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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–908 PDF 2008

EXAMINING ISSUES RELATED TO 

TACTILELY DISTINGUISHABLE CURRENCY 

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 TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 30, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 110–135 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

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 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

DON CAZAYOUX, Louisiana 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY, TRADE, AND

TECHNOLOGY

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois, Chairman 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 30, 2008 ..................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

July 30, 2008 ..................................................................................................... 31 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008 

Brunson, Melanie, Executive Director, American Council of the Blind .............. 10 

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

of the Treasury ..................................................................................................... 3 

Geerdes, Richard M., President and Chief Executive Officer, National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) ........................................................ 19 

Habib, Cyrus, Disability Advocate ......................................................................... 13 

Knoll, Jeffrey G., Executive Vice President and Corporate Counsel, CumminsAllison Corporation .............................................................................................. 21 

Maurer, Marc, President, National Federation of the Blind ................................ 12 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Brunson, Melanie ............................................................................................. 32 

Felix, Larry R. .................................................................................................. 34 

Geerdes, Richard M. ......................................................................................... 42 

Habib, Cyrus ..................................................................................................... 49 

Knoll, Jeffrey G. ................................................................................................ 52 

Maurer, Marc .................................................................................................... 61 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Gutierrez, Hon. Luis V.: 

Written statement of Steven M. Rothstein, President, Perkins School 

for the Blind .................................................................................................. 68 

Paul, Hon. Ron: 

Written statement of the Coalition for the Presidential $1 Coin ................. 72 

(1) 

EXAMINING ISSUES RELATED TO 

TACTILELY DISTINGUISHABLE CURRENCY 

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 

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 10:04 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Gutierrez; Paul and Manzullo. 

Also present: Representative McCarthy of New York. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology 

will come to order. And thanks to all of the witnesses for agreeing 

to appear before the subcommittee this morning. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the issues stemming from the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia’s ruling in American 

Council of the Blind v. Paulsen, which held that the United States 

discriminates against the blind and visually impaired because its 

paper money consists of bills that are all the same size, regardless 

of denomination. This ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals by the D.C. Circuit, and now the Treasury Department is 

under an order to make U.S. currency tactilely distinguishable to 

blind and visually-impaired people. 

We have before us today representatives of the named parties in 

the lawsuit, as well as the National Federation of the Blind, which 

filed a brief in support of the Treasury Department and various 

other interested parties. 

Let me stress that this is not a legislative hearing, and neither 

the subcommittee nor the full Financial Services Committee have 

legislation pending before it. 

We are under substantial time constraints to get through three 

panels of witnesses before a mark-up starts in this very hearing 

room at 2 p.m., so we are limiting opening statements for the members to 5 minutes per side. But, without objection, all members’ 

opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

Likewise, we will be limiting our witnesses’ oral testimony to 3 

minutes each, with their full written statements being made a part 

of the record. In order to expedite this process, I will submit my 

opening statement for the record, and recognize Ranking Member 

Ron Paul for 5 minutes. Dr. Paul, you are recognized. 

2 

Dr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we would 

not be here, discussing this topic today, if we had a truly free monetary system. It is well known that I am a proponent of sound, 

commodity-backed currency. Anyone who has ever felt the heft of 

a gold or silver coin, noticed the variation in size and design among 

different denominations of precious metal coins, or examined the 

different types of reeding, incusions, and other edged designs, recognizes that coins are far superior to paper bills in terms of their 

ability to be distinguishable solely by touch. 

Due to what many people deem the impracticality of carrying 

around coins, bills have, over the course of time, replaced coins in 

everyday commerce. However, a system of competing currencies 

would ensure that blind or near-blind citizens have access to currency. 

If we had a truly free market in currency, private currency producers could produce coins or bills that are tactilely distinguishable, with bills incorporating different sizes, shapes, raised geometric patterns, and other things. It is not inconceivable to imagine 

that a privately issued currency incorporating such features and 

making itself available to all Americans might obtain a dominant 

position as a preferred currency. 

What prevents such a scenario from occurring is the U.S. Government’s attempt to maintain a monopoly over the dollar. 

Through a multi-faceted legal barrier consisting of legal tender 

laws, anti-counterfeiting statutes worded to prevent the private 

issue of notes and coins, and punitive taxes on precious metals that 

would form the backing of a commodity-based currency, the Government has ensured that alternative currencies, such as the Liberty Dollar, have to face an often insurmountable legal hurdle. 

While nothing prevents many point of sale transactions today 

from being carried out in euros or pounds, legal tender laws ensure 

that Gresham’s Law—that bad money drives out good—remains in 

effect. 

The recent court ruling against the Treasury Department has 

been advertised as having a potential cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be far more economical to eliminate the 

legal tender restrictions on private currencies and enable the market to find a solution to the problem of currency for the blind. 

Competitive private currencies would have the added benefit of 

keeping the U.S. Government honest by forcing the Government to 

stop the limitless increase of money, which is inflation, thereby removing the Government’s ability to run up large trade deficits, 

half-trillion dollar budget deficits, and an enormous national debt. 

Allowing currency competition would aid in lifting burdens not only 

from the blind, but also from all American taxpayers. I yield back. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Paul. I ask 

unanimous consent that Congresswoman McCarthy, who is a member of the full committee, be allowed to participate in this subcommittee hearing. She has a very keen interest in this issue. And 

without objection, I yield to her 3 minutes for any opening statement. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this hearing. It is really going to be a learning experience, I 

think, for us, as Members of Congress. 

3 

When the Supreme Court came down with having a reasonable 

accommodation for blind people so they can distinguish between 

money, I found the subject interesting. But already meeting with 

all parties—and it became more and more complicated, so I think 

this is going to be a very long journey, trying to figure out how 

we’re going to do this, what’s going to be the most feasible to make 

those accommodations. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am really looking forward to 

hearing the testimony so we can begin this process. I’m looking forward to working with all of the participants, and hopefully we can 

come up with a solution in the near future. With that, I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. The gentlelady yields back. 

Testifying on our first panel, we have Mr. Larry Felix, Director 

of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. As Director, Mr. Felix is 

responsible for the overall operations of the Bureau, and the production of U.S. currency and other government securities and documents. 

A career Treasury employee, Mr. Felix has spent the last 17 

years at the Bureau, most recently as Deputy Director. He previously served as the Bureau’s Associate Director for Technology, 

and Chief of External Relations. He also chaired the Interagency 

Currency Design Task Force, a group responsible for recommending technical enhancements to U.S. currency design. 

Director Felix holds degrees from New York City College of Technology, and City College of the City, University of New York. He 

did doctoral work in political economy at Columbia University. This 

is Director Felix’s first time testifying before the subcommittee 

since I took over as chairman, so I wanted to extend to him a very, 

very warm welcome. You are recognized, Director Felix. 

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

Mr. FELIX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gutierrez, 

Ranking Member Paul, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for holding this hearing, and inviting me to testify. I appreciate 

the opportunity to discuss the operations of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and to expand on our efforts to study, test, and 

implement measures to help those who are blind and visually impaired more readily identify paper currency denominations. 

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

primary product is Federal Reserve notes, we also produce security 

documents on behalf of Federal agencies. This year, the Bureau 

will produce about 7 billion Federal Reserve notes, as well as millions of secured passports and other printed security documents. 

Financed through an industrial revolving fund, the Bureau does 

not receive an annual appropriation from Congress. Instead, customers reimburse the Bureau for the products we produce. The Bureau works very closely with the Federal Reserve System and the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, to ensure that the U.S. 

paper currency program meets rigorous quality, cost, and design 

specifications and can function effectively in the marketplace. 

4 

The currency program of the United States is a shared responsibility that demands high levels of cooperation and coordination between several Federal agencies. The Department of the Treasury, 

the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, the banks in the Federal Reserve system, and the United States Secret Service perform key and unique 

functions that contribute to the production and issuance of counterfeit-deterrent bank notes that are routinely accepted and widely 

used in commerce. 

The U.S. Government initiates a redesign of currency notes in 

order to stay ahead of evolving technologies that enable counterfeiting. Since counterfeiting techniques remained traditional for the 

better part of the previous century, the appearance of U.S. currency remained unchanged from 1929 until the mid-1990’s. 

Because the size of U.S. currency has remained constant since 

1929, entire industries and product lines have been developed and 

built around the size of our bank notes, including much of the Bureau’s manufacturing equipment, as well as sophisticated, high-end 

cash handling machinery in the private sector, and automated 

vaults and storage used not only by the public sector, but also by 

commercial banks. 

Additionally, currency-accepting machinery employed by the private sector, portable currency-reading devices that assist the blind 

and visually impaired, cash register drawers, and even the basic 

size and composition of our wallets conform to the dimensions of 

our bank notes. 

In anticipation of the emergence of personal digital technology, 

the Government established a strategy to redesign currency every 

7 to 10 years, in order to maintain our edge over counterfeiting. 

This new policy led to the introduction of the new currency design 

in 1996, and the colorful NextGen design in 2003. The Government 

has used these redesign changes as an opportunity to test, study, 

and implement features that can better assist the blind and visually impaired to more readily identify paper currency. 

For example, in 1983, the Bureau commissioned a study to research design features that would assist the blind and visually impaired. In accordance with that 1983 report’s recommendation, the 

Bureau procured equipment and undertook several initiatives to incorporate machine-readable features into our bank notes. 

Later, in 1995, the National Research Council completed a study 

that assessed and recommended features for the blind and visually 

impaired to help facilitate them to denominate U.S. currency. That 

study recommended four modifications to bank notes: different size 

bank notes; large, high-contrast numerals; differing predominant 

colors for each denomination; and features that can lead to the development of effective low-cost devices for examining bank notes to 

facilitate the blind. 

Since the 1995 study, the Bureau has incorporated 3 out of those 

4 recommendations. The Bureau is committed to finding solutions 

that will assist the blind and visually impaired to more effectively 

denominate currency. Even before the recent decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals, the Bureau awarded a contract to conduct a comprehensive study of the issue. 

5 

The BEP and its contractors have already met with the American Council for the Blind and the National Federation of the 

Blind, as well as the National Council on Disability, an independent Federal agency tasked with making recommendations to 

the Congress and the President on changes regarding disability 

policy. All of these entities have provided invaluable input. 

The study is intended to further advance the Government’s understanding of the issues and to review all of the possible options 

to help the blind and visually impaired. The study, which is a 

three-part study, will examine the use of paper currency by the 

blind and the visually-impaired population in the United States 

and examine possible alternatives to improve their experience. 

The study will solicit input from a number of interested parties. 

It will employ surveys and focus groups to fully study and evaluate 

the issues. 

The study is intended to: One, identify the characteristics of 

blind and visually-impaired Americans and to project trends and 

needs for U.S. bank note identification purposes; two, examine 

technical and practical feasibility of technological solutions and currency design changes that can assist those who are blind or visually impaired—this will include a review of the effectiveness of potential features, as well as an ability to either manufacture these 

features or produce them, and will also look at operational, timing, 

and security considerations related to whatever proposals that are 

deemed feasible; and finally, the study will provide an economic 

analysis of the changes that have been identified. The economic 

analysis will examine societal costs to the public and private sectors and consider the effectiveness of these solutions, relative to 

their costs. 

The Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of Engraving 

and Printing are sensitive to the national needs of all Americans, 

including the blind and visually impaired. Changes to U.S. currency can have broad consequences to all users of currency, and potential solutions to assist the blind and visually impaired must be 

thoroughly evaluated prior to reaching a final decision. 

The Department and the Bureau, in coordination with the Federal partners, the blind and visually-impaired community, and the 

private sector—and the major private sector users of currency—will 

continue to search for creative and practical solutions in this area. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I am 

happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Felix can be found on page 34 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. Well, as I said, the 

focus of the hearing today stems from the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia’s ruling in American Council of the Blind 

v. Paulsen, which held that the United States discriminates against 

the blind and visually impaired because its paper money is all the 

same size, regardless of denomination. 

So, we are going to have to work together to resolve this problem, 

and respond accordingly to the lawsuit that was filed. 

You spoke—and it’s really good, I’m really happy we have you as 

a career professional, because you have been there many years in 

many different positions. So I think you’re going to be in a very 

6 

keen position to help us figure this out. In your testimony, you 

mentioned the redesign programs that the Bureau has implemented over the years to maintain an edge on counterfeiters. 

Wouldn’t it be fairly easy for the Bureau to implement the D.C. 

court order in the next redesign? 

And wouldn’t a larger bill or a bill that is sensitive to touch 

make our currency even harder to counterfeit? That is to say now 

the counterfeiters have to figure out two things, all your technology 

and figure—I mean, this is only preliminarily. 

But if you can’t see, you have much better—you use your fingers 

a lot more during the day to read Braille and a number of other 

things. And they have—the blind and visually impaired have a 

much better sense of touch than we do. Wouldn’t it be easy to do 

that? What do you think? 

Mr. FELIX. Mr. Chairman, clearly, we have evaluated the use and 

incorporation of tactile features into bank notes. Typically, because 

of the substrate, tactical features do not work. They do not last the 

life of a bank note. And in the instance of our neighbors in the 

north, in Canada, they have deployed tactile features, as well as 

Switzerland and various other countries. 

Tactile features tend to last a very small fraction of the life of 

a bank note. And so, if you’re going to deploy a feature to assist 

the blind and visually impaired, it doesn’t really help them if that 

feature erodes over a period of time. So, tactility has proven to be 

ineffective in the long run. The bank notes tend to circulate consistently over time, and in the U.S. case, our bank notes circulate outside our borders. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. All right. How is the Treasury going to respond to the actions of discrimination against the visually impaired 

and the blind? 

Mr. FELIX. There are a lot of potential options available. Certainly, one option is we have put features in the bank notes that 

are machine-readable. And in the case of Canada, they provide a 

portable detector for people, and you can certainly use the portable 

detector to authenticate and denominate a bank note. 

Even if we were to change the sizes of bank notes to have a different size and a denomination, we can’t currently do that because 

of equipment limitations. But even if we could, blind people will— 

visually-impaired people will still require the use of a template, 

and that’s because the range that all of the denominations can 

change is so small that certainly, in the case of, say, the euro, you 

can tell a 5 euro from a 500 euro. But the average blind person 

can’t distinguish 10 from 20, or 20 from 50, or 50 from 100, because 

the gradations in the size of these notes are very, very minor. 

And so, what the European Central Bank has done is provided 

a portable template for people to use. One of the things we are 

looking at is how do you provide people with an effective method 

for denominating currency. Clearly, having a portable device seems 

to be the most effective method for denominating currency. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Well, we will be working—I’m not going to 

ask you any more questions, so that we can have Dr. Paul and others ask. We will be working very closely, and as quickly and as expeditiously as possible, obviously with all of the interested parties, 

7 

so that we can resolve this issue as quickly as possible. We 

shouldn’t let it linger any more than necessary. 

I am really looking forward to working with you, Director Felix, 

on this issue. I am very happy, again, that we have a career— 

somebody who has made it his career to get this done. 

Dr. Paul, please, you are recognized. 

Dr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Felix, you mentioned 

that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has other documents 

that you have to do, as well. Can you give me a rough number of 

how many different documents you are involved in? Is it 10, 20, 

100, or 500? What? 

Mr. FELIX. It is more like 10 or 20. 

Dr. PAUL. Ten or twenty. And you mentioned passports. That 

must be one of your big ones. Do you still print treasury bills and 

bonds? 

Mr. FELIX. Not the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. 

Dr. PAUL. They don’t do that? But, you know, you have these 

other documents, and none of those fulfill this requirement with 

Braille. 

Mr. FELIX. That’s correct. Most of the documents we produce do 

not require Braille. 

Dr. PAUL. And would the logical conclusion be that if it is discrimination to not adjust our currency, it would be discrimination 

not to adjust these other documents? 

Mr. FELIX. Most of the documents we produce tend to be documents that interface with machines; they have machine-readable 

characteristics. That is, in fact, our core competence, to be able to 

marry technology on the printed document. So, the vast majority 

of our work is based on the machine to document interface. 

Dr. PAUL. But if the Government is charged with discrimination 

because they don’t fulfill this requirement, it seems like it would 

be logical that the private companies would be held responsible too. 

Although I might not agree with that, and I would like the market 

to solve those problems and have competition, it seems like in this 

day and age, the people who print other documents would be required to do the same thing, like a stock certificate or a regular 

bond. 

Or, for instance, if—I think not too many people use cash any 

more. More and more people are using credit cards. And let’s say 

that we end up—and the blind use credit cards or cash even less, 

and use credit cards, it seems like this may well lead into saying, 

‘‘Well, how does a blind person’’—and I don’t know, maybe it’s already taken care of, but how would a blind person read his receipt? 

Maybe the Government will come along and then say, ‘‘Well, make 

sure the receipt is in Braille, too.’’ 

So, it could go on and on. Do you see that as a natural consequence, or is that worrying too much? 

Mr. FELIX. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know, I think I would prefer 

to address the issue as it relates to U.S. currency. And as it relates 

to U.S. currency, the Government has been proactive in putting 

features that are accessible. We could do more. We haven’t yet, we 

haven’t gone to the notion of changing the sizes of bank notes, but 

we have gone and incorporated many accessibility features into the 

bank notes. 

8 

And, in fact, we have relied and helped and encouraged the private sector to develop readers using the features we have deployed, 

so that it can be made available to the blind and visually impaired 

who need those devices. 

Dr. PAUL. Thank you. I have no more questions. I yield back. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Dr. Paul. I will recognize the 

gentlelady from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things 

that I wanted to—going back to your question, Mr. Chairman, on 

the ‘‘tactable’’ dollars, half the population of the blind or visually 

impaired suffer from diabetes. And with diabetes, a lot of them do 

not have the feel of touch in their fingers. So, that kind of starts 

off right there with a difficulty. 

But that comes down to what is a reasonable accommodation 

from the Supreme Court, because, to be very honest with you, 

when I was asked to look into this, the more we looked into it, the 

more we found how difficult this is going to actually be. I know that you are looking at a new design, or a $100 bill which 

has the tactable feel on it for security reasons. Now, is it because 

the $100 bill is not circulated as much as the smaller bills, that you 

feel this is going to work? Or is this just an experiment? 

Mr. FELIX. Well, the $100 bill offers us an opportunity to both 

address tactility, from a security perspective, as well, you know, as 

potentially to see if tactility assists people with denominating the 

currency. 

Just what we have done in a series of design redesigns was to 

use these designs to attempt to deploy features that can facilitate 

some people with some level of vision impairment to be able to distinguish. And if you look at a $5 note, we increased the size of the 

high contrast numeral on the back. It was another attempt, sort of 

as we go on, to progressively increase the functionality of the bank 

notes. 

So, clearly, increased tactility on the $100 bill certainly does promote an opportunity for people with vision impairments to distinguish the notes, but it also adds to some of the security elements. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Could I just follow up, and if you could, explain 

with a little bit more detail on what you have also been working 

on. 

I know Engraving and Printing has been encouraging the development of technology and currency reading devices, including technology that could be downloaded off the Internet and programmed 

into cell phones, which also may assist blind individuals and the 

visually impaired not only to read the currency, but also cash registers and price stickers and things like that. How far is that going 

and where are we on that? 

Mr. FELIX. That is correct. The Bureau has been trying to stimulate private sector development to—because we have already incorporated features more than 10 years ago into the bank notes, we 

have been trying to stimulate the private sector to use these features to develop devices that will enable people to denominate. 

We have even funded an awful lot of research. But inevitably, 

these companies come back to us and say, ‘‘There isn’t a market.’’ 

The market, in order to develop a portable feature, doesn’t make 

their product cost effective. And so that’s one of the challenges we 

9 

have, because we recognize there is a need for this product, and we 

have put the features in. We will continue to maintain these machine-readable features, it’s just that the private sector, so far, has 

not indicated an interest to follow up on those features. 

But we have done several studies, and will continue to do additional studies, to see if there is some way we can stimulate the development of a low-cost feature. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Well, just out of curiosity, though, with the private industry not really getting involved in this as you have been 

trying to work with them, was that even before the Supreme Court 

judgement, or now will they start looking at it, because now this 

is almost like a mandate? 

Mr. FELIX. We started this effort back in the late 1990’s, in an 

attempt to stimulate private industry to pick up on the features 

that we have incorporated for them. They have. 

Interestingly, they use these features that we have put specifically for the blind and visually impaired, they use it for security 

reasons. But they don’t use it for developing a feature for the blind. 

All of these developments have occurred maybe as recently as 

last year, and it’s an ongoing effort to encourage them to try to develop a market. But they really don’t see that it’s a sustainable 

market for them. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. As we go forward—and, obviously, when you 

look at the—our European colleagues that do mostly coins from a 

$1 coin and a $2 coin, are we looking into that? 

I know there was a concern, because it’s so bulky, not in our 

pockets, but when you’re talking about dealing with retailers and 

things like that. 

Mr. FELIX. It is the position of the Treasury Department that it 

should give the American public the choice between a $1 coin and 

a $1 bill, and—rather than having the Government dictate that, 

‘‘You shall not have a dollar bill.’’ 

We think that is a fair position, in line with the spirit of allowing 

choice and freedom to the American public. So, we fully support the 

fact that people have a choice between the two. But, nevertheless, 

by having that choice, we recognize that we have to work on finding a much more universal solution for the paper currency, because 

we clearly recognize that is a hurdle for some people. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time, 

and I know we will be working closely with you. Thank you. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Felix. Let me just say that we are going to be in recess. We have 

a Republican Convention, a Democratic Convention, things to do in 

August. It’s also very hot here, so we will be away. 

We will get back here on the 7th or the 8th, so we will be in 

touch with your office. The gentlelady from New York and I are 

going to be calling other interested parties, so that we can—I mean 

outside of these hearings—we can kind of listen to you, and have 

a conversation among ourselves with interested parties. 

So, during the recess, get ready. We will be back, and we will be 

calling you and arranging a time to meet with you and other interested parties so that we can have a more informal discussion about 

this issue. Thank you so much, Director Felix. 

10 

We now have the next panel: Melanie Brunson; Marc Maurer; 

and Cyrus Habib. While everybody is getting seated, I ask unanimous consent that the written testimony of Perkins School for the 

Blind be admitted into the official record. Hearing no objection, it 

is so ordered. 

Thank you so much. I will now introduce our second panel. First, 

we have Melanie Brunson, executive director for the American 

Council of the Blind. She has been with the ACB since 1998. Previously, she served in the capacity of director of advocacy at ACB. 

Prior to that, she was in private practice of law for 12 years. Ms. 

Brunson holds a B.A. and a J.D., both from Whittier College. 

Second, Marc Maurer is joining us. He is president of the National Federation of the Blind. Mr. Maurer has been president of 

the NFB since 1986. And from 1997 to 2000, he also served as 

president of the North American Caribbean region of the World 

Blind Union. Mr. Maurer graduated cum laude from the University 

of Notre Dame, and received his J.D. from Indiana University 

School of Law. In 1981, Mr. Maurer was elected president of the 

National Association of Blind Lawyers, and served in that office 

until 1985. And from 1984 until 1986, he served as president of the 

National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. 

Mr. Maurer has received numerous honors and awards, including 

the Presidential Medal for Leadership in 1990, the Baltimore Business Journal’s 1999 Innovation Award for Excellence and Workplace Technology, the 2002 VME Robert Dole Award, and the Daily 

Record’s 2002 Innovator of the Year Award. 

And finally, we have Cyrus Habib. Mr. Habib is a third-year law 

student at Yale Law School, where he is editor of Yale Law and 

Policy Review. Mr. Habib, along with the Yale Law School dean 

and several other students, submitted an amicus brief in the ACB 

v. Paulsen case, arguing that the U.S. currency is inaccessible to 

the blind. In the past, Mr. Habib has been awarded a Soros Fellowship, a Rhodes scholarship, a Truman scholarship, and in 2001, 

won the United States Congressional Service Award. 

We thank you all for coming here. Your complete testimony has 

been submitted for the record, and we will begin with Ms. Brunson, 

please. 

STATEMENT OF MELANIE BRUNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND 

Ms. BRUNSON. Good morning. First of all, I want to thank the 

committee for holding this hearing, and for the opportunity to 

speak with you this morning. 

As was indicated, I represent the American Council of the Blind, 

an organization which was founded in 1961, and currently has 

members in all 50 States, most of whom are blind or visually impaired. 

ACB’s mission is to increase the independence, equality of opportunity, and quality of life for all blind Americans. We believe that 

one way to increase the independence, enhance the opportunity, 

and improve the quality of life for blind Americans is to ensure 

that they can identify the denominations of their own bank notes, 

without having to rely on someone who is sighted to assist them. 

11 

Since the exchange of bank notes is a key component of so many 

transactions engaged in by our society today, we believe that it is 

imperative that the Government recognize that people who have 

visual impairments should be able to conduct their part of such exchanges independently. And we have been pleased to hear about 

some of the efforts that are currently ongoing to address this issue, 

as you have heard about this morning. 

The rate of unemployment among people who are blind or visually impaired is unacceptably high. We believe that job opportunities that are currently, at best, limited, and sometimes even unavailable to people who are blind, would be opened up to us if we 

could identify paper money as efficiently as others do. 

This is particularly significant for young people, and other firsttime job seekers who are looking for entry-level positions in places 

such as stores and restaurants, so that they can gain the work experience they need to advance in their chosen careers. Such jobs 

are currently frequently customer service-related, and involve a 

good deal of handling money. 

Certainly, there are blind people who now work in cash-intensive 

business situations, but they are forced to rely on either the honesty of their colleagues and customers, or currency reading technology that is inefficient and often unreliable. Money identifiers are 

slow, frequently inaccurate, and, in noisy situations, are unusable. 

It is common knowledge that blind people who are required to 

complete transactions involving cash quickly, such as cashiers in 

vending facilities, often abandon their money identifiers and rely 

on the honesty of other people to identify the cash involved, so that 

they can quickly meet the needs of their customers. 

The problem with this scenario is that, oftentimes, verification by 

another sighted person isn’t any faster than verification using a 

money identifier. Secondly, the process requires that a blind person 

often make an issue of, or call attention to his or her visual impairment in order to get someone else to assist, or take the risk of 

being defrauded. 

The fact is that, while most people that you encounter on a dayto-day basis are honest about the denomination of money, I can 

personally testify to instances from my own experience, and could 

provide additional anecdotal evidence in a significant amount from 

other people, that would show that blind people do get defrauded 

because of their inability to ascertain the value of U.S. bank notes. 

It is our position that if blind people are to be truly accepted as 

equal partners in the work places, cultural activities, and economic 

life of this society, the Government must design and issue bank 

notes that we can identify independently. 

As I alluded to a minute ago, we believe that currency readers 

are a very poor substitute for bank notes that are readily distinguishable without vision. In addition to being slow, each time a 

bank note is redesigned, the users of currency identifiers currently 

have to return the units to the factory to be updated, and there is 

a charge for such updates. 

Over 180 countries around the world have found ways to incorporate tactile features into their bank notes that enable blind and 

visually impaired people to distinguish notes of one denomination 

12 

from another. They have also taken steps to enhance the visual distinctions between denominations. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Ms. Brunson, you have 10 seconds to conclude your testimony. 

Ms. BRUNSON. Thank you. We simply want the Government of 

this country to do the same. We are not as concerned about the 

speed, as we are about the appropriateness and the usability of the 

features involved. 

And we thank you for the supportive comments that you have 

made, and we hope that this committee will support our efforts to 

obtain accessible currency. Thank you very much. 

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

32 of the appendix.] 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Maurer? 

STATEMENT OF MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

Mr. MAURER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Marc 

Maurer and I am the president of the National Federation of the 

Blind. It is the oldest and largest organization of blind people in 

the United States. It has an affiliate in each of the States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and it has chapters in most 

large cities and many of the small ones. I come to present the considered opinion of the National Federation of the Blind regarding 

currency identifiable by blind people. 

Would it be desirable to have a method for blind people to identify currency independently? Of course it would. 

Are blind people able to use the currency today, without modification? Certainly, we are. 

The argument has been made that currency which cannot be 

identified independently by blind people discriminates against the 

blind. However, blind people use items that are not tactilely identifiable by the hundreds every day. 

The argument about the currency has implications far beyond 

the money. In the work that I do, I handle currency, documents, 

and affidavits. Very few of these items are identifiable by touch. 

But to say that I cannot use them is to make an argument that 

isn’t true. We know that the blind can manage currency as it now 

exists. 

It would be more convenient to have a method of identifying it 

without help. However, many of the methods used throughout the 

world don’t work. In Canada, the bills that I have received have 

had Braille symbols on them, but these were useless to me. There 

are other methods of doing it. Some of them work, but none of 

them are as easy as some of the methods that we might recommend. 

Technology has been developed that can readily identify currency. The KNFB reader has a currency identifier in it that a number of blind people have used with outstanding success. A standalone currency reader, portable enough to carry in a pocket, could 

probably be produced for as little as $100. 

One final point should be made. To say that we can’t manage 

money is to argue that we, as blind people, are helpless. This is not 

13 

the case. To say that we might be victims of fraud is to argue that 

we can’t imagine methods of protecting ourselves. Such an assertion also urges the unscrupulous to try to prey on our 

vulnerabilities, be they real or imagined. 

To describe us as helpless, vulnerable, or incompetent is to paint 

a picture of blind people so negative that others in society are persuaded to mistrust any ability we have. Can you trust a blind lawyer, if he can’t even figure out how to manage his money? How can 

you be sure that your lawyer will be able to handle your transactions if he can’t handle his own? These are the unfortunate associations that come from the false and misleading argument that the 

blind cannot manage currency. 

The National Federation of the Blind has adopted resolutions 

about currency in 1994, 2002, and 2008. I attach these for your information. If there is to be a change in the currency, we who represent the largest number of blind people in the Nation wish to be 

involved in drafting and crafting the change. 

I do have a currency reader here. And, if we could take just a 

moment, I would like to have it demonstrated. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. [presiding] Permission granted. 

Mr. MAURER. This is—it just mentioned that it was a $20 bill. 

It had to check it twice, in order to be sure. I’m sorry that we didn’t 

have it on the microphone. 

But we have had no false positives with this machine. It is cur- rently expensive. We believe that it can be made for $100 to go on 

any cell phone, and we think it will be an effective method of identifying currency. 

We ask that we participate in whatever the crafting of the 

change might be, as we estimate that there will be a change in the 

currency. 

This concludes the summation of the statement of the National 

Federation of the Blind. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maurer can be found on page 61 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. I would ask those who are present to 

please refrain from applauding or interrupting in any way the proceedings. Thank you very much. 

I am sorry I had to leave momentarily, but we had a Rove contempt citation and I had to show up for that. 

Finally, we have Mr. Cyrus Habib. I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

I will also give you 30 seconds when the light turns red. 

STATEMENT OF CYRUS HABIB, DISABILITY ADVOCATE 

Mr. HABIB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Paul, 

and members of the committee. I would, first of all, like to thank 

you for holding this hearing, for taking up this important issue. I 

would also like to take this opportunity to thank the American 

Council for the Blind for their leadership on this issue, and Congressman Frank’s office and staff for their leadership and for helping us to be here today. 

It is an honor for me to sit among leaders of the blind community, and individuals from industry. In deference to time constraints, and in the wake of some of the testimony that has already 

been heard, I want to just focus, Mr. Chairman, on three points. 

14 

I, and another fellow law student at Yale, began work under 

Dean Harold Koh on an amicus brief for the D.C. circuit about a 

year-and-a-half ago, specifically because we felt that the issue of 

blind employment had not adequately been made by the parties in 

that case, that the issue of inconvenience to a blind consumer, and 

the opportunity for a blind consumer to be defrauded had been 

mentioned, but that in balancing government interests and undue 

burden with the impact on the blind community, the blind employment issue, which Ms. Brunson has spoken to you about, had not 

adequately been raised. 

There are three things that I think are important. And in writing 

that amicus brief, we represented the Perkins School for the Blind, 

which is the largest educational institution for the blind. 

The first point is the importance of entry-level jobs. When working with students from the Perkins School, we heard many of 

them—teenage, late teenage, early twenties—saying that first job, 

which I think all the members of the subcommittee will acknowledge is integral to obtaining references, to having key work experience at an early stage, to building mentorship relationships, that 

those jobs were the very jobs from which they had been foreclosed. 

Mr. Maurer mentioned that any such changes, proposed changes, 

would imply that blind people are currently not able to hold those 

sorts of jobs. What the students at the Perkins School were telling 

us is that those prejudices, Mr. Chairman, are already present, and 

in fact, are barring them. And the experts and staff at the Perkins 

School concurred with that assessment, that those biases, that 

blind people are unable to handle, denominate, verify, and exchange cash currency are already there, and that itself is detrimental to them. 

The second point I want to make is about financial literacy. This 

is what I have deemed the ‘‘lemonade stand effect,’’ which is that 

from a young age, Mr. Chairman, all of us Americans begin the 

process of becoming financially literate, you know, the archetypal 

example being the lemonade stand. 

Blind people, by dint of not being trusted and able, independently—not withstanding a 5-year-old being able to use Mr. 

Maurer’s machine—are, from a very early stage, cut out of the 

process of being the front man in financial exchanges. And this 

leads to an attenuated effect, which is financial illiteracy, which we 

argue is at the heart of the epidemic of blind unemployment in this 

country, as well. 

The final point I want to make is about, once again, this idea of 

perception. Blind people are fully capable of being employed in 

many of the same capacities as any other person. All we seek is 

an opportunity to enter into the economy of this great Nation. And 

by remaining in State and Federal, Social Security disability pay, 

and so on, we are not living up to our full potential. And that is 

marring and tainting our image. 

When I lived overseas in England, I was pleasantly surprised to 

be served at a cash register for the first time in my life by a blind 

individual. That altered my perception of what sorts of jobs could 

be available to blind people, and motivated and catalyzed me to 

take on this issue when I returned to the United States, and found 

out about the great work of the American Council. 

15 

I want to just close, Mr. Chairman, by addressing—in calling on 

the subcommittee to take urgent action on this issue, I want to address the issue of private versus public. And, again, as a matter of 

law, this lawsuit was brought under section 504 of the Rehabilitations Act. That is a statute that requires the Government to 

make reasonable accommodations in avoiding discrimination. 

With all due respect to those who are proponents of a private sector fix, we argue that the Court of Appeals and the D.C. District 

Court have both—in agreement that section 504 controls this matter of law, and—as a matter of law, controls this case. And so, we 

really would hope that, in taking action, the subcommittee would 

look affirmatively to how other countries have dealt with this in 

the public sector, and abide by the holdings of those courts. 

Once again, I want to thank the subcommittee for your time, and 

also clarify in closing that I come before you as an individual, not 

as a representative of the Perkins School for the Blind or the law 

school. I stand ready for any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Habib can be found on page 49 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. Well, Mr. Maurer, 

how do you respond to Ms. Brunson’s and Mr. Habib’s testimony, 

that having tactilely distinguishable currency is vital for young 

people and others, first-time job seekers who are looking for entrylevel positions in stores and restaurants, and looking to become financially independent and not on Social Security and other kinds 

of Government aid, but that this would help them secure jobs and 

a livelihood? How do you respond to that, Mr. Maurer? 

Mr. MAURER. The reality is that blind people are doing cash 

management at cash registers today. And the argument about cash 

is one that is a real argument, but it is only one tiny argument 

among so many. Entry-level jobs today are a problem, but they are 

very much a problem, because of lack of computer technology-based 

access that is at least as important. 

And if Mr. Habib hasn’t ever run a lemonade stand, then his experience isn’t as broad as mine. I have, and I was blind when I did 

it. And I delivered newspapers and collected currency. 

Managing currency for blind people is a thing that blind people 

do now. If a person doesn’t want to employ you and uses that argument, then they will have another one, which is to say, ‘‘Can you 

read the price tag on the product that is coming to your cash register?’’ ‘‘Can you tell whether it is a package that contains one 

product or another?’’ Do you have to identify everything by touch?’’ 

And if you do, then it’s only one tiny element of all of the things 

that have to be managed. There may be a way to do it, but it’s a 

bigger problem than they are talking about. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Ms. Brunson, would you care to respond? 

I am not trying to—I mean, there is a significant difference here, 

and I thought we would take these 5 minutes just to develop it 

somewhat. 

Ms. BRUNSON. Well, certainly there are any number of items that 

one deals with in managing either a professional position or any 

number of transactions involving doing business, either personal or 

professional. And to say that because you don’t have a way to adVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:30 Nov 05, 2008 Jkt 044908 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\44908.TXT TERRIE
16 

dress all of them, or you might not want to address all of them, 

you shouldn’t address any of them, I think isn’t appropriate. 

And so, I think that because of the degree to which currency affects so many aspects of our lives, that doesn’t mean that we 

shouldn’t address it, just because we might not have the opportunity to address all of the issues that might come up at once. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Mr. Maurer, the lawsuit has been filed. 

The court has found that it is discriminatory. How should we resolve that? 

Mr. MAURER. The lawsuit is over, Mr. Chairman. The Treasury 

does not intend to appeal the lawsuit. I think the lawsuit is an 

error. That’s a personal opinion, and that— 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. I guess my question is, we know that it 

is over and it has been found to be discrimination. How do we resolve that, Mr. Maurer? 

Mr. MAURER. That, I appreciate, is the decision of this subcommittee, working with the Treasury. I don’t—the recommendation that I would have would be a technological solution. I think 

it is the most effective. I think it is the most cost effective, as well 

as the most technologically effective. That is, I think it is the best 

way for blind people to identify currency. That is why I brought the 

currency reader today. I think it is the best way to go. 

Now, the Treasury may not agree, you may not agree. And that, 

of course, is an argument that I will make to you. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Okay. Well, we will continue. Mr. Habib, 

do you have any closing comments? 

Mr. HABIB. I just wanted to make one quick response to Mr. 

Maurer’s point in answering your first question, which is that I 

think it misses the mark in the sense that price tags, Mr. Chairman, are a matter of a private store. If I go into a grocery store, 

whether that employer has made the workplace accessible to me or 

not is a matter of reasonable accommodations governed by the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. That is a different statute than 

what we’re talking about here. 

We are talking about the Government. We are talking about section 504 of the Rehabilitations Act. Not withstanding Dr. Paul’s 

points, U.S. currency is, in the status quo, a public accommodation, 

is governed by public—by the section 504 of the Rehabilitations 

Act, and as such, is held to a completely different standard than 

the type of workplace, you know, environment in a private business, such as what Mr. Maurer was referring to. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. Dr. Paul, please, you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to insert into the record a written statement on 

this topic by the Coalition for the Presidential $1 Coin. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Dr. PAUL. Thank you. Actually, I don’t have a question, but I do 

want to make a brief comment. And maybe Mr. Maurer would comment on it. I was fascinated with his testimony, because sometimes 

I don’t find a lot of optimism in finding all the solutions with more 

regulations and more rules and more Government. 

And, fortunately, today I think we live in an age where technology is so beneficial. Even in medicine today, whether it’s dealing 

17 

with the blind and the deaf, I am sort of an optimist, long term, 

that great things will come out of technology. And of course, today 

we are not talking about that. 

But you take the problems of the bad stuff that’s on the Internet 

and on television. You know, there are two ways to do that. You 

either resort to Government that monitors and gets in the area of 

violating the First Amendment, or you can go to technology, and 

all of a sudden you know how to block things on the Internet, and 

block things on TV. And I think, in some ways, we are talking 

about technology coming to the answer. Because too often, when we 

look to the Government, even though it seems like it might solve 

one problem, it might introduce another. 

And certainly this issue of self-reliance, which is very challenging, of course, under these circumstances, but I think there is 

a bit of satisfaction that all of us get out of self-reliance, so—I keep 

wondering that—the demonstration you did is awfully fascinating. 

And if you can do that with a bill, wouldn’t it be wonderful if they 

could do that with us at the airport? You know? 

And actually, there is technology available in the hands of private people at the airport. We might not have to have 500,000 people on suspicious terrorist lists and being pestered to death to 

make us safe. And there are technologies available. 

So all I want to say is I applaud your approach, and I think 

hopefully this can be worked out to everybody’s satisfaction, legally, and to benefit everybody. I would like to just compliment Mr. 

Maurer on his testimony. 

Mr. MAURER. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Paul. 

I have never met a currency that worked tactilely. If there is one, 

I would like to know about it. And I have traveled many places. 

We would like to be involved in the solution to this process. We 

do believe it would be more convenient; we just don’t want to spend 

hundreds of millions of dollars on it. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much, Dr. Paul. The 

gentlelady from New York is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Number one, I think 

everybody is going to be involved as we go through this process. 

They have to be. 

Again, we were handed down a mandate from the Supreme 

Court that we have to do something. Now I will tell you what happens around here, especially on committees. When we have so 

many different factions working together for the bill, against the 

bill, this needs to be changed, that needs to be changed, there is 

an expression around here: ‘‘If no one is happy with it, we have actually done our job right.’’ And that means we tried to accommodate everybody. But everybody should be involved in the process, 

and they will be. 

With that being said, you know, sitting here—and my background is as a nurse—so sitting here thinking, my first reaction is, 

‘‘Well, let’s do coins.’’ But then I started thinking of those who have 

other challenges, someone who basically might have had a stroke 

and will not be able to use their fingers to be able to pick up a coin, 

and yet they’re able to work with a $1 bill or a $5 bill. So, I mean, 

there are going to be a lot more complications in other areas, as 

we go through this process. 

18 

But Mr. Habib, when you were over in London, and you said that 

it was the first time you met a blind person or a visually-impaired 

person at the cash register, was it because of their currency, or was 

there other technology that was helping that person work there? 

Mr. HABIB. No. They were using the British pound, which uses, 

you know, a combination of the methods that we have been talking 

about. There is a 1 pound and 2 pound coin, which I think takes 

us well above $4 now in exchange rate. So coins are a fairly viable 

solution at the low end for them. 

But the bills are also sized differently, both—and the changes are 

noticeable, to address that—the previous point made by Mr. Felix, 

that those are—the 20, the 5, and the 10 pound notes are distinguishable from one another. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Mr. Maurer, as we go forward, in 

many ways, like Mr. Paul, I do believe that technology is going to 

be out there. And it is going to be interesting as we go forward. 

Are we going to have a solution where, again, we’re going to have 

to almost, as they say, split the baby? Some will be technology, 

maybe there will be some that will be dealing with the actual hard 

currency. 

We are too early in the stage to actually know all of that, even 

though we have had many meetings with different groups. On the 

next panel it’s going to be interesting to hear them on the accommodations and what they’re looking at, basically, on how—and the 

ideas they have on how we can address this issue that we’re going 

to be looking at. 

So, again, this is very, very early. I have to ask you, Mr. Chairman, do we have a timetable on this? 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. We don’t have a timetable. We will be getting together in the beginning of September to put one together. 

The first thing is getting— 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. So there was no mandate from the Supreme 

Court on when we had to have this done? 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. No. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. That’s good. 

[Laughter] 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Well, you know Congress works slow, anyhow. 

But if we are going to be making major changes, which I guess 

that’s what we’re going to be doing, this needs to be really thought 

out, and have all areas working together so that when we make 

this decision, it’s going to be accommodations for everybody, and 

hopefully satisfactory. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you so much. We don’t have a specific timetable, so we will be working on the issue. But we will be 

working responsibly to get it done in the quickest way possible. I 

think that’s our goal, to get it done quickly. There is a court mandate. We should respond to it in the most timely fashion possible. 

That is certainly going to be my goal. 

I would just like to say to Mr. Maurer, Mr. Habib, and Ms. 

Brunson, look, you all represent a community of people in the 

United States. You do a wonderful job. You have a difference of 

opinion, and you come from a point. But we will be talking to all 

of you to figure this out in rendering a solution that responds to 

19 

the court, and more importantly, that responds to the court that 

does fairness and justice, and makes America a better place for all 

of us to live in. 

I thank you all for participating in this panel. 

Ms. BRUNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MAURER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HABIB. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. We have on the next panel Mr. Richard 

Geerdes and Mr. Jeffrey Knoll; if they would come up to the—Mr. 

Richard M. Geerdes, testifying on our third panel, is president and 

CEO of the National Automatic Merchandising Association, NAMA. 

Mr. Geerdes assumed the leadership of NAMA on January 1, 1999. 

A native of Chicago, Mr. Geerdes holds an MBA in finance and a 

bachelor’s degree in management information sciences from Western Illinois University. 

Mr. Geerdes has worked at NAMA since 1988 in various capacities. He joined the staff of NAMA following his experience as a 

vending operator in a series of senior management positions with 

Interstate United and Canteen Corporation. 

And we have Jeffrey Knoll. He is executive vice president, corporate counsel for Cummins-Allison Corporation of Mt. Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Knoll serves as executive vice president corporate counsel for Cummins-Allison. Mr. Knoll holds a J.D. with honors from 

Chicago Kent College of Law, as well as undergraduate and graduate degrees in aerospace engineering and engineering mechanics 

from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

In his current position, Mr. Knoll receives all corporate legal affairs for the company, including prosecution and litigation of intellectual property rights. You are both welcome, and we will start 

with Mr. Geerdes for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. GEERDES, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL AUTOMATIC MERCHANDISING ASSOCIATION (NAMA) 

Mr. GEERDES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Ranking Member Paul, Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you for the invitation to 

testify today. 

NAMA is the National Automatic Merchandising Association, 

since 1936 our country’s national trade association, headquartered 

in Chicago, representing people in the vending, coffee service, and 

contract food service industry in this country. 

NAMA estimates that approximately 20 million Americans purchase a food or beverage item from a vending machine every work 

day. And I want to emphasize that people who are blind or visually 

impaired are not only important customers to the vending industry, 

but they are also important participants through the set-aside programs in many States, where they operate vending. 

I speak for NAMA’s nearly 1 million members in over 2,400 com- panies nationwide in an industry well north of $40 billion a year. 

NAMA members are small and mid-sized businesses who own and 

operate approximately 7 million currency and coin-operated vending machines across our country. And we also represent everyone 

else who supplies products, equipment, and the distribution chain 

in the industry. 

20 

My testimony today will center on the impact to the industry if 

tactile or other changes are made to U.S. currency, and the various 

ways of meeting the currency use needs of the blind or visually impaired—as I said, important customers of NAMA. And, finally, also 

serving the needs of the American taxpayer, by keeping down vending machine operating costs to consumers. 

Vending in the United States is an equipment-driven, small business-owned, highly competitive, very capital-intensive business. 

The latest data from NAMA shows the average pre-tax margin of 

a small NAMA operator or service to be less than 2 percent. So 

keeping costs under control, so that consumer prices can be held 

in check, is critical. 

Coinage and currency are the engines that drive vending. To provide improved accessibility and use of currency for the blind and 

visually impaired, there are various options to be considered, and 

an opportunity to use technology, as we have heard. 

At the request of this committee in May, NAMA resurveyed our 

members and manufacturers to get the most up-to-date information 

for Congress to consider. The most far-reaching and expensive 

change to currency for the vending industry would be to change its 

size, particularly the width of the bills. 

From a vending machine operating standpoint, it’s important to 

keep in mind that the ability of bill validating equipment to correctly validate legitimate U.S. currency is very dependent, in part, 

on the physical size of the bill being validated. 

Technical research shows that bills that are significantly longer 

than current U.S. bills would not fit into the validator storage 

boxes, and would cause jamming in the bill transport mechanism. 

Longer bills would probably require additional software updates to 

the reading mechanisms. Bills that are significantly shorter could 

also create jamming in the bill boxes and also require software 

changes. Bills that are narrower would require, at a minimum, 

software upgrades. And also, sensing techniques used to validate 

bills require an accurate left positioning of the bill in the reader, 

so that positioning sensors can properly validate. And whether or 

not this could be incorporated into bills of various sizes is still open 

to question. 

But a change in the width of currency would require a replacement of the currency validating mechanisms on virtually every 

vending machine in the country. At a cost of $500 per mechanism, 

multiplied by 7 million machines, this means a minimum expense 

of $3.5 billion to the vending industry, plus the labor to install, 

which we estimate at close to another $100 per machine. 

To make similar changes to the 300,000 free-standing bill changers would likely add another $150 million to that total. 

We are still working to develop cost data for changes to the 

length of currency, but the research simply wasn’t available yet. 

Simply put, these costs are certain to drive many of the small 

owner-operators, including those operating under the blind enterprise programs to bankruptcy in short order, and certainly will result in much higher costs to the consumers, given the margins in 

the industry. 

But we also looked at a number of other features that I would 

like to relate to you. First, the impact of incorporating a single 

21 

large font denomination number on the bill. The effect of a larger 

single denomination number would depend on size and placement. 

As long as the larger denomination number was not in a position 

that interfered with areas that the current validators used for sensing, the changes to existing validators may not be needed at all. Otherwise, we estimate retooling costs to be anywhere from $50 to $120 a machine. So again, a cost to the industry somewhere between $350 million and $840 million. 

However, while incorporating a single denomination numeral 

would have the least financial impact, this modification would not 

permit people who are totally blind to determine the bank note denomination, so we recognize it’s not a solution. 

We also examined the idea of incorporating Braille, and we have 

heard many of the pluses and minuses from the other witnesses. 

The effect, my manufacturers tell me, is again, dependant greatly 

on where the Braille or tactile features are placed. And because 

they would likely increase the thickness of the bill, there would be 

a reduced capacity in the equipment to hold machines—the paper 

bills and machines that reach bill capacity cannot accept additional 

currency, therefore, a sales loss. So there is a financial impact 

there, but it is more difficult to recognize. But again, retooling costs could range anywhere from $100 to $500 a machine, depending on what changes were made. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Geerdes can be found on page 42 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Thank you, Mr. Geerdes. 

Mr. Knoll, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY G. KNOLL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CORPORATE COUNSEL, CUMMINS-ALLISON CORPORATION 

Mr. KNOLL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jeff Knoll, and I am executive vice president and corporate counsel of the Cummins-Allison Corporation. I 

am honored to participate and offer testimony at this hearing 

today. 

Mr. Chairman, we commend you and your colleagues for bringing 

us together in order to discuss what is truly an important issue. 

Cummins-Allison is a privately-held U.S. company which has 

been in existence since 1887. Cummins-Allison is an industry leader in the design and manufacture of high-tech coin and paper currency processing equipment. Cummins-Allison’s corporate headquarters are located outside Chicago, Illinois. We have technical facilities in California and Pennsylvania. There are sales and service 

offices located throughout the United States. And we have a number of wholly-owned foreign subsidiaries. 

Cummins-Allison is the only American-owned manufacturer of 

currency processing equipment. All Cummins products are manufactured in the United States by U.S. workers. 

Cummins-Allison equipment is used by banks. It’s used by armored carriers. It’s used by governments, retailers, the gaming industry, and many others. The equipment is used to do things like 

count, sort, denominate, and authenticate large volumes of currency. When I say large volumes, these machines run at rates of 

22 

up to 1,000 notes per minute, and they are used by people in applications ranging from a bank teller who may be taking a few notes 

across the counter, to a large back room for an armored carrier, or 

a Federal Reserve branch, where it is actually running at 1,000 

notes per minute for several hours or several days, continuously. 

Cummins-Allison fully appreciates and supports the important 

need to facilitate the use of U.S. currency by the visually impaired. 

However, in considering any change to the design of U.S. currency, 

Cummins strongly encourages the Government to move cautiously, 

particularly with respect to changes made to the size of U.S. currency notes. 

More than 60 percent of the world’s reserve currency is held in 

U.S. dollars, which provides America with many economic benefits. 

The U.S. dollar is easily recognized and well-respected by hundreds 

of millions of people around the world, which provides the U.S. 

Government with greater legitimacy, and allows America to assert 

its economic leadership. Any change to the American coin or paper 

currency may significantly impact the ability and willingness of 

other nations to utilize our currency, and could have adverse impacts on our economy. 

Importantly, American currency has been the same size for more 

than 50 years—probably approaching 70 or 80 years. As a result, 

the currency processing industry has developed cost-effective machinery which is used throughout the world to process the American dollar. 

Cummins-Allison has researched the development of equipment 

for processing foreign currencies as well. And our experience has 

demonstrated that it is far less expensive to process American currency of the same size than foreign currencies of varying sizes. As 

a result, the uniform size of American currency makes it a preferred currency in many other countries. 

If the United States introduced currency of varying sizes, the 

process for converting the existing infrastructure of currency handling and processing equipment would be extremely onerous and 

expensive. Today’s state-of-the-art processing machinery utilizes 

highly engineered components for feeding, transporting, scanning, 

and stacking currency notes. The majority of these components 

could not be modified to process new or different sizes of currency, 

and would need to be completely replaced. 

If you consider the replacement costs for the existing currency 

processing equipment, and combine that with the modification or 

replacement costs associated with other industries like ATM, vending, and currency printing, it quickly becomes apparent that changing the size of the currency would be an extremely, extremely challenging proposition. 

Although Cummins-Allison has not worked intensely in the area 

of alternatives, we are aware of alternative technologies. And, as 

Mr. Maurer described previously, we think one of the more promising areas of alternative technology is in the area of electronic, 

hand-held currency denominators. As this technology continues to 

advance, like many segments of our society, the cost will come 

down, and the technology will improve. In fact, it’s likely that next 

generation devices will even be able to identify counterfeit currencies. 

23 

So, when taken into consideration with all the costs associated 

with the potential currency redesign, it may be far more economical 

and efficient to provide the visually impaired with personal denomination devices than to consider a broad scale redesign or 

change of the size of the U.S. currency. 

In summation, Mr. Chairman, Cummins-Allison wholeheartedly 

appreciates the importance of finding a way for blind and visuallyimpaired individuals to more easily and accurately identify different denominations of currency. However, Cummins strongly encourages Congress to strive to identify the most efficient long-term 

solution. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to participate 

in this hearing, and I am happy to answer any questions that you 

or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knoll can be found on page 52 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Mr. Geerdes, let me ask you. You said 

$3.5 billion—$3.6 billion—you said there was another $150 million 

in there. That is to change the vending machines, alone? 

Mr. GEERDES. No, sir. That is to change the paper accepting 

mechanisms on the machines. The critical part is the width of the 

bill. If— 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. But changing them on vending machines, 

or all machines? ATMs? 

Mr. GEERDES. No, I’m just speaking for the food and refreshment 

vending industry. So the cost is much broader to industry, as a 

whole. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. But there are other machines. 

Mr. GEERDES. Oh, yes, certainly. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. ATM machines and other— 

Mr. GEERDES. ATM, coin—parking, car wash, coin-operated laundry, sure. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. All of the other things that, when I go to 

the car wash, it takes it and—okay. 

So, there are many other machines, you’re just talking about— 

Mr. GEERDES. Just the food and refreshment— 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Food and refreshment industry, okay. I 

wanted to make sure we had that clear. 

In your testimony you suggest, Mr. Geerdes, that hand-held 

readers, scanners, could be provided to blind persons in the United 

States as an alternative to currency redesign. 

Are you suggesting that the Federal Government subsidize these 

readers? And if so, has NAMA done any research, and are you 

aware of any research on how much this would cost the Government per unit, and overall? 

Mr. GEERDES. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with Mr. Felix. He 

indicated that the cost per reader was in the $100 to $125 range, 

I believe he said. 

Our point was simply if Congress considered eliminating the dollar bill and used the savings to produce dollar coins, you could reallocate the savings to buy readers. We simply offer that as one 

more alternative for Congress to consider. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. To change the dollar bill to dollar coins? 

24 

Mr. GEERDES. To eliminate the dollar bill altogether, and simply 

go with a dollar coin, which is easily distinguishable by the blind. 

It would save the Government at least $600 million a year. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. That would complicate our problem in trying to figure out a solution. We have a lot of fans of the dollar bill. 

Mr. GEERDES. Oh, absolutely. We understand. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. And so then we have to bring the dollar 

bill/dollar coin people to the table. So I think we will eliminate that 

one altogether. We just want to get to a solution. Starting with me, 

I’m a big fan of dollar bills, so you already have a bias here, and 

a prejudice here. Well, that’s another conversation that we will 

have. 

So, about $100 to $125? 

Mr. GEERDES. Yes. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Okay. 

Mr. GEERDES. I believe that’s what he said, yes. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Okay. And then, I want to ask you, Mr. 

Knoll, a hypothetical in the conversion process. If we had a redesign, obviously we couldn’t—no conversion would be immediate, because we would have two versions. We would have millions, if not 

billions, of notes out there, all over the world that are already 

printed. 

So we would probably have two at the same time. If we could figure out a way to get—but we will never figure out—people keep 

coins in their houses and all kinds of stuff for years, we already 

know that. So we would have two at the same time. Has CumminsAllison looked at what it would take, logistically, for businesses to 

operate two sets of currency processing equipment, one for the old 

currency and one for the redesign? 

Mr. KNOLL. Well, first that takes into—I guess it assumes that, 

depending on the sizes, changes that are implemented, that it 

would be even feasible and possible to continue to process using existing processing technology. 

The real trick is that as the notes become more and more sophisticated with technical features located in specific parts of that note, 

it becomes that much more critical to properly register the note 

with the different scanners in the machine. When the notes are all 

the same size, you can really control to strict tolerances how those 

bills move through there, and are reliably read with all those notes, 

all those features being read at the specific locations. 

When the sizes change by denomination now, you have to account for both the smallest and the largest. So you have a question. 

Can you have notes that are basically floating now in that transport path? And can you as efficiently utilize those same technical 

features that you could reliably use when the notes were controlled 

now in this more or less floating environment? 

So, the real change in the infrastructure not only is how long 

would it take and how much would it cost, but is it even technically 

feasible to do? 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. Is it technically feasible to do? Okay. 

So, I am not going to ask any further questions here this morning of the panelists, except to say I am going to ask Congresswoman McCarthy to chair the remaining part of the hearing. I am 

going to go over to the Judiciary Committee. We are having more 

25 

problems with Karl Rove, getting him to testify. So I am going to 

go over there, and make sure that happens. I thank you all for 

your testimony. 

Mr. GEERDES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KNOLL. Thank you. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. I look forward to working with you and 

convening the meetings, starting in September. 

Mr. KNOLL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GEERDES. Thank you. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. I recognize Dr. Paul for 5 minutes. 

Dr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the chairman has essentially stolen my question, but I am going to follow up on it. This 

timing, I think, is pretty important. And Mr. Knoll commented on 

it, so I will ask Mr. Geerdes to comment on this. Because you did 

throw out a number about the number of machines that would 

need to be changed, and the dollar amount. 

In a calculation, really, we have to deal with this problem, the 

transition. And I think, you know, from the retail point of view, do 

you see it as even achievable? I mean, what kind of cost would be 

involved? And would it be—would you think that there would have 

to be two machines? Or would there have to be a day of recall, or 

how do you think that transition would work? And what kind of 

extra cost would it be to bring these two systems together? 

Mr. GEERDES. Congressman, I believe that, yes, it’s a terrific 

point. We don’t see a solution to this right now, because the space 

on a typical machine front is fairly limited, and so it is well-defined 

as to where the validating equipment is contained. 

If the validators themselves could be made to accept a variety of 

different sizes, then simply they would have to be replaced. But to 

my knowledge, you’re correct. We would have two circulating. And 

I am not sure exactly how the industry would accommodate that, 

other than to say we would lose sales, because the customers cannot use what’s in their pocket. 

Dr. PAUL. That is the only question I have, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. [presiding] Well, I’m wondering, have you—and 

I guess I should have asked this question to Treasury, especially 

with—I guess it could work with any of the currency, on just cutting the tip of—whether it’s the $1, the $5, or you know, the $1 

could be on the left-hand side, the $5 could be on the right-hand 

side, and a $10 and $20 could be on each corner. How would that 

work out? 

Mr. GEERDES. Well, my machine manufacturers and the validating people tell me that that could be accommodated, depending 

on the degree of cut and other technical considerations. But it certainly could be a more workable solution, and one that would not 

place such a cost burden on industry, because the size of the bill 

did not change. 

That, or we have also heard discussions of perhaps placing 

notches in some fashion along the leading or trailing edge of the 

bill, a number of ways to mark it without changing the size. We 

think that is a more viable solution. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Now, would that also work, though—some of 

the—you know, like, when you go to some of the stores to change 

26 

a $5 bill, to get change or whatever, obviously, if you don’t put it 

in exactly right, it won’t accept it. Would that be a problem with 

a lot of the ATM machines and things like that? 

Mr. KNOLL. We don’t make ATMs, per se, but the machines operate with similar technology. Certainly, there is some allowance for 

a slight variation, because even with our, you know, intended uniform sized currency, over time bills become damaged. They become—they shrink, different things happen, that we are inherently 

forced to accommodate some slight size change. 

But when we get into the kinds of changes that I think would 

be a perceptible difference between one denomination and the 

other, typically those kinds of variances cause at least CumminsAllison equipment quite a bit of trouble, in terms of denominating 

and authenticating the notes. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. By cutting the corners? 

Mr. KNOLL. I’m sorry, I thought we were referring to slight 

changes in the size. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. No, no, no. I was talking about taking the currency that we have now, and if it came out to the future where a 

corner—like, say, the $1 bill, same exact size, but say the left-hand 

corner would be slightly cut, $5 to the right-hand side, $10 on to 

the bottom, to rotate around with that? 

Mr. KNOLL. I think we would need to look at that more closely. 

But I don’t know if that would be a workable solution. I mean, if 

the overall length and overall width stayed such that it would fit 

within the existing guides, if there were slight changes, be it perforations or removed corners, that is something that could conceivably be workable. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. We have heard a lot of testimony, especially 

about the coins, where Europe does use, for the pound or you know, 

our $1, $2, they’re all uniform. But with coins, we have tried the 

dollar bill—I’m sorry, the dollar coin. We have been actually trying 

to push that for a long time, coming out with different designs and 

everything, to get the American people to start using, you know, 

a dollar as a coin instead of paper. 

And I guess that’s another question for Treasury down the road, 

why they want to have that switchover to a coin, versus the dollar, 

as far as currency. I guess because it would last longer. Obviously, 

the dollar bill is something that would—but I have heard that some 

stores—or even storage of that, because it would be a lot more 

bulky than it would be for paper. 

Do either one of you have an opinion? I know it wouldn’t probably affect you, Mr. Knoll, but is there an opinion on that, as far 

as storage using the coins versus the dollar? 

Mr. GEERDES. Madam Chairwoman, we haven’t discussed storage 

per se, other than yes, it would generate more bulk in the pocket. 

That is certainly one argument. 

You referred to Europe. My industry in Europe does not accept 

the paper notes, because there is so much variety and size of the 

euro notes that they have not developed a technology affordable to 

use. So it’s strictly coin-driven, and now beginning to use electronic 

payments, credit and debit cards. 

Certainly there is an extra expense in handling coins, there is no 

question about that. The Treasury should be as interested, because 

27 

they would save—a coin lasts 30 years, the dollar bill lasts 18 

months, so— 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. I’m sorry. Mr. Manzullo? 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This is a fascinating discussion on the need, obviously, to try to come up with 

some solutions that would work. 

Mr. Knoll, you mentioned that the cost to convert would be astronomical. 

Mr. KNOLL. I think the costs, first off, are developing the technology which, again, is a big question mark. We spend months just 

trying to catch up with—compared to what we’re talking about 

here, you know—relatively smaller changes in some of the currency 

patterns in the different denominations over time. Those changes 

alone take months and months to—for us to come up to speed with, 

technically. 

For us to talk about a more significant change, such as a change 

in the dimension of the currency, would be enormous. And that’s 

just the development cost. Then we talk about how we put that 

into hardware, and how we convince a world full of people who are 

processing American dollars with very expensive equipment right 

now that, ‘‘Oops, you need to replace all that.’’ I am not sure how 

you would put a dollar figure on that, but it would be a high one. 

Mr. MANZULLO. In addition to that would be the cost to the government to come up with some type of—I guess the Canadians put 

bumps, don’t they, or Braille? I’m not quite sure— 

Mr. KNOLL. Yes, I think there are a number of— 

Mr. MANZULLO. —what is—indentations? 

Mr. KNOLL. That’s correct, tactile approaches to implementing a 

distinction by denomination. That’s correct. 

Mr. MANZULLO. But your machines are—could they be designed, 

or is it something that would be impossible, to pick up the indentations? 

Mr. KNOLL. No. I think it’s technically feasible to mechanically 

or optically sense either, you know, dimples or raised areas, or alternatively, perforations or cut-outs or notches. That could be done 

optically, or— 

Mr. MANZULLO. It’s the size of the note that would present the 

problem? 

Mr. KNOLL. That is the biggest problem. We are moving—it’s 

really how quickly we can move paper. And if we’re moving 1,000 

pieces of paper, which, in some cases, can get very ragged, at 1,000 

notes per minute, you need to have precise control over that, which 

means you need to know where the edges are. And if the edges 

change, by denomination, that presents a very big problem. 

Mr. MANZULLO. The mechanical scanner, I have not seen one of 

those. That technology is already here, or it is around the corner? 

Does somebody have one? 

Mr. KNOLL. I have an example here with me, if I could demonstrate it just briefly, to show what we’re talking about. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Without objection. 

Mr. KNOLL. Thank you. What I have here is what is known as 

a scan head, and this is what resides in basically every model of 

equipment we sell, whether it be a desk top machine or a large 

floor standing sorter. 

28 

And what happens is that there is a plate that is pressed down 

against here. But bills get fed through here 1,000 notes per minute. 

And there are a variety of sensors located on this scan head, which 

are reading different technological features that are embedded in 

the notes. But as you can see, the sensors are at discreet locations 

on this scan head. 

Mr. MANZULLO. My question was the portable scanner that the 

person would carry in order to— 

Mr. KNOLL. One was demonstrated earlier. 

Mr. MANZULLO. I didn’t have a chance to come here. Was it— 

Mr. KNOLL. I’m sorry. It’s certainly, in Cummins’s perspective, a 

feasible approach. Again, I think that the technology is only going 

to get better. 

Mr. MANZULLO. How much does that weigh? 

Mr. KNOLL. Again, I will defer to the experts. I do not have a— 

Mr. MANZULLO. Four ounces? 

Mr. KNOLL. Approximately four ounces. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Four ounces? Okay. So if the scanner were developed even further and, with technology the cost would probably go 

down, the least disruptive way and the most economical way, as far 

as the bill-making industry, which is the Treasury, and the people 

involving the scanners, which is you, Mr. Knoll, and the people 

with the machines, which is you, Mr. Geerdes, would be to have 

the visually impaired equipped with these individual hand scanners. That would go a long way to solving the problem? 

Mr. KNOLL. That seems to have some merit. It certainly would 

avoid the wholesale redesign of the processing equipment problem. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Okay. And if you had to take a guess at the 

amount of time to develop a new technology on your part to be able 

to read different sized bills and dimples, for lack of a better word, 

do you have any idea what your lead time would be? 

Mr. KNOLL. I think you would be conservatively talking about 

years. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Okay, okay. Thank you. 

Mr. KNOLL. Thank you. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. With a little bit of indulgence, Mr. Knoll, you 

were talking earlier, and I would like to see if you could elaborate 

on the cache that the U.S. currency carries in foreign markets and 

how changing might affect the value of the U.S. dollar. 

In other words, I know a lot of people over in Europe who actually have been putting the American dollar away, or saving it, for 

a long time. Obviously, the currency right now is down. But how 

would it affect the market if we did change the currency, as far as 

changing what the bill looks like and everything else like that? 

How will it affect, and how would we even handle all that money 

that would come flooding onto the market? Would that change the 

market? 

Mr. KNOLL. I don’t know how we would handle that. And it conceivably could. I think my point was really directed to the fact that 

there is certainly a recognition level, and for many, a comfort or 

a confidence level associated with the appearance of U.S. currency 

as it has existed for many, many years. 

And just the fact that we have—we’re talking about some sort of 

a disruption or a change, I think could reflect—I don’t know if it’s 

29 

a lack of confidence, but it would be a change. And I think there 

would be certainly a shift in the view by many as to what the status of that currency is, worldwide. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. I know that more than 60 percent of the world’s 

reserve currency is held in U.S. dollars, which provides Americans 

with economic benefits, due to the large quantity of American currency held by foreign nations. The United States is able to purchase commodities at a lower price and borrow money at lower 

rates than would otherwise be possible. So I think that is also a 

concern. 

If there are no more questions, I want to thank the witnesses 

and the members for their participation in this hearing. The Chair 

notes that some members may have additional questions for the 

witnesses, which they may wish to submit in writing. Therefore, 

without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to the witnesses, and to 

place their responses in the record. 

Again, I look forward to working with all of the parties. This is 

where we are all going to be sitting at the table, and trying to find 

the best solution, certainly, for all of us. And with that, the subcommittee is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

July 30, 2008 

32 


44908.001
33 


44908.002
34 


44908.003
35 


44908.004
36 


44908.005
37 


44908.006
38 


44908.007
39 


44908.008
40 


44908.009
41 


44908.010
42 


44908.011
43 


44908.012
44 


44908.013
45 


44908.014
46 


44908.015
47 


44908.016
48 


44908.017
49 


44908.018
50 


44908.019
51 


44908.020
52 


44908.021
53 


44908.022
54 


44908.023
55 


44908.024
56 


44908.025
57 


44908.026
58 


44908.027
59 


44908.028
60 


44908.029
61 


44908.030
62 


44908.031
63 


44908.032
64 


44908.033
65 


44908.034
66 


44908.035
67 


44908.036
68 


44908.037
69 


44908.038
70 


44908.039
71 


44908.040
72 


44908.041
73 


44908.042
74 


44908.043
75 


44908.044
76 


44908.045