to get the coins in unmixed 

rolls, or unmixed quantities, during an introductory period, as the 

legislation says. 

As Louise was mentioning earlier, we are now in the process of 

assessing what is that right size? We had a dollar coin users forum 

recently, on June 8th, in which a lot of opinions were expressed 

about what is the right size. We need to do a little bit more research and figure out exactly what is the optimal way to deliver 

those coins. 

We will do that at the United States Mint and wrap them in a 

more limited quantity than in the 2,000 range that you have identified. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairwoman, may I respond briefly to 

his comment? 

On the size of the dollar coin, the first Sacagawea, it was too 

close to the quarter. Everybody did not like it because when they 

put it in their pocket, they mixed it up with their quarters. And 

so I think you really have to pay close attention to the size. 

I thank you for your work. I think you do an incredible job. And 

we are very proud of the work that you do for our country. Thank 

you. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And a few of the 

things we have discussed, I suspect perhaps with the next panel of 

sage old numismatists, we gain some insights. But it is worth probably noting from a historical perspective, we had a half-cent until 

1857. We shrank the penny one time—sorry, the one-cent piece—

in 1857. We did away with a smaller five-cent piece that was a 

half-dime. We have made changes before, so whatever is appropriate. 

Ms. Roseman, at the present level, on the Sacagaweas, what is 

the monthly draw-down rate? How many are leaving the Federal 

Reserve banks, on average? 

Ms. ROSEMAN. Our net payments of dollar coins are about $5 million a month. 

Mr. LUCAS. $5 million a month. And off the top of your head, 

what is the draw-out or the payments on the one-cent pieces? 

Ms. ROSEMAN. I think— 

Mr. LUCAS. Dollars or pieces, either one. 

Ms. ROSEMAN. I think that last year we may have had net payments of about eight billion pennies. 

Mr. LUCAS. Okay. So on the dollar coins, if they are minted at 

a rate that they are used approximately by the public, then there 

is about a demand for, say, 60 million a year, taking that 5 million 

and multiplying it by 12? 

Ms. ROSEMAN. Yes, the current demand has been 60 million a 

year, which is about what it was in the late 1990’s before the 

Sacagawea coin came out, when we were using the Susan B. Anthonys. 

Mr. LUCAS. Okay. Director Lebryk, for a moment to touch on 

your testimony on 5077, and I say this respectfully, but I appreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:46 Feb 06, 2007 Jkt 031538 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\31538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
19

ciate the comments about the Mint’s opposition to the bill and 

issues about Government property that has been loaned or things 

that are stolen. I would say, in all fairness, my lawyers disagree 

with your lawyers. And in the legislative process of drafting and 

crafting, we can work those kind of things out. 

Did I understand you to say, in fact or in effect, that the Mint 

reserves the right to be able to seize anything at any time that may 

have come from the Mint pre-1932, post-1932, if they define it as 

not having properly left? 

Mr. LEBRYK. I would characterize that as ‘‘recover’’ because in 

that instance, if it has not been legally issued by the United States 

Mint, it remains United States Mint/Government property. 

Mr. LUCAS. So the Mint reserves the right to recover anything 

that they define as not having properly left? Anything? 

Mr. LEBRYK. I would mention that the enforcement arm of this 

is not the United States Mint or the Treasury Department, but is 

the Secret Service and the Department of Justice. 

Mr. LUCAS. But I would assume that the Secret Service, being 

the law enforcement arm, responds to requests from the Mint. And 

it would be subject to—fascinating. Anything. Fascinating. 

Let’s touch for a moment on the inventory issue. You run a very 

modern and efficient industrial facility generating—creating many 

billions of dollars in coins. In the bill, there is a section which in 

your testimony, in essence, it appears to refer to as a duplicative 

process that talks about the inventory issues. 

Tell me about what kind of an inventory system the Mint maintains now. You are an industrial plant. You have valuable metals. 

You have dies. You have all sorts of artwork. You have got a variety of things, as well as finished product. Tell me about the inventory system that you currently use as part of your management 

program. 

Mr. LEBRYK. As a modern manufacturing facility, our objective is 

just-in-time inventory, that is, that we want to retain as little inventory as we possibly can on our books. So we work closely with 

the Federal Reserve to make sure that as coin demand orders come 

in, we fill them quickly and responsibly, and do not retain much 

inventory at all of existing product. 

Mr. LUCAS. Well, in the popular media I have read accounts 

about inquiries from different individuals and media outlets about 

things. And I think they use the Freedom of Information Act, the 

FOIA stuff. 

Tell me about how the Mint responds to FOIA requests. Say 

someone writes you a letter and asks, ‘‘Mr. Director, do you have 

any coins from pre-2005 still in your vaults or in your holdings?’’ 

That would come as a FOIA request. 

Mr. LEBRYK. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Is it the policy of the Mint to respond to those things 

and give that kind of information out? 

Mr. LEBRYK. That is correct. There is a body of regulation and 

procedure which we follow when a FOIA request comes in to be responsive to those requests. And there are exemptions, and there 

are situations in which we can decide whether we withhold information based on a certain standard, or whether we can provide 

that information. 

20

Mr. LUCAS. So from a perspective of an inventory like this, not 

only just the coins that commonly go into circulation, not only the 

coins that wind up, thanks to legislative action by Congress, for a 

particular purpose issued for a limited period of time that wind up 

in your inventory, but you also have, I would assume, dies and artwork from the past that were used to create present and past 

pieces. You have a variety of test strikes, those kind of things. 

Is there a master list of that kind of information? 

Mr. LEBRYK. We keep an inventory of what—of our existing property consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, and 

that is property that is in the control of the United States Government. We take that responsibility very seriously. 

At the same time, we keep a working inventory of dies and the 

like. In fact, with respect to the 24-karat program, one of the reasons why it was so important to have those historical documents 

in hand is that as the legislation asked us to produce the 1913 

James Earl Frazier type 1 variety of the Buffalo coin, we were able 

to go back to the original galvanos, digitally scan those into our 

system, and it saved us a lot of time and effort from having to recover that information from an alternative means. 

So when we have property—when we have possession of equipment, we take an assessment about whether that property is still 

of value to us or may be of value to us at some time in the future. 

Mr. LUCAS. So if I write you a specific letter, as is customary in 

these hearings for a period after which with additional questions, 

and I were to address the question something to the effect of, 

please provide me with a list of all non-current dies that you may 

hold in your inventory, would it be possible for you to respond to 

me with an accounting like that? 

Mr. LEBRYK. In the same way that we account for our property—

if you asked me how many machines we had, how many Schuler 

presses we had, how many dies that we had and the like, we have 

the obligation to protect that property. 

Mr. LUCAS. Of course. 

Mr. LEBRYK. How easy it would be for us to come up with a quick 

inventory for you, I just don’t know. 

Mr. LUCAS. Fascinating. Because after—Madam Chairwoman, 

could I indulge you for an additional period of time? 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Let’s indulge for 2 more minutes. Do we 

have consent to do that? 

Mr. LUCAS. Or after my colleague has—our colleague has had an 

opportunity to ask his questions, come back again? 

Chairwoman PRYCE. Certainly. That is fine with me. 

Let’s go to Mr. Neugebauer, who has been very patient. Then we 

will go to Mr. Sherman, who is just getting his breath. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

First, to Mr. Felix, I have had an opportunity to go over to the 

engraving operation that you have here. And I guess it is probably 

one of the few Government agencies that makes money faster than 

they can spend it. 

[Laughter] 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I want to go to Mr. Lebryk. I want to make 

sure I am clear about this. Now, I am a customer, and I buy the 

gold eagles. I like the gold eagles. And I may buy—I am certainly 

21

interested in the Buffalo coin. I want to make sure, when I buy 

that coin from the Mint, are you telling me that, in fact, that still 

belongs to the people of the United States of America? 

Mr. LEBRYK. No. We—by the way, I am a customer as well, so 

when I purchase a coin, I also purchase it directly from the Mint. 

When we lawfully issue a coin and sell it, and you purchase it with 

legal tender, it is now your coin. 

The issue, I think, that is being discussed here is if we have 

never lawfully issued a coin, at which point it should remain in the 

possession of the United States Government and the American people? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. How do you not lawfully issue a coin? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Through theft. In the case of the 1933 Double 

Eagle, there was a theft that occurred. President Franklin Delano 

Roosevelt said it was illegal to hold those coins at that time. And 

subsequent courts determined that it was Government property 

and remained Government property. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. By the way, I do want to complement the Mint 

because they are very user-friendly, and I have found it to be a 

pleasure to do business with you. 

So when I have been with a good friend from Oklahoma and talk 

about his bill of arbitrarily setting—1933, I believe, is the date—

does that mean coins that were in circulation? Like I used to collect 

pennies, for example. And so if I had a penny collection, are we 

saying that from 1933 on, the American people share ownership of 

that coin set with me? Is that what we are saying? 

Mr. LEBRYK. If we lawfully issued any of those coins, then they 

are the possession of the person who holds them. The issue here 

is whether something is unlawfully being held, as is the case if 

someone stole your automobile. You would expect to be able to recover that automobile free of legal action. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Okay. So for all the people out there listening, 

if you have been collecting coins and you are going to collect some 

of the Presidential coins, they are going to be your coins and we 

don’t have to worry about the Federal Government— 

Mr. LEBRYK. That is correct. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I am glad we— 

Mr. LUCAS. Would the gentleman yield for one moment? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. But if you paid several million dollars for a 1913 Liberty Head nickel, you might think about it. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I am a collector, but not that kind of collector. 

[Laughter] 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I wouldn’t mind someone showing me the 

money, so to speak. 

But I want to go to Ms. Roseman. This penny/nickel issue, with 

the debit cards and ATM’s and credit cards and—you know, I go—

well, sometimes I write one check a month, and I carry money 

around that is getting old because I am using credit cards just for 

about everything, or debit cards. Is that reducing the demand for 

coinage that the Federal Reserve needs? Or if you were to start 

graphing that, can you shed some light on that? 

22

Ms. ROSEMAN. You know, it is interesting. You are right. There 

has been a very high growth in the number of electronic payments 

in this country, particularly over the last 10 years. 

Back in the mid-1990’s, Americans wrote about 50 billion checks 

a year. Now it is roughly 30 billion a year. It is still a large number, but declining due to the increasing use of electronic payments. 

We suspect that this trend is also making some inroads, and may 

continue to make some inroads, in the domestic use of cash. The 

card companies are now focusing on signing up merchants that primarily accept cash, such as fast food chains. 

I don’t think people will stop using coins and cash altogether by 

any means, but there may be some either lessened growth rate or 

maybe a slight decline in the usage as these instruments continue 

to expand into different kinds of retailers who don’t have them 

today, and consumers get more and more comfortable making 

transactions by card or other electronic means rather than by cash. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Lebryk, just one short question. As I remember, there was a penny that was not copper. It was in the 

1940’s or 1950’s or something? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Yes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes. And have we explored, you know, alternatives of making—I mean, you know, a lot of people don’t even 

know a nickel maybe is made out of nickel or—I mean, obviously 

I think a lot of people know that a penny is copper. But, I mean, 

I know in other countries that I have been in, they are using— 

Mr. SHERMAN. If the gentleman will yield, I believe a penny is 

not made out of copper. It is chiefly zinc. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Maybe so. So you see there what I am saying? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ninety-seven and a half percent zinc and— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I rest my case. I made my own case, and 

thanks to the gentleman for helping me. But, I mean, have we explored different other metals to— 

Mr. LEBRYK. We have. And about two-and-a-half years ago, we 

undertook an extensive review of alternative metals that we might 

use, and we have a variety of criteria on which we assessed the different metals that might be alternatives. 

I would mention that we at the United States Mint are a supplier, a manufacturer of coins. There are a lot of considerations 

that are beyond our control that would have to—that the Congress 

would need to take into account to determine whether they wanted 

us to change the composition of those coins. 

The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, grants the power to make 

money or coin money to the—and determine the standards and 

weights to Congress. And so if we were going to change the composition of our coins or change the denominations or do something 

with our coins, it would be an act of Congress which we would require to do that. 

So with that said, we have done our research on this issue. We 

have tried to figure out what is viable. But we have not taken into 

account the broader range of issues, that is, how they will be—how 

they will work through commerce, the impact on the American public, and the like. 

As a result, I think, in its wisdom, the U.S. House of Representatives has asked the GAO to look at these sets of issues and report 

23

back, I believe, by March 7th of next year, of looking at the research that we have done and looking at the broader range of 

issues. 

My view is that this is the appropriate next step—to look at this 

very analytically and thoroughly to determine what is the best 

thing for the American people so that the Congress has the best 

available information to it as it makes that decision, if it makes 

that decision. 

Chairwoman PRYCE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

And Mr. Sherman, thank you for your patience. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I misspent my youth dedicated to the 

proposition that collecting stamps was the superior approach. 

[Laughter] 

Mr. SHERMAN. And I am confident that no matter what we in 

Congress do, that whether you are minting dollar coins or pennies, 

that there will be plenty of interesting things for numismatists—

I hope I have that right—to collect. 

The big controversies that I was aware of is whether we should 

abolish the penny and whether we should abolish the paper dollar 

so as to popularize the dollar coin. And I want to get to those in 

a second. But I was intrigued by David’s comment that perhaps, 

even with the existing coinage that we have, we might want to use 

other metals. 

Could we save much money by shifting to another metal for any 

of the coins that we are issuing now? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Well, as we have seen, it depends on which denomination I think you are talking about. You know, we have seen just 

a huge spike in the price of our underlying metals, whether it be 

zinc, copper, or nickel that is the major components that go into 

our coins. 

I would mention that other nations have faced this same set of 

issues and are facing this same set of issues. Most countries right 

now, their lowest denominations are being produced for more than 

face value because of the rising worldwide metal prices. 

Other countries, when they face this issue, have really addressed 

it in one of three ways. They have either accepted the fact that 

they are going to have a coin that costs more than face value because they believe the benefits—or perhaps the public believes that 

is appropriate. The second option would be to change the alloy and 

try to find a less expensive metal to use to coin. And the third is 

to eliminate the denomination. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. Getting back to the cheaper alloy, because I 

want to talk mostly about eliminating denominations, but what 

metals would be cheaper for which of the coins we issue now that 

would still be a coin that would have a good lifetime to it and perhaps the same weight that we are used to? 

Mr. LEBRYK. One of the things I would mention about zinc, zinc 

is the—as you rightfully mention, it is 97-1/2 percent zinc and 2-

1/2 percent copper. Zinc is one of the lowest cost metals available. 

Other countries have— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Could we make our nickels or quarters or dollar 

coins out of zinc? And how much money would we save if we did? 

Putting aside the public acceptance issues. 

Mr. LEBRYK. Yes. That is technologically feasible to do that. 

24

Mr. SHERMAN. How much—would we save a million or would we 

save a hundred million a year in your operations? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Congresswoman Maloney had an interesting question about substitution effect. And the amount of money that would 

be saved is something that we can look at more closely, but it 

would be in the tens of millions range, annually. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Now, one of the chief arguments against 

abolishing the penny is then how do you buy something for a particular price, if it sells for 49 cents? Before I came to Congress, I 

headed the largest sales tax agency in the country, and so I am 

well aware that every time you buy something, the amount you 

owe the merchandise has to be rounded. 

In other words, if you buy something in a State with a 5 percent 

sales tax for 49 cents, you don’t owe the merchant 49 cents. You 

owe them 49 cents plus 2.4 cents tax. They round to the nearest 

penny, and the consumer benefits because the 2.4 cents of tax is 

rounded down to 2 cents. If, on the other hand, you buy two of 

those items, then you owe 4.9 cents in tax. And you round up, and 

you end up paying a nickel in tax. 

I don’t know of a single merchant, or even a single consumer, 

that has ever sought to buy items in such a way so that the tax 

is rounded down or up to the nearest penny. And even if you were 

going to round things to the nearest nickel, I can’t imagine a merchant saying, well, we will sell apples for so many cents, and people will tend to buy so many. And then they will owe us so much 

sales tax, and it will come to 2.8 percent sales tax, and they will 

have to give us a nickel. 

So it would—I think we need to somehow explain to the American people that all transactions are rounded. When I was a kid, 

we rounded to the nearest penny. And that penny that they rounded to when I was a kid is worth more than today’s nickel. 

The other thing is whether to have a dollar—whether to abolish 

a paper dollar and popularize the dollar coin. I will point out, when 

I was a kid, we had a very, very popular dollar coin. We called it 

a quarter. It was worth more than a dollar now. On a good day, 

you could buy a gallon of gas, not for a piece of paper money, but 

for something that was commonly in your pocket. 

So since the right time in the good old days is always our own 

youth, I think that I should have a coin capable of carrying more 

value than today’s quarter, perhaps as much as today’s dollar. 

I know we hear often from the transportation agencies, and the 

vending machine operators, that they would like people to carry 

that dollar coin. What improvements are being made in the ability 

for vending machines to read dollars, not be ripped off by counterfeiters? Do vending machines still need the dollar coin to work effectively, or has technology overridden that demand for a dollar 

coin to be popular? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Would you like me to try to address that? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. LEBRYK. I, by the way, make the same point to Larry all the 

time about the utility of the dollar coin, having more utility all the 

time than the dollar bill. As you can imagine, he does appreciate 

me telling him that. 

25

I would just mention that it is the policy of the Treasury that we 

will have both a dollar coin and a dollar bill in circulation. So at 

least at this point, it is not a consideration that we would eliminate 

one or the other unless Congress asks. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But if you don’t eliminate the dollar bill, the dollar coin is just an oddity. The Post Office in this building gave me 

dollar coins as change, and I have no idea how or when I am going 

to spend them. But I know I am going to have to explain to the 

person who takes them what they are. 

Mr. LEBRYK. I believe that once the dollar coin implementation 

occurs, that you will have a much better chance of using those 

coins more widely. And that really is the issue right now, is that 

there is really a chicken-and-egg problem right now, which is that 

the coins are not available because there is not a demand, and that 

there is not a demand because they are not available. 

And I think that as we move forward with the implementation 

and our objective is to make them more readily available— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Are they distinguishable sufficiently from a quarter? And I assume you have thought of putting a hole in them so 

that they would be distinguished from a quarter. Is there resistance to using them because—I know you have the serrated versus 

the non-serrated edges. And they are a goldish, copperish color 

rather than a quarter. They still—I could still confuse them for a 

quarter. Is that a problem that you are running into, and have you 

fully dismissed the idea of putting a hole in the coin? 

Mr. LEBRYK. We will faithfully execute the legislation as it is 

written right now, which is it does require that we continue to use 

the same material and the same characteristics as the existing 

golden dollar for the new Presidential dollar. 

I do want to get back to your question, though, about vending 

machines. And yes— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Wait. Going back to this question, do you face difficulty in popular acceptance because people feel that the dollar 

coin is too much like a quarter, too easy to confuse? 

Mr. LEBRYK. We have not seen that as a barrier with the golden 

dollar. It was more of a barrier with the Susan B. Anthony because 

of the color. And with the anti-tarnishing provision that is in this 

bill, we believe that there will continue to remain a luster to the 

coin that will readily distinguish it from the quarter. 

But getting back to your question on the vending machine, yes. 

The vending machine industry is very interested in us introducing 

this bill because they would in fact—and the transit authorities because it is less expensive, as Louise mentioned, for them to use 

coins in transactions. 

I would mention, though, something that is on the horizon that 

came out on the dollar coin users forum is that most of the transition authorities right now, most of the areas that have historically 

been the purview of coins, are increasingly becoming more receptive to electronic transactions—they are becoming the preferred 

way for those authorities to operate. 

So even today, on the way here, on the street corner in Washington, D.C., there is a new Connector bus that is available to people to move them from Capitol Hill to Georgetown. On the street 

corner, you can buy a token for the bus with a credit or debit card 

26

right now. You can pay parking tickets with credit or debit cards 

in many places. You can go to laundromats and use credit cards 

and debit cards. There are fewer pay phones now, and even toll 

booths now accept electronic means of payment. In the dollar coin 

user forum, it was interesting to hear the transit authorities say 

that they are charging a premium for cash transactions over credit 

card transactions. 

Mr. LUCAS. [presiding] The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now turns to the gentlelady from New York. 

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lebryk, in 2002, the $20 Double Eagle auctioned off by 

Sotheby’s was described by the Mint as the only—the Mint described it as the only 1933 Double Eagle that would ever be authorized for private ownership. 

I wonder if you could explain to the committee how ten 1933 

Double Eagles recently that were recovered by the Secret Service—

and they were stolen, apparently, from the Government—why allowing them to be sold would encourage theft from the U.S. taxpayer. 

Mr. LEBRYK. When we reached a settlement regarding the Double Eagle you mentioned, the one that was auctioned, we very specifically in the agreement stated that the settlement shall not be 

deemed to have any precedential significance or effect, legal or otherwise, on any other coin in the United States, including any other 

1933 Double Eagle that may exist. We were not aware of any additional Double Eagles that existed at that time. 

As a matter of policy, we stated at the same time that we would 

not—we did not intend to monetize, issue, or auction any additional 

coins that would be—that might be recovered. My view is that 

when the United States Government makes a statement, it is important for us to uphold our word. And so as we looked at recovering the 10 Double Eagles that came to our attention last year, 

we should remain true to our word. 

And I think that these coins are the property of the American 

people. And as a result, the appropriate disposition of those coins 

is with the American people. 

Mrs. KELLY. By that you mean in your Treasury? 

Mr. LEBRYK. We believe that there are opportunities to display 

these coins and make them available to the American public so 

they, too, can— 

Mrs. KELLY. When you say, ‘‘making them available,’’ are you 

talking about sale? 

Mr. LEBRYK. No. We do not intend to sell, auction, or monetize 

the coins. 

Mrs. KELLY. So your statement that it was—the 1933 coin that 

Sotheby’s sold was the only one that would ever be authorized for 

private ownership— 

Mr. LEBRYK. Correct. 

Mrs. KELLY.—you still hold by that? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Correct. 

Mrs. KELLY. Okay. Just checking. 

I wanted to ask you, we talked—I talked and you talked about 

the Buffalo gold coin. And I wonder what you see for the long-term 

27

potential for the U.S. Mint at West Point. It is a wonderful Mint, 

and it has just such dedicated workers. 

Mr. LEBRYK. They are among the finest public servants in Government. And that is one of my favorite visits. I know it is one of 

your favorite visits, too, to visit that facility to see the strength and 

the dedication of the workers within that facility. 

The 24-karat bullion program is a wonderful thing for the United 

States Mint. It is wonderful for the United States Mint, but I think 

that it is probably more important to say it is a good thing for the 

American public. We produce bullion coins for those people who 

choose to hold gold or precious metals. 

We don’t make a recommendation whether they should or they 

shouldn’t. But if they choose to hold it, we want to make sure that 

we produce a beautiful product that has the guarantee of the 

United States Government behind it. 

It is a tribute, once again, to the men and women of the United 

States Mint at West Point that they were able to execute that program in less than 6 months. That is something we have never done 

in the recent history of the United States Mint. And that is a wonderful reflection on the dedication and quality of the people at the 

United States Mint at West Point. 

I should also mention there were others who were involved in 

that, but they were the ones who really had to bring the product 

to market. 

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you. Thanks for your kind words on that. 

I want to ask Agent Johnson, I have been concerned about the 

problem of North Korea counterfeiting U.S. currency. I don’t think 

it has gotten anywhere near the amount of attention, and as we 

are able—as we dry up legitimate sources of money transfer, these 

counterfeit areas where we—like in North Korea, become extremely 

much more important. 

I want to know what progress you have made in the counterfeiting agenda with regard to the Financial Action Task Force. And 

are you getting where you need to get with regard to North Korea’s 

counterfeiting? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Ms. Kelly, we found our first Supernote in 1989, 

and hundreds of personnel from the Secret Service have worked 

this investigation for 16 years. We have determined that the 

Supernote is being produced in North Korea. 

We do have a—our agency was founded in 1865. We have an outstanding relationship with the Department of the Treasury. We 

have special agents assigned over there who work with Treasury. 

And we have worked with the task force in the past. 

Mrs. KELLY. Are you getting where you need to go with regard 

to North Korea? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are getting to where we need to go with North 

Korea. It is a quality versus quantity issue. There is $762 billion 

of U.S. currency in circulation, and less than 1/10th of 1 percent 

is counterfeit. In the history of the Supernote, we have only seen 

a little less than $50 million. 

Mrs. KELLY. Okay. Secretary Levey had testified to this committee about the Banco Delta Asia and its role as a launderer of 

these Supernotes. It is a Chinese-controlled bank in Macau. And 

when—additionally, they have apparently found North Korean 

28

ships carrying Supernotes. They have made a lot of repeated calls 

to the Chinese naval ports. 

Given that, would you say it is fair to say that Communist China 

has actually been an accomplice with North Korea on these 

Supernotes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would not like to answer that. But I will tell you 

this, that if any Supernotes appear worldwide, we have field offices 

all over the world. We will investigate it. 

Mrs. KELLY. That is very comforting to know. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LUCAS. [presiding] The Chair thanks the gentlelady from 

New York, and would note that our chairwoman, who is also chairwoman of the majority conference, has been called away, and she 

has asked me to sit in for her, which means that we are going to 

have another round. For some reason, I thought there would be a 

great deal of humor seen in that response. 

[Laughter] 

Mr. LUCAS. Ms. Roseman, to touch for a moment on another denomination we have not discussed, do you know off the top of your 

head what the draw-down rate or purchase rate or transfer rate is 

on half-dollars out of the Reserve system to the Banks? 

Ms. ROSEMAN. More half-dollars are deposited into the Federal 

Reserve than we pay out. In 2005, our net receipts were 17 million 

half-dollars. 

Mr. LUCAS. So then perhaps, when we talk about the one cent 

pieces and the dollar coins, we need to talk about the viability of 

the 50-cent piece also. My observation, not yours. 

Mr. Lebryk, back for a moment to the Congresswoman from New 

York’s comments. So did I understand you to say that, in effect, 

contrary to the expectations of an auction house, in fact the Mint 

did not obligate itself to not—or did not give up the ability at some 

point in the future to transact other 33’s if they would become publicly known? 

Mr. LEBRYK. I will be very clear and say it was not our intent 

to sell or auction or issue off any other 1933 Double Eagles if they 

were recovered. 

Mr. LUCAS. There again, another example of your lawyers and 

somebody’s lawyers having a different perspective. Okay. All right. 

Along those lines, can you tell me what kind of standard has 

been developed—and I touch back for a moment about the Mint reserving the right to recover any coin, apparently, since 1973 that 

the Mint felt that was improperly issued. Have there been standards formulated for this kind of an issue? Is this a fly-by-the-seatof-your-britches sort of a deal? And I hope you say no. 

Mr. LEBRYK. No, it is not. In fact, there have been Supreme 

Court decisions on this that are very important about the Government’s ability to dispose of Government property. There is a famous case where a Civil War ship was sunk that was a Confederate ship. 

The Secretary of the Navy determined that he was going to relinquish possession of that ship. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Secretary of the Navy did not have the authority, that once it was Government property, it was always Government property, and reversed that decision. 

29

And so unless there is specific authority, Government property 

will always remain the property of the United States Government. 

Mr. LUCAS. Specific authority meaning an Act of Congress? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Correct. 

Mr. LUCAS. So the same body that created your institution can 

direct and guide it? 

Mr. LEBRYK. Correct. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. That is very insightful. Very insightful. 

I guess at this moment, I would turn to my colleagues. Would the 

gentleman from Texas have any additional questions? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. Just that I was disappointed that we were 

just looking at the sample and not getting samples. 

[Laughter] 

Mr. LUCAS. Speaking of looking at it, before we release the panel, 

Mr. Glass, could you touch for just a moment—with 900,000 pieces, 

as you said two-and-a-half-thousand-plus years, a couple things 

come to mind from people out there. And a tremendous amount of 

information has come across my trail since filing this bill from 

every perspective, every group, every interest, and every seemingly 

potential numismatic item that has come along in the last 200 

years. 

One of the questions put to me about the bill is the nature of the 

pieces in your collection. Has the Smithsonian ever, as apparently 

was the custom when the Mint had the collection prior to 1920, 

ever traded pieces, sold pieces, that sort of thing, out of the National Collection? 

Mr. GLASS. I don’t believe we have ever sold pieces from the National Collection. I think we lend items to other museums, with the 

proper security, and to other associations, with the proper security. 

And we would continue to do that. 

We had an exhibit at the International Monetary Fund Center 

of our collection, and we would continue to lend out pieces. In 

Houston, the Museum of Natural History had a wonderful exhibition on gold, and we had one of the Double Eagles on display 

there, one of the two that we have. 

So we would lend out—we do lend out our collection under the 

proper circumstances and security and conditions. But we have not 

sold any. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Lebryk, just a couple of questions, and then I 

will be done, and I appreciate the patience of the entire panel. 

Those 10 Double Eagles are, according to popular press accounts, 

locked up at Fort Knox? 

Mr. LEBRYK. That is correct. That is part of the inventory that 

we have of valuable items. 

Mr. LUCAS. And I wait for a more extended inventory soon. 

Also in the popular press, occasionally it is discussed the 99 fine 

gold Sacagaweas. Where are they kept, if there is such a thing, the 

dollar coins? 

Mr. LEBRYK. We do have some rare Sacagaweas. I don’t know 

about 99 fine, but we did have some Sacagaweas that were aboard 

a spacecraft, a Space Shuttle. They also are at Fort Knox right 

now. 

Mr. LUCAS. Okay. How many of those were there? 

30

Mr. LEBRYK. Someone who was at the Mint before me? I have 

been at the Mint since 2003, so I don’t know the exact number. But 

I can certainly get that for you. 

Mr. LUCAS. Are those kind of things classified as trial strikes, or 

how do we—where in the authority do we do that sort of stuff? 

Mr. LEBRYK. I am not sure. Again, that predates me, and I don’t 

know the origin of those coins. I believe there are a dozen, but I 

can check on that for you. 

Mr. LUCAS. Now, I know from my reading in the popular media, 

and a number of what I consider to be fairly scholarly journals, it 

appears that a variety of these interesting pieces in the last 2 centuries have involved people who either had access to the Mint or 

access to the people who were within the Mint. And I have complete and total confidence in your staff and all the things that have 

gone on. 

I suppose, probably, that might reflect some of the efforts in the 

past, like melting the previous 33’s or other coins down through the 

years that have been dispatched to the here ever after. But from 

an outsider’s perspective, it appears that none of these or many of 

these interesting things would not have occurred had there been 

clandestine effort on somebody’s behalf. 

I would hope—and I will conclude my observation question with 

that—I would hope that in the effort of the institution, that it 

would acknowledge that this is just the things that have happened 

in the past, and that good, bad, or indifferent on how these items 

were created, we have an obligation to preserve our heritage. 

Mr. LEBRYK. I would agree, and— 

Mr. LUCAS. That is a part of it. 

Mr. LEBRYK. I would agree. I would tell you that I think that 

many in the numismatic community would tell you that we have 

perhaps gotten too good at reducing error coins and allowing coins 

to be removed from the United States Mint. We have undertaken 

a serious effort in the 1990’s, so you see very few. And the numismatic community sometimes jokingly says we have become too good 

at it. 

But I would also agree with you. Our coins represent our Nation’s history. They reflect important people, places, and events. 

And it is important that we preserve that heritage because they 

say a lot about our culture. As Brent will tell you, there are coins 

that go back thousands of years that are of great interest to people. 

And they say a lot about those societies, as our coins today say a 

lot about our society. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Director, take very good care of those unusual 

pieces. I suspect, whether it is through the appropriations amendment process or a free-standing bill or an amendment on another 

bill, if consensus can be achieved here, we may help provide you 

with some guidance and refinement from a statute perspective. 

And with that, the committee wishes to thank the panel for their 

important observations. And Mr. Felix, you are a very lucky man 

today. I ask the next panel to come forward. 

And while the second panel is coming forward, the Chair would 

like to note that we are scheduled some time very soon, perhaps 

in the next few minutes, perhaps in the next 10 minutes—the nature of Congress—to have a series of votes. And when we break for 

31

that, we will return probably 35 minutes later and complete the 

second panel’s testimony. But for now, I would like to call the second panel forward and give them the opportunity to offer their oral 

testimony. And while you are stepping up, ladies and gentlemen, 

we have Q. David Bowers, who is the numismatic director of American Numismatic Rarities, LLC, and the numismatic director of the 

Whitman Publishing Company, LLC, a leading publisher of reference books on rare coins. 

We also have Christopher Cipoletti, who is executive director of 

the American Numismatic Association. The ANA is the world’s 

largest collector organization. 

Beth Deisher, editor of Coin World, the largest and most widely 

circulated news weekly serving collectors of coins, medals, and 

paper money. 

And rounding out our witness list today, Fred Weinberg, who 

serves as the vice chairman of the Industry Council for Tangible 

Assets. He is past president of the Professional Numismatics Guild, 

and a life member of the American Numismatic Association. 

The Chair wishes to thank this esteemed and knowledgeable 

panel for coming forward, and I hope that you have survived observing the last round of discussions, and will be able to provide 

us with your insights. 

And with that, Mr. Bowers, whenever you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF Q. DAVID BOWERS, NUMISMATIC DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN NUMISMATIC RARITIES, LLC 

Mr. BOWERS. Thank you, Representative Lucas. I admire you for 

your numismatic expertise and your insights. I am going to depart 

from my prepared remarks for two reasons. First of all, you all 

have them and you can read them—well, three reasons. Second, 

the Mint staff largely left. And the third reason is time. I would 

like to give others time to speak. If you are going to vote, you are 

going to run out of time. 

Several observations. One great observation here is a lack of 

knowledge and communications between the collector community 

and the Government. And I am going to point out some examples 

that were brought out in testimony today. 

We had the Mint Director saying never before in history—the 

acting Mint director—has a coin been brought to market within 6 

months. I would like to point out that the Act of February 21, 1857, 

caused the small cent to be coined, and on March 25, 1857, the first 

ones reached circulation in quantity. I think that is about two-anda-half or 3 months. Many, many other instances could be mentioned. 

We have—as far as who owns what in the Confederate States of 

America, in 1919, the United States Government took the legal position, correctly, perhaps, that it was heir to the property of the 

Confederate States of America, all the assets. It seized from collectors Confederate paper money, saying, ‘‘We are the legal heir.’’ 

That didn’t get too far. But someone had to hire a lawyer and get 

their paper money back. We have what I call a great lack of definition of what is legal and what is not. 

There has been no recent court case, by the way, despite some 

testimony today, saying that the 1933 Double Eagle is illegal. No 

32

court action whatsoever that I am aware of, and I am a student 

of it. There have been some agreements and compromises, but I am 

not aware of any court action unless I missed something. Okay? 

We have the Mint Act of 1965, which is legislation that says, 

without equivocation, that any coin struck by the United States 

Mint prior to 1965 for any reason, patterns or anything else, is 

legal tender and legal to hold. That is completely ignored in all arguments. 

And the upshot of this is, I believe, that what is really needed 

is a liaison between the—or among the fine Congress, and I have 

studied Congress legislation back to day one, the numismatic community, and the Mint and Treasury officials. 

The Mint and Treasury officials, for this testimony, have about 

seven or eight errors. Another thing is the statement made by the 

Mint that never before this current legislation has anyone ever required that unnecessary coins be made. Well, we have the BlandAllison Act of February 28, 1878, which mandated that hundreds 

of millions of unnecessary silver dollars be made. 

And these things are sort of like numismatics 101. It is not rocket science, and I am not Albert Einstein. But I think that our distinguished chair, Representative Pryce, and Mrs. Maloney, whose 

daughters are collectors, would benefit very greatly by, before having a presentation such as this, running some testimony by the numismatic community and saying, ‘‘Hey, what do you think of this? 

Is this right?’’ Because all of these factual errors have come out in 

Government testimony, not because of intent, but because of lack 

of knowledge. 

Second point, guarding my time here and respecting others, we have the Bureau of the Mint turning in $7- or $800 million worth 

of profits to the Treasury Department in a nice flow in the taxpayer’s direction. We have Dr. Brent Glass, struggling to try to 

raise $10 million over a period of years to help out the Smithsonian 

exhibit at the same time the Mint desires, as was said today, to 

get its Presidential dollars circulating, maybe to get rid of some of 

those Sacagaweas, State quarters. 

The Mint has advertising budgets. They spend money on advertising. But they do not look at their own doorstep, within a short 

walk away, the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian is advertising the 

history and appeal of money. Maybe 1/10th of 1 percent of the numismatic profits could go to the National Coin Collection. Dr. Glass 

said that they would send exhibits on the road, and they would 

have seminars. This is something that is probably less than the 

cost of a television campaign, but much more productive. 

And the last statement I want to make is in regards to Mint 

records and access. 

We have a situation, and brought up by Representative Lucas, 

and I am—as a researcher, I am very aware of this. If the Mint 

Director happens to be friendly, Donna Pope, for example, and I am 

a qualified researcher with some academic—or some experiential 

success, I would say, I would like to do some research in the archives. 

She would say, ‘‘Be my guest. Go to Philadelphia. Take a camera 

person with you, wherever you want to,’’ knowing that what I was 

doing or what Coin World is doing is not antagonizing the Mint. 

33

We are not snooping on its personnel. We are trying to educate 

people about coins. 

The last Administration, that of Mrs. Holsman Fore, if I wanted 

to look at something, the answer is, ‘‘Well, we are too busy. No, you 

can’t do it. You are going to be able to do it some time.’’ And I have 

done absolutely no research at the Mint for about 5 years because 

I am not allowed in. 

And there is something wrong with this. There should be a person at the Mint, a civil service position, who is a liaison with the 

numismatic community and also could be a liaison with the distinguished Members of Congress, just transmitting education rather 

than preventing it. 

I think we are working at cross-purposes. We have Representative Lucas saying we should do one thing, saying that his lawyers 

are different than yours. I think a lot of this is unnecessary. I think 

we are all working in the same direction to promote coin collecting, 

to promote the legacy of the United States, and to increase numismatics. 

And I can’t think of anything that the people at this side of the 

table want to do today that is in opposition to what Congress 

wants, or what the American people want, or even, for that matter, 

what the Mint wants. I think it is strictly a matter of communication. 

So I appreciate the opportunity to be here and would stay on for 

questioning afterwards, and I actually commend Representative 

Lucas for inviting numismatists here to what is obviously mainly 

a yearly financial hearing. I think this is a very nice opportunity. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowers can be found on page 48 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Bowers. 

Ms. Deisher. 

STATEMENT OF BETH DEISHER, EDITOR, COIN WORLD 

MAGAZINE 

Ms. DEISHER. Representative Lucas, and other members of the 

subcommittee, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

I have chosen to focus my prepared testimony on H.R. 5077. Virtually everyone in the coin collecting community welcomes the certainty that H.R. 5077 would bestow upon certain coins, medals, 

and numismatic items made by, or in, the facilities of the United 

States Government prior to January 1, 1933. It would clarify the 

right to own and trade these historic U.S. numismatic items, many 

with origins that cannot be proven or documented today. 

I would like to offer three points regarding this section of the 

proposed legislation. 

Number one, there needs to be a legal definition of ‘‘issued.’’ We 

have found this term to be used and applied in very different ways. 

Number two, there needs to be a timeframe or a statute of limitations on items which have entered the collector marketplace, are 

known to Government officials, but for which no action has been 

taken by the Government to recover them. It should allow the GovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:46 Feb 06, 2007 Jkt 031538 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\31538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
34

ernment to prosecute those proven to be involved in illegal acts, 

but it should not punish the numismatic item itself. 

And number three, this legislation should address burden of 

proof. The burden of proof that a coin or medal or numismatic item 

has been stolen or illegally removed from a Government facility 

should rest on the shoulders of the Government prior to the item 

being seized, or as we heard in testimony today, recovered. 

All sections of this proposed legislation are important. But I 

would like to draw particular attention to Section C, which would 

require an inventory of all coins, medals, or other numismatic 

items in the possession of the United States Government regardless of when such items were made or struck. An inventory and 

public accounting of the Government’s holdings is critically important for the U.S. Mint’s customers, the sector of the public who 

purchase numismatic collectibles, so that they may have full faith 

in the products that the Mint manufactures, and certainty regarding the quantities available to the marketplace. This is because the 

number of available coins to collect is one of the primary determinants of value. 

The Mint currently, in its annual report, lists only the number 

of coins shipped to the Federal Reserve Bank, and the number of 

coins sold, in the case of numismatic and bullion coins. The Mint 

should be required to report in a permanent form the number of 

coins it strikes by date and Mint facility, whether for circulation, 

commemorative, bullion, or other numismatic products. It should 

be required to report annually the number of coins melted, defaced, 

or otherwise destroyed, and the numbers of these items being held 

in inventory. 

An inventory of U.S. Mint holdings is essential. Without it, uncertainty and speculation will continue to eat away at the integrity 

of the U.S. Mint’s products, particularly the numismatic offerings. 

Rather than an inventory mandated every 5 years beginning January 1, 2007, as proposed, an annual product inventory concurrent 

with the end of the Mint’s fiscal year on September 30th would 

seem more logical and efficient. 

During the last decade, the U.S. Mint has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to computerize its operations and accounting abilities. Surely that system should be capable of identifying products 

in inventory on a date certain, and mint officials should be able to 

report that information in a timely manner and in a permanent 

document such as the annual Mint report. 

The inventory envisioned in H.R. 5077 also includes a listing of 

historic artifacts and experimental items. This kind of material, in 

all likelihood, is not part of the Mint’s production and numismatic 

marketing computer systems. Identification in inventory of such 

items may take more than 1 year. Two-year inventory intervals 

would seem logical for this kind of material, beginning September 

30, 2008. 

It is imperative that numismatic artifacts being held at various 

U.S. Mint facilities be identified and inventoried, and that such information be disseminated in a timely and permanent format. In 

my written testimony, I have cited examples of experimental 

pieces, plasters, galvanos, ledgers, and other artifacts within the 

35

confines of the U.S. Mint facilities that, without a formal inventory, 

are in danger of being lost to history. 

Also, the U.S. Mint has struck commemorative silver coins since 

1982, commemorative gold coins since 1984, and precious metals 

bullion coins since 1986. Yet there exists no independent public 

verification of the content of these coins. Congress should immediately reinstitute the US Assay Commission, with authorization to 

randomly test the weight and fineness of coins produced by the 

U.S. Mint in order to ensure that they conform to their respective 

legal standards. Each of these areas I have cited cry out for certainty and accountability. H.R. 5077 provides a vehicle that brings 

these issues to you for discussion and action. We trust that you will 

act wisely, decisively, and promptly. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Deisher can be found on page 56 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for your insights. 

Mr. Cipoletti? 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER CIPOLETTI, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN NUMISMATIC ASSOCIATION 

Mr. CIPOLETTI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Chris Cipoletti, 

executive director of the American Numismatic Association. The 

American Numismatic Association is a federally chartered nonprofit corporation founded in 1981 and chartered by Congress in 

1912. Our mission is to encourage and educate people to study and 

collect money and related items by promoting, preserving, and protecting the interests of those who desire to discover and explore the 

world of money. The American Numismatic Association appreciates 

the opportunity to present testimony here today. 

Money, in its many forms, reflects culture, art, science, and history. In the United States, our money is a source of documenting 

historic events, it reflects our values and our culture, and it presents artistic renderings of who we are and what is important to 

us as a Nation. Numismatists from around the world have a strong 

interest in American money. The production of money, with designs 

reflecting our history and culture, is as important to the numismatic community today as it always has been. 

In the last several years, the diminishing exposure to numismatics, particularly through circulating coins and paper money, 

has changed, with renewed excitement in the money produced by 

the United States. Much of the resurgence in numismatics at the 

basic level can be attributed to the introduction of the 50 State 

Quarters Program by the United States Mint, which has created an 

interest in collecting that has not been seen for decades. 

The changing face of money through designs and colorization of 

paper money produced by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing 

has furthered the interest created by the 50 State Quarters Program as people of all ages are now looking at and looking for the 

new look of money and numismatic materials being produced under 

the auspices of the Department of Treasury. With the new efforts 

from the United States Mint and Bureau of Engraving and PrintVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:46 Feb 06, 2007 Jkt 031538 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\31538.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
36

ing, an educational introduction to culture, art, and history is being 

presented in every transaction involving United States currency. 

Money is an educational tool that allows us to learn about the 

struggles in which the country has been engaged. It teaches us 

about significant events that have influenced the development of a 

nation. And it allows us to hold and own a tangible asset that has 

value beyond the denomination of the coin or the note. For money 

to be the educational tool that it has the potential to be, it must 

be accessible for viewing, research, and study. 

The American Numismatic Association is supportive of H.R. 

5077, introduced by Representative Lucas to address numismatic 

issues. Others have, and will, comment on the specific language of 

the legislation. And while the American Numismatic Association is 

not specifically commenting on the language of the proposed legislation today, the Association supports the intent of the legislation 

in creating certainty for the collecting community about numismatic materials. 

Currently, there are rare numismatic items that are privately 

owned by individuals who spent hundreds of thousands or millions 

of dollars to legitimately purchase the materials. Yet ownership is 

potentially called into question because the numismatic material 

was not formally released by the Department of the Treasury. 

H.R. 5077 addresses this issue for pre-1933 issued numismatic 

material, assuring numismatists that they have legitimate ownership, and that their ownership cannot be challenged, particularly 

when new Administrations in the Treasury take office and may 

have an agenda to address items which the Treasury believes were 

not rightfully released from the Treasury. 

The American Numismatic Association also supports the efforts 

of H.R. 5077 to provide funding for the National Numismatic Collection maintained by the Smithsonian Institution. This numismatic treasure is an educational resource that cannot be replaced 

or surpassed. Since the National Numismatic Collection was dismantled in the summer of 2004, the country and visitors from 

around the world have been deprived of the educational treasure 

this collection offers. 

The National Numismatic Collection can, and should, be used to 

teach people of all ages. From the history of money to its current 

day uses, money serves as an irreplaceable educational asset. 

Money can be used in practically any educational discipline, but to 

be effectively used, people must have access to the tangible objects. 

This requires that an historical collection be maintained and available for display and collection. The efforts of H.R. 5077 to accomplish this for the National Numismatic Collection must be applauded. 

Money is not, and will not, become obsolete. Rather, it will 

change form over time as society and culture changes. Making sure 

that the culture, art, and history of money is collected, preserved, 

and maintained for future generations is an important and necessary action. 

The American Numismatic Association applauds the Department 

of the Treasury’s foresight in changing and allowing changed designs on our money to pique interest in numismatics, to create a 

network of people who are interested in preserving our culture and 

37

our heritage through money. The American Numismatic Association also encourages the continued development of new and changing designs on American money. This will continue to keep people 

interested and involved in money as an educational tool and a collectible item of significant value. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony here today, and 

will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cipoletti can be found on page 

52 of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Weinberg? 

STATEMENT OF FRED WEINBERG, VICE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRY 

COUNCIL FOR TANGIBLE ASSETS 

Mr. WEINBERG. Congressman Lucas, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Fred Weinberg, and I currently serve as the 

vice chairman of the Industry Council for Tangible Assets, or ICTA, 

which is the national trade association for rare coin, precious metals, and collectible currency dealers. Within the United States 

alone, it is estimated that retail sales of rare coins total about $10 

billion annually, as of the end of 2005. 

I am also a past president of the Profession Numismatists Guild, 

and I have been a member of the American Numismatic Association for more than 38 years. I have been a full-time numismatist 

for 35 years, and a collector for over 40 years. And I specialize in 

mint error coins, currency, and the minting process. 

I appreciate you inviting the Industry Council for Tangible Assets to testify before you today. In mid-April of this year, Representative Lucas requested that ICTA gather input from the numismatic community for his bill, H.R. 5077, which he introduced in 

April of 2006. 

Consequently, I and a number of other leaders of the numismatic 

community, met with ICTA staff to collect our ideas on the bill as 

introduced and to decide what, if any, amendments or changes we 

would recommend to Congressman Lucas. This group then met 

with Mr. Lucas and his staff via conference the following month, 

and subsequently provided him with some suggestions designed to 

fulfill his purpose in introducing H.R. 5077. 

H.R. 5077 will establish a clear definition regarding the legal private ownership of certain coins, medals, and owner numismatic 

items produced by the U.S. Mint. Such clarity will accomplish several goals that we feel will benefit both the U.S. Treasury and the 

numismatic community, which include the fact that the numismatic community and relevant Government agencies will have certainty as to which products may be legally owned and traded. 

H.R. 5077 will also provide for the preservation of historically 

important numismatic items, and create specific policy for the disposal of trial pieces, patterns, and other items so that they will not 

be lost for posterity at the discretion of changing administrations 

of the U.S. Mint or Treasury. 

It will also provide funding for the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution. This is especially important 

since the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian was 

closed last year. H.R. 5077 will provide for the preservation of our 

coinage, which is part of our Nation’s cultural heritage. 

38

Numismatic industry experts agree that the provision in the bill 

that would officially declare all coins, medals, and owner numismatic items produced before December 31, 1932, as legal to own 

and trade is acceptable, and very desirable, from our point of view. 

From our experience, the items of most concern to the U.S. 

Treasury have been a very small number of test or trial pieces, 

such as the solid gold 24-karat Sacagawea dollars and the 1933 

Double Eagle gold coins mentioned earlier. We understand many of 

the Treasury’s and the Mint’s concerns, and we wish to help resolve any of the issues that might impede passage of H.R. 5077. 

Over time, proving whether an item left the Mint legally or illegally becomes very difficult. We would suggest that if an item in 

question comes to the attention, possession, or recovery of the Mint 

after a time frame of 50 or 75 years, it is legal to transact unless 

there is clear documentation that the item’s return to the Mint was 

a requirement at the time of issue or within a reasonable time of 

its original distribution. 

For future issues, clear documentation could be something as 

simple as including in any cover letter or memo that accompanies 

the product, including some wording indicating that the Mint requires the item or items to be returned to the Mint if they are 

shown to a committee such as this. 

Should the Government seize numismatic items, it is our position 

that the Government should be required to show that these numismatic items were removed illegally from the U.S. Mint’s facility. 

There are certain specific areas of concern to the numismatic 

community that the current language of H.R. 5077 does not address. For your examination, I have brought with me some samples 

of the following products and items which are currently not specifically addressed in this legislation, and which we are concerned 

about. They include error coins, patterns, numismatic items such 

as cancelled dies, punched planchet strips, and items that may be 

legally provided by the Mint to legislators such as yourself or 

outsourcing companies that provide items to the Mint but whose 

legal status may be unclear if they have entered the marketplace. 

We urge Congress to establish that all mint error coins, made in 

the normal course of production, are legal to own and trade if they 

left the Mint legally. The Mint can be very proud that new production technology has resulted in far fewer striking errors, and technological advances in security and minting procedures at the Mint’s 

facilities all across the country make items less likely to be able to 

be removed illegally. 

Indeed, my colleagues and I in the industry agree that in the last 

5 years alone, due to the implementation of new minting presses 

and technology, the incidence of error coins alone has decreased by 

approximately 97 percent, and the Mint is to be commended for 

that. In addition, in the past, once these products have entered the 

marketplace, it is not always possible to determine if they entered 

commerce legally. We assume that die varieties should not be any 

problem for the Mint. 

To the best of our knowledge, none of the items listed above has 

been particularly problematic for the U.S. Treasury or for the Mint. 

However, we do believe that their status should be formally addressed in H.R. 5077. 

39

On behalf of ICTA, PNG, and the numismatic community, I wish 

to thank you for this opportunity to present our comments. I welcome your questions. And we encourage any member of this subcommittee or their staff to contact us for assistance and any additional information and background we may be able to provide. We 

look forward to continuing to work with Congressman Lucas and 

this subcommittee as you consider H.R. 5077. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weinberg can be found on page 

109 of the appendix.] 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Weinberg. 

And a couple of housekeeping notes. I would first like to ask 

unanimous consent that a letter in the form of some written testimony from Mr. Harvey Stack of New York City be included in the 

official record. 

Unanimous consent. So ordered. 

And we are now in a series of four votes on the Floor of the 

United States House. This is a very distinguished panel. You have 

come a long way, a number of you have. I would like to ask your 

indulgence to recess until the final vote, which is probably 40 minutes away, return at that point, and continue our discussion. 

With that, the committee will stand in recess until 5 minutes 

after the final vote in this series. 

[Recess] 

Mr. LUCAS. [presiding] The subcommittee is reconvened. I appreciate the indulgence of the witnesses. In this body, our most important act is voting on behalf of our constituents. We just had a series of four votes, and in an hour will have another vote. Certainly 

I wanted to give the witnesses an opportunity to expand a little bit 

more under the circumstances. 

And with that, could I turn to you first, Mr. Bowers. Part of the 

topic that we discussed today was the Nation’s coinage in its 

present form. And from a little historic perspective, when we talk 

about the future of the one-cent piece, the future of the dollar 

coin—and we faced these challenges in the past—the end of the old 

half-cent in 1957. I have read accounts in publications by yourself 

and others about literally barrels of the old large cents being 

turned in for the new small cents. This is not a new experience, 

is it? 

Mr. BOWERS. No. The coinage spectrum has changed. It has 

evolved continuously. There was a time when we had gold coins. 

We no longer have them. The silver coins. These were foundational 

changes far exceeding nickels and cents. And we abolished silver 

coins. And somehow, the American economy survived and prospered. 

The numismatic community watches all this happen. If you make 

a two-cent piece tomorrow, we will collect it. But the historical 

record shows that the citizens will adapt to just about anything. 

The American West prior to the 20th century in California, Nevada, and Wyoming, didn’t use nickels or one-cent pieces even 

though they were made. Their economies started at mainly a dime, 

and they didn’t even have small change. 

But whatever is available, I think, will be used, and the public 

will get used to it. But there will be a resistance to change. Sort 

of like Y2K—the world was going to fall apart, but somehow it 

40

didn’t. And if the one-cent piece, the dearly cherished one-cent 

piece, which I like its history, if it were to pass, soon whatever the 

lowest denomination would be would take its place and it would be 

forgotten, maybe and fondly remembered, and probably quickly collected. I could see them going out of circulation very fast. 

Mr. LUCAS. While we are visiting with you, Mr. Bowers, would 

you touch for a moment on the comments by the Mint Director that 

in effect said that the Mint reserved the right to, as they use the 

phrase, ‘‘recover’’ any and all numismatic items which in effect, it 

appeared, they determined did not meet their standard of having 

been issued or delivered or brought forth or whatever? 

Mr. BOWERS. Well, the record— 

Mr. LUCAS. That is a pretty profound statement, isn’t it, really? 

The potential consequences? 

Mr. BOWERS. The record shows that in the 19th century and also 

at times since then, the Mint people themselves kept samples, and 

sold coins. There are approximately 1,700 different varieties of patterns—a few more than that, 1,800—of pattern coins from 1792 onward, of which there is no official record of being distributed, less 

than 5 percent of them were ever documented. 

There are tens of thousands of coins with no documentation 

whatsoever that are now avidly collected. And the Mint could take 

the position that, ‘‘Well, we have no record these were ever issued; 

we want them back.’’ And this puts a sword over the head of everybody who has such a thing and feels that they could be held legitimately. 

And as the Mint administrations change—I will give another example. Around 1960, I had a plastic one-cent piece that was made 

in 1942 by a private company as a proposal for a cent. The Secret 

Service came and seized this from me. And this was 1960, 46 years 

ago. And I said, ‘‘Well, I believe it is legally held.’’ And they said, 

‘‘Well, we will let you know.’’ 

They could do this by fiat because no individual collector can say, 

‘‘Well, I am going to challenge the Secret Service and the Treasury 

Department. No one has enough money to do this. So I believe that 

H.R. 5077, by defining what can be held and what cannot be, removes uncertainty because there are so many undocumented 

things, and different ways of interpretation. 

Another way of interpretation in the past has been the statutes. 

You could point to legislation, well, the statute clearly says that a 

quarter dollar has to be made in ‘‘XYZ’’ metal and a certain diameter. Well, obviously a mint error, if you have a quarter that is 

struck on a one-cent planchet, violates Federal law. Yet—so the 

Mint could say—a new director, for example, say, oh, this violates 

the coinage statute. It could not have been legally issued. It was 

issued by mistake. We want it back. Or it was illegally issued. 

This House bill gives some assurance to American citizens who 

collect coins without any fraudulent intent, and just want to own 

things, and have some security in the value of their assets without 

fear of Government intervention. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Weinberg, along that line, again, part of this 

process is establishing an official record of our proceedings. And as 

I think the panel has observed, Congress, like the general public, 

is always in need of a little education. That is an important thing. 

41

Could you give some examples of the kind of items that we are 

talking about here and the dollar amounts of some of these items 

that have traded publicly that fall within this broad range of what 

we heard earlier from the previous panel? 

Mr. WEINBERG. Well, when you talk about mint errors, there are coins that were struck off center that are only worth $5 apiece, but 

there are hundreds of thousands of them that have been released 

from the Mint over the last even 50 years. The Mint accepts the 

fact that these errors were part of the production process and got 

out legally. They don’t question that. 

But back in the 1960’s, an off-metal coin, a coin like Mr. Bowers 

mentioned, a half-dollar struck on a penny or a nickel that was 

struck on a dime, could be considered, and was threatened by the 

Treasury Department to be, confiscated, even though there’s very 

few, if any, actual records of seizure back in the 1960’s. It was, as 

Mr. Bowers says, held over the head of every collector that these 

things weren’t possibly legally issued. 

Some error coins are worth a few dollars. Some error coins are 

worth $50,000. There are certain gold error coins that might be 

worth $150,000, but those are 100 years old. So we are looking for 

some type of consistency for whether it is pattern coins that were 

issued by the Mint but never acknowledged, or error coins, 97 percent of which were probably issued as part of the normal production process, some of which might have been taken from the Mint 

50 years ago, but they become fungible. You can’t tell a doublestruck penny that was taken from the Mint and a double-struck 

penny that was not taken from the Mint. 

And so the Mint should be required to show that they either 

know an employee was stealing these coins, and they know who 

they sold them to and they can recover them, or the Mint should 

say, these are coins that were issued in error—and again, the Mint 

does a great job. As my testimony says, the Mint makes—at the 

height, 5 years ago, the Mint made 26 or 27 billion coins. And if 

you take a defect rate of .000000001, that is still a decent amount 

of coins, but that is a better—a lower defective rate of probably any 

manufacturing process of almost anything in the world except 

maybe computer chips. 

Mr. LUCAS. Fair enough. And I address this question to the entire panel. The portion of the bill that strikes toward the goal of 

a systematic inventory, trying to give the Mint maximum flexibility, requesting only, as the bill is now drafted, an every 5 year 

revision of that inventory, does it strike anyone, any of you members of the panel, as unreasonable that a public institution, using 

public resources, and generating public profit, would seem to have 

difficulty in providing what any good, from my perspective, private 

enterprise business would have on the books on a day-to-day basis? 

Mr. Bowers? 

Mr. BOWERS. I can address that with personal experience. I 

wrote a book, the Encyclopedia of Silver Dollars—the official title 

was Silver Dollars and Trade Dollars of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia—in 1993. At that time, I talked with Donna 

Pope, the Mint Director, and I said, the record shows that Susan 

B. Anthony dollars were made in large quantities in the year 1980, 

but yet they don’t seem to turn up. Where are they? 

42

So she said she would check around. And the Mint didn’t know 

where they were. And she was very cooperative, but the Mint had 

no idea where they were. She said, you might check with the Federal Reserve system. I made some calls, and they said, well, we 

think we might have 250,000 of these in Denver, but we are not 

sure. And there was no way I could get any further information. 

Right to this day, I believe the numismatic community doesn’t 

know if all the 1980 dated Anthony dollars were distributed, if they 

were, how they were, or where they are stored. And I think, as the 

Mint accumulates things, we now know that the Mint gives information, like we have sold—this is just a hypothetical example—we 

have sold 38,000 of this commemorative coin. That is what they 

have sold. But that does not necessarily equal to what they have 

struck. They strike extras for possible loss. If they sold 38,000, did 

they make 42,000, 38,004, or what? The numismatic community 

would like to know that. 

Also, for accounting purposes, if they sold 38,000 and they made 

43,000, there are 5,000 available somewhere. What is the disposition of those? Can somebody with an inside track get them at face 

value? What if they have a numismatic premium? 

I think the H.R. bill does address that because if these are disclosed and we find 250,000 1980 Susan Anthony dollars that are 

worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the aggregate or millions 

of dollars, we recognize this and make a sale that would benefit the 

Smithsonian. 

Right now, there is no accounting that I am aware of. And I try 

to be a fairly careful student of numismatics. It is just like a black 

hole when you ask for answers. 

Mr. LUCAS. If I could, Mr. Bowers, at various times the topic has 

come up, in particular, those 1933 Double Eagles. And I know that 

there is potential litigation out there, and we are not concerned 

necessarily with that here. And I know that is not an issue of the 

bill. 

But in the way the Mint keeps their records and the records that 

you have been able to examine down through the years, is it possible that old customs from days gone by where collectors were allowed to swap for certain coins at the beginning of a new run year, 

were allowed to purchase certain pieces—is it possible that some 

of these ‘‘rarities’’ fall in that category? 

Mr. BOWERS. Well, my theory on the 1933 Double Eagle, and I 

would require 2 hours to expound on it— 

Mr. LUCAS. Of course. 

Mr. BOWERS.—but in brief, in 1933 the Secretary of the Treasury 

was William H. Woodin, who was a numismatist, a student of gold 

coins, and at the time Double Eagles weren’t widely collected. 

If I went to William H. Woodin in March 1933 and said, ‘‘Mr. 

Woodin, I would like to have one of your new 1933 Double Eagles,’’ 

I am sure, based on Mint tradition, that he would say, ‘‘Well, you 

go down to the cashier of the Mint and you just give him another 

Double Eagle and he will give you one.’’ Things were very casual. 

When the 1933 Double Eagle was investigated in 1944, there was 

not a single administration person from 1933 still in service that 

they could interview. A case in point, a little closer in time, in 

1936, there was a certain commemorative half-dollar made among 

43

over a dozen different designs. John Sinnock, the engraver, sent 

one of these pieces. He pickled it in acid to create a matte proof, 

and he sent it to the designer of this coin with a little letter like, 

‘‘I thought you would like to have one of the first strikings, and I 

actually prepared it with a special surface, the only one made. 

Here it is.’’ 

Okay. Well, this coin came into my possession and is now owned 

by a collector overseas. But the Treasury Department could rightfully say, ‘‘Well, we have no record that the engraver was allowed 

to do that,’’ and so on, and confiscate the coin. Whereas I think the 

circumstances I just mentioned show that it wasn’t stolen from the 

Mint. According to practice at the time, it was given as a token of 

appreciation to the designer. 

The proposed House rule will protect coins from what I would 

call capricious seizure by people who are not aware of the facts, or 

in other instances the facts aren’t known so they assume that the 

coin is guilty until proven innocent, whereas the average citizen of 

the United States doesn’t have the legal wherewithal to challenge 

the Treasury Department and prove something isn’t guilty. 

Mr. LUCAS. A question from a slightly different angle, just drawing upon your numismatic knowledge. After the great gold recall 

that was ongoing for—well, basically, I guess, until in essence the 

legal ownership of gold was restored, initially all those coins were 

returned to the United States Government through, I assume, the 

Federal Reserve system. 

At what point was the decision made to melt all of those down 

into 90 percent bars? 

Mr. BOWERS. Most of the coins were melted in 1937. So the coins 

were retained at the Mints in different vaults, at the Philadelphia 

Mint, mainly, and then in 1937 they were melted. 

In 1937, there were a number of people in the Treasury Department in Philadelphia that went into these vaults, substituted other 

Double Eagles for them for $20 gold pieces—dated, for example, 

1932 in particular, 1931—and took them to New York City coin 

dealers—for example, Abe Kosoff, and I interviewed these people. 

We had a steady stream of Mint people coming from Philadelphia 

with these rare Double Eagles that they were finding in the melt 

quantity. They substituted coins from pocket change. 

And I said—I have said this in print in my Coin World column 

and elsewhere—that these people are sort of like Robin Hood or 

somebody. I mean, we have to be thankful that these coins would 

have been reduced to bullion and lost forever. The Treasury Department didn’t lose one penny because they got another Double 

Eagle to melt, and because of this, we have the vast majority of 

Double Eagles dated 1931, 1932, and also 1933. 

And talking about the 1933, Mr. Israel Switt was interviewed at 

great length in 1944 by the Treasury Service. No charges were ever 

filed against him. He was not convicted of anything. And now we 

have it as gospel that he stole them from the Mint. Well, that is 

highly unlikely. What probably happened is someone from the Mint 

came to him and said, would you like to get these that I just rescued from oblivion? Or maybe he got them some other ways. 

But in hindsight, when we don’t know what happened in 1937 

or 1933, all sorts of very strong facts—and the word ‘‘facts’’ is in 

44

quotation marks—are saying, this is the true story of the so-andso. And I will go beyond the Double Eagle because it is controversial. 

But take all the patterns. They were not released legally. In 1909 

and 1910, the Treasury Department sought to seize pattern coins 

from a Philadelphia dealer named John Haseltine, seized them and 

said, ‘‘These weren’t officially released. We want them.’’ And he 

went to court and got them back. 

But what the H.R.—what the resolution is trying to do is to prevent capricious seizures, not well-studied things where someone 

was—some coin was stolen from the Mint by armed robbery or 

something. Nothing that was documented, but things that fall into 

the great never-never land where they exist but are not documented. And the people who own them should be protected from 

a force that they cannot combat, and that would be the Treasury 

saying they are illegal. 

Mr. LUCAS. From your research, who actually gave the order for 

the mass melting of those coins in the vaults? Did that ever come 

to the top? 

Mr. BOWERS. I would have to research that. But that would be—

it would have been—Franklin Roosevelt was President, and it 

would have probably been a Treasury edict. I don’t think it would 

have been subject to— 

Mr. LUCAS. Bless whoever in Treasury decided to wipe out that 

part of our heritage. 

Mr. BOWERS. Right. Well, they probably said—and I don’t like to 

deal in supposition—that we have been storing these, and we can’t 

count them. And Fort Knox was a new facility. We can melt them 

down into bars, which are easier to count and store them in Fort 

Knox. And then we know easier how much gold we have rather 

than these cloth bags in various vaults in the Philadelphia Mint. 

Probably it was not necessarily a bad decision if you remember 

that in 1937, these weren’t widely collected. I mean, it wasn’t a 

good numismatic decision, but it wasn’t a capricious decision. It 

was what they thought best at the time, and I have no quarrel 

with it. 

It is just that the pieces that got out of the Mint for one reason 

or another and were saved numismatically but not documented, to 

say that they were stolen from the Mint has several interpretations. 

Is a coin stolen if you are at a—if the Treasury Department tomorrow says, all Sacagawea dollars must be returned to the local 

bank. We are calling them in. Someone goes to their bank counter 

and said, well, instead of turning that one in, sir, I would like to 

buy it for a dollar bill, and gives the bank a dollar. Is that an illegal action? I would probably say no. 

Mr. LUCAS. Good point. 

Mr. Cipoletti, as executive director of the largest coin collecting 

association in the country, could you expand on your written and 

oral testimony about the nature of how the ANA views the handling of our National Collection, and where as a group they believe 

we should go? 

Mr. CIPOLETTI. Certainly. One of the primary functions of the 

ANA is to provide educational resources in numismatics to not only 

45

the membership but to the general public. And certainly the National Numismatic Collection housed at the Smithsonian Institution is one of, if not the, very best resource that exists around the 

world for study and research on numismatic material. 

And it is imperative that material be accessible, not only to researchers who know how to get in behind the scenes but to the general public, to understand and learn about numismatics, to learn 

how money throughout the ages, whether it is U.S. money, whether 

it is ancient or foreign money, has really influenced and developed 

and is reflective of who we are as a people, what our culture is 

about, what our history is about, where we have been geographically—everything that money really speaks to. 

And so we at the American Numismatic Association actually 

have had dialogue with the Smithsonian about what we can do to 

benefit and support the Smithsonian in any efforts to bring the National Numismatic Collection back out of mothballs and into the 

public’s eye. 

Mr. LUCAS. Gentlemen, any final thoughts or observations you 

would care to share with the committee for the record? 

Mr. BOWERS. I would like to reemphasize that the numismatic 

community is trying to ride the same horse team as the Mint and 

Congress. The numismatic community is a resource that we—

speaking for everybody at the table, I am sure—we want to work 

with the Treasury Department, work with the Mint, and help you 

with your programs. 

We have no adversarial interest whatsoever. We are just trying—

we appreciate money. As Christopher Cipoletti said, it is history. 

It is heritage. We appreciate the current Mint. Often, when Mint 

Directors retire—Jay Johnson, who was here at the testimony 

today—if they were an Agricultural Department official, they 

would be forgotten. A Mint Director can go to a coin convention 10 

years later, 20 years later, and be feted and honored. 

We like the Treasury Department. We like Mint officials. We like 

Congress. And I believe we just need to work closely together. And 

we invite you to tap us, free of charge, if we can help in any way. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Bowers. 

Mr. Cipoletti? 

Mr. CIPOLETTI. Yes. I would echo what Mr. Bowers said. The 

American Numismatic Association certainly has developed a very 

good and strong working relationship with the United States Mint, 

and with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and it is our hope 

to continue to further that relationship. 

But we certainly don’t find the position that is taken by the Mint 

on H.R. 5077 to be well thought out or supported, especially given 

the interests of the collecting community and the fact that it is the 

numismatic community that is truly supporting the Mint in many 

respects and providing a substantial amount of money to the Treasury of the United States. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Weinberg? 

Mr. WEINBERG. I would just like to say that the Industry Council 

for Tangible Assets is offering you and your committee any help, 

background, and suggestions to make your bill easier to pass, and 

46

any amendments or changes. We are here to help you with any information that we can provide that would support your bill. 

Mr. LUCAS. The Chair wishes to thank the panel for their input 

and their observations. And yes, this will be a process that we will 

continue to move forward. 

With that, the Chair also would like to note that some members 

may have additional questions for the panel which they may wish 

to submit in writing. And without objection, the hearing record will 

remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions 

to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X

July 19, 2006

48


31538.001
49


31538.002
50


31538.003
51


31538.004
52


31538.005
53


31538.006
54


31538.007
55


31538.008
56


31538.009
57


31538.010
58


31538.011
59


31538.012
60


31538.013
61


31538.014
62


31538.015
63


31538.016
64


31538.017
65


31538.018
66


31538.019
67


31538.020
68


31538.021
69


31538.022
70


31538.023
71


31538.024
72


31538.025
73


31538.026
74


31538.027
75


31538.028
76


31538.029
77


31538.030
78


31538.031
79


31538.032
80


31538.033
81


31538.034
82


31538.035
83


31538.036
84


31538.037
85


31538.038
86


31538.039
87


31538.040
88


31538.041
89


31538.042
90


31538.043
91


31538.044
92


31538.045
93


31538.046
94


31538.047
95


31538.048
96


31538.049
97


31538.050
98


31538.051
99


31538.052
100


31538.053
101


31538.054
102


31538.055
103


31538.056
104


31538.057
105


31538.058
106


31538.059
107


31538.060
108


31538.061
109


31538.062
110


31538.063
111


31538.064
112


31538.065
113


31538.066
114


31538.067
115


31538.068
116


31538.069
117


31538.070
118


31538.071
119


31538.072
120


31538.073
121


31538.074
122


31538.075
123


31538.076
124


31538.077
125


31538.078
126


31538.079
127


31538.080
128


31538.081
129


31538.082
130


31538.083
131


31538.084
132


31538.085
133


31538.086
134


31538.087
135


31538.088
136


31538.089
137


31538.090
138


31538.091
139


31538.092