Coinage redesign--historical info
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
Here is some information that I found on Westlaw dealing with a conference report from 1992 to change the design of all US coins. It is somewhat interesting reading, especially the comments on how quickly coins can be redesigned and minted "when they need to be", and how false rumors about taking "in God we trust" off of coins spooked the House. It's pretty long, but if you're bored, it is somewhat interesting to see how some things never change.
********
138 Cong. Rec. S5663-01, 1992 WL 84619 (Cong.Rec.)
Congressional Record --- Senate
Proceedings and Debates of the 102nd Congress, Second Session
Tuesday, April 28, 1992
WHITE HOUSE COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT-CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KOHL).
The senior Senator from California is recognized, and controls 45 minutes.
Mr. CRANSTON.
Mr. President, may I address some questions to the chairman of the Banking Committee? I am glad that he is returning to the floor.
I appreciate the opportunity to address some questions to my friend, the chairman of the Banking Committee.
First, he said, I believe, that he has voted for coin redesign at least twice and he supports coin redesign except under the present circumstances that affect this particular conference report at this particular time.
Mr. RIEGLE.
That is correct.
Mr. CRANSTON.
Is it true that the Banking Committee has reported coin redesign unanimously several times?
Mr. RIEGLE.
That also is correct.
Mr. CRANSTON.
Is it true that the Senate has passed the measure calling for coin redesign a good many times unanimously without any vote or speech against it?
*S5664 Mr. RIEGLE.
I know of no vote or speech against it, and it certainly has passed the Senate.
Mr. CRANSTON.
The fact is that it has happened 13 times now.
Is the Senator also aware that the coin redesign measure makes very substantial money for the U.S. Treasury, moneys that would go to reduce the national debt, in contrast to the commemorative coins which do not make any significant money for the Treasury?
Mr. RIEGLE.
On that point, the estimate that I think is the most reliable one indicates that the CBO has indicated that there would be a savings, therefore additional revenue to the Government, of about $358 million over a 6-year period based on a redesign of all five coins generally in circulation. There may be other estimates, but that one from CBO would certainly indicate that it would generate additional revenue for the Government, which, therefore, obviously would be available to reduce the deficit or for whatever other purpose.
Mr. CRANSTON.
That is in contrast to the commemorative coins that are in the conference report now before us that do not produce any substantial revenue, if any, for the Government.
Mr. RIEGLE.
That is right. It would be fair to say, I think, that the commemorative coins have dedicated purposes. So they are designed to raise revenue, but it is to finance activities related to each purpose of those commemorative coins.
Mr. CRANSTON.
That is my understanding. In regard to the amount of money that would be made by coin redesign, I grant that there is some ambiguity about the testimony that was received by the mint some time ago about the amount of revenue, but there is no question that very substantial money, running into figures in excess of $200 million, would be made by redesigning coins.
The ambiguity relates to some testimony that was given by the mint that I believe related to all five coins when that was before the body for redesign. I want to correct myself. I think the testimony related to one coin and it was for over $250 million, the figure the Senator has used over several years.
If I am correct in believing that the testimony related to one coin, the revenue coming from five would be well in excess of $1 billion. I believe that to be the case. However, I have not used that figure because of the ambiguity. But the current measure, presumably the measure that I would like to see adopted by first rejecting the conference report, would bring in a very substantial amount of money to the Treasury.
Is the chairman aware of the fact that the Post Office now makes approximately $250 million a year by redesigning stamps?
Mr. RIEGLE.
Let me say with reference to the earlier point that the Senator from California just made, I think there is a clear consensus, in all of the analyses that I have seen, which indicate a coin redesign can generate a substantial amount of money for saving additional revenue for the Government. I have not heard that disputed. I think we can look at the varying estimates based on the number of coins redesigned, but I know of no one who has challenged that assertion.
With respect to the Postal Service, which has a different status within our Government as quasi-independent as opposed to the Mint, that does in its activities by producing stamps for collectors, principally, raise additional revenues on that basis. Certainly, that is part of why they do it and that is part of their history.
Mr. CRANSTON.
The revenues raised last year by the Post Office were approximately $250 million by redesigning stamps, 24 times. It is my believe that the mint should follow suit, perhaps not changing that often, and could thereby make very substantial money, as the bill that I would like to see adopted once again by the Senate and by the House would produce very substantial revenues.
Mr. RIEGLE.
If the Senator will yield, I say that I think that analogy is correct in the sense that the Postal Service has demonstrated that through redesign, additional revenues could be generated.
Within the law of course, the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority now, after a 25-year period of time, to be able to self-initiate a coin redesign. We are past the 25-year period when it was last done.
The Treasury Secretary, as I understand it, now would be in the position to take that initiative. For whatever reasons, he has, he has not done so.
But I think the point the Senator is establishing, that certainly chosen coin redesign can generate a savings to the Government, is an accurate statement.
Mr. CRANSTON.
I thank the Senator. Is the Senator aware that we are about to enter the longest period of time in American history without any redesign of any coin?
Mr. RIEGLE.
To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. As I say, we are now beyond the 25-year period of time set out in existing law since there has been coin redesign.
Mr. CRANSTON.
That concludes the questioning I wanted to address to the chairman of the committee. I want to ask Senator GARN some similar questions. The ranking Republican member of the Banking Committee has been a sponsor of coin redesign and has supported it, as has the chairman of the committee.
Mr. RIEGLE.
If the Senator will yield for one other observation from the chairman based on the questions he has just posed and the responses that I have given and my own earlier opening statement, it would be this: That the Senator is correct in noting that the committee has acted on this previously and the Senate as a whole has acted on it previously. The assertions that he has made just now are accurate in terms of the foundations of support.
Our problem here, in my view, has nothing to do with coin redesign, or the merits of the coin redesign. It is the issue that we have run into where the House has now, on two occasions, been unwilling to incorporate that into a package with these commemorative coins. We have now, as the Senator well knows, run into a situation that is stated, I think, quite accurately from the letters of the House that I read into the RECORD and the Senator is familiar with, that we are at the point now where, because of our inability to resolve the coin redesign issue between the House and the Senate, we are going to adversely impact these other commemorative coins which are entirely separate matters of an entirely different sort.
I want to stress again that it is my view that the need to move on the commemorative coins is in no way intended to be prejudicial to the issue that the Senator from California is raising, which he knows and which I affirm I have previously supported and continue to support.
Mr. CRANSTON.
I appreciate that comment from the chairman. In other words, if the Senate unwisely, in my view, adopts the conference report and fails to make further reference to achieve the enactment of the coin redesign legislation, that is by no means a repudiation of the concept of coin redesign since all parties to this debate, so far as I know every single Senator, believes that coin redesign makes a great deal of sense, and should be done.
The only problem is, should it be done in connection with this particular bill at this particular time?
Mr. RIEGLE.
That is correct. I would go even further than that. While I have reached the conclusion-as I have stated previously, and as the Senator knows, we have to move these other items-that I think the underlying facts laid out here with respect to coin redesign remain clearly there. I expect the Senator to continue to press ahead, should the conference report be adopted, as I hope it will, and he will have my support in so doing.
Mr. CRANSTON.
I thank the Senator for his response to my questions. Before making some more general remarks, I want to comment on one point that was made by the chairman in his opening presentation, where he suggested that we need to act swiftly on the commemorative coins, because time is running out. The mint has taken the position-I think extraordinarily-that it takes a tremendous amount of time to redesign a coin, or *S5665 to create a new coin of one sort or another.
Let me just offer a bit of history on how long it has taken and, in fact, how short the time required has been in the past to redesign coins or make new coins. The Kennedy half dollar was authorized by Congress on December 30, 1963, and circulation started on January 30, 1964. The total elapsed time was 1 month from the authorization to the coin appearing in circulation. The Lincoln Memorial reverse design was started on September 1, 1958. Circulation began January 3, 1959; time elapse was 4 months. The 1921 Peace Dollar competition was held November 25, 1921. The coin was put into circulation January 13, 1922; time elapse was 6 weeks.
The Susan B. Anthony dollar was something different, because that was a brand new coin, not just a redesign of a circulating coin on one side. That was enacted into law October 10, 1978, requiring that coin to be produced. The first coins were struck in the Philadelphia Mint on December 13, 1978. It took 64 days, including weekends and holidays, to put the Anthony dollar in circulation after the Congress voted to authorize its production.
Changing the reverse on a coin is obviously not analogous to the Susan B. Anthony, in that that coin was totally new in size, shape, weight and denomination for coins.
The quarter and the half dollar, if they are redesigned, will be kept the same size, color, shape, content, weight, and the obverse-the head-will be unchanged. Therefore, with less than half of the amount of work to do, it could be done much more rapidly.
However, the commemorative coins are comparable to the Susan B. Anthony coin in that they are something brand new. To suggest that it would take a long, long time to get into production is nonsense. The mint has actually suggested that it needs 15 months-15 months-to redesign the tail side of a coin. In view of the speed with which coins have been redesigned in the past, that is hard to understand or to accept. If that is the best the mint can do now, the mint needs a serious management overhaul.
Mr. President, now going to the more general matters affecting the matter before us, I called for the defeat of the pending conference report for two main reasons. First, there are compelling institutional reasons for rejecting the conference report. Second, coin redesign-passed by the Senate repeatedly-is the only coin proposal that is of significant and measurable benefit to the whole United States. I am referring there to the commemorative coins that are in the conference report.
Let me explore both of these points in more detail. First, the institutional issue.
This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue between the Senate and the other body in this Congress. Coin redesign is supported, in the Senate, by Democrats, Republicans, liberals, moderates, conservatives. It is demonstrated in the questions I was posing to the chairman of the committee, and his responses, that the leadership of the committee, the chairman and the ranking minority member, Senator GARN, are both supporters of coin redesign.
Coin redesign has been reported out of the Banking Committee several times, always unanimously. It has been passed by the Senate 13 times without one word spoken or one vote cast against it. Once it was introduced by 67 cosponsors. Once it was introduced by Senator DOLE, the Republican leader, Senator SIMPSON, the Republican whip, Senator WALLOP, and myself.
The other body, however, has always ignored the Senate's actions. When we sent coin redesign over as a freestanding bill, it was never considered in the other body. When we sent it over attached to something else, like a housing bill, or in one case a reconciliation bill, when Chairman RIEGLE added redesign to a conference measure to cover a cost incurred by another unrelated item, when this has happened, the other body objected on the specious grounds that our procedure was improper.
The fact is that every Member of Congress knows that it is common practice to attach a measure by amendment to a measure others want for other reasons, whether it be something other Senators want or something the other body wants, or something that is veto-proof because the White House wants it, or a combination of such desires, as is the present case. Certain Senators and House Members want various commemorative coins that are authorized in the pending conference report. The White House wants its commemorative coin; the Senate wants redesign.
So the Senate attached redesign to the commemorative coin bill passed by the other body, but the other body still objected once again-this time for totally false and totally fallacious reasons. The other body obviously expects the Senate to back down. I say we should not back down. We should reject the conference report. We should send it back to conference. We should appoint conferees. We should instruct them to insist on adoption of the Senate's amendments calling for coin redesign.
If the Senate fails to do this, the Senate would be yielding to the other body on a matter about which we have no reason to be weak and acquiescing.
On the other hand, we have very compelling reasons to stand strong and stand firm. We met the other body much more than halfway, making compromise after compromise in the redesign title. I will summarize these compromises shortly. The other body has made no compromise at all. We have offered further compromises. The other body has refused even to consider them. It is time for the Senate to stand up for what it knows is right.
That leads to the second and more important issue: the merit of the Senate redesign proposal.
Mr. President, having discussed the institutional issues in regard to the pending matter, where I feel the Senate's responsibility is to stand up for what it believes, and what is important, I will now talk about the reasons for supporting coin redesign.
The fact is that the coin redesign provisions are the only part of the bill that benefits the whole American public in a measurable and very significant way. All the rest-allegedly so desperately needed right now-are proposals for semiprivate fundraising purposes that are not strictly Government business. They raise millions of dollars for sponsoring organizations.
Let's take a very brief look at each proposal. The White House commemorative coin will produce funds that can be used to refurbish and renovate the White House with new and antique furnishings and so forth. That will be very nice for the President and the White House staff, and it will impress the limited number of Americans and foreigners who manage to visit the White House.
The World Cup commemorative coin will produce funds that will benefit soccer fans, a great many of them foreigners, who will attend the World Cup soccer championships in 1994. And it will benefit a few American cities that will host the games.
The Christopher Columbus quincentennial coin celebrates the " discovery" of America and will please Italian-Americans, it will displease Native Americans. It will also please a Member of the other body in whose honor the Christopher Columbus title of the bill has been named. It will also raise money for a Christopher Columbus foundation that will be run by unnamed individuals and that will grant scholarships.
The Desert Storm medals will be produced so that one can be given to each veteran of the Iraq conflict. The first time we have ever given, incidentally, a medal to every veteran of a war. This will happen, provided a sufficient number of copper duplicates of the medals are purchased by collectors or gifts are received for this purpose from other sources.
The James Madison Bill of Rights commemorative coins will be $5 gold coins; $1 silver coins, and 50-cent silver-copper coins to be sold at a profit, with the profit to go to the James Madison Memorial Trust Fund to be used to promote teaching and graduate study of the Constitution.
The coin redesign provisions of the Senate-passed bill also commemorate the Bill of Rights; but do so in a way that actually produces huge revenues *S5666 for the U.S. Treasury. The coin redesign provisions call for redesigning the reverse side-the tail side of two coins-the quarter and the half dollar, with designs celebrating the Bill of Rights and commemorating the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. This celebration and marking of the Bill of Rights is a good reason for insisting on the Senate's coin redesign amendment, but it is by no means the main reason.
The main reason for rejecting the conference report that is before us and insisting on the Senate amendments calling for coin redesign is that coin redesign will make, as we have already discussed, a great deal of money for the U.S. Treasury painlessly-without any increase in taxes or without any cutting of services. The U.S. Mint estimates that coin redesign will net the Government more than $250 million. That is more than a quarter of a billion dollars.
The Office of Management and Budget approved the revenue estimate and CBO concurred. That $250 million-plus cannot be spent. It can only be used to reduce the national debt. Some Members of the other body may think that is a small amount, accustomed as we are around here to dealing with billions and even trillions of dollars. I do not think that reducing the horrendous national debt that plagues our economy and our society by more than $250 million is a trivial thing. That is more than $250 million we will not have to borrow and pay interest on in coming years.
There is another reason for not yielding to the other body in this matter. The principal reason for the rejection of coin redesign by the other body was that totally false rumors and charges were circulated about coin redesign. There have been two votes in the other body fairly recently. Just before the first vote, rumors somehow spread like lightening on the floor of the other body that to vote for coin redesign would be a vote against God because it would lead to taking "In God We Trust" off the coins. That is absolutely false. "In God We Trust" occurs on the face side, the head side of the coins, not on the reverse side, the tail side, that coin redesign would call for and, furthermore, present law requires that "In God We Trust" be and remain on all coins.
But that rumor terrified House Members, seeing themselves accused of voting against God and down went the measure. We dealt with that in conference. We specifically then added language stating what was already actually the fact, by stating in the bill that was going to be voted upon that "In God We Trust" had to remain on the coins.
It was also alleged that coin redesign would be costly, would cost taxpayers, would be a new burden of expense. That, too, as we have already discussed, was obviously, very, very false information. The Senate should not throw up its hands and give up because of blatant misrepresentation.
I have already mentioned the concurrence of the mint, OMB, and CBO that coin redesign would make more than $250 million for the U.S. Treasury. The fact is that coins have been redesigned 68 times in American history. Every single time redesign has produced revenues painlessly for the U.S. Treasury-every single time.
Redesign is profitable for three reasons: One is something called seigniorage. That is the difference between the cost of producing the coin and what people pay for it. Example: It costs 2.5 cents to mint and put into circulation a quarter; it is bought for 25 cents. That is a net profit of 22.5 cents for every quarter.
Second, there is interest earned on seigniorage.
And third there are earnings on sales to collectors of proof sets and uncirculated sets of coins. That is where the revenues come from.
There are 10 million coin collectors in America-many in every State of every U.S. Senator. There are also millions of foreign coin collectors and all of these people are looking for the day when there will be a redesign of American coins for them to collect.
The post office, as we mentioned a bit ago, redesigns stamps with great regularity and makes approximately $250 million every year from the new designs. Last year, that was the net profit to the Treasury as a result of redesigning 24 stamps.
We dealt with this cost issue in the conference and amended bill to provide that there would be no redesign if there would be any cost to the Federal Government which obviously was not really needed. But it was put there to placate and to make plain to people who fell for the false rumor that there would be a cost, that there would be no cost.
It was also suggested in the other body that redesign would confuse the American people in this time of economic crisis in our country. I say that is an insult to the American people. They have dealt regularly with stamp changes, Zip Code changes, area code changes, and a myriad of other innovations. Surely, they have the capacity to tell one coin from another.
The question might be asked, what about the Susan B. Anthony dollar? It failed. It failed for a very good reason. It was exactly the same size as a quarter and that did lead to confusion. But there will be no such confusion when a coin is simply redesigned. The Senate redesign bill, I emphasize, will not change the size, shape, weight, color, or metallic content of any coin.
It was also suggested in the course of debate in the other body that coin redesign would be destabilizing in this time of economic difficulty in our country. Yet, many of our worst economic problems stem from our huge national debt and our towering deficits. How can a measure that would reduce the havoc-wreaking national debt by a quarter of a billion dollars, thereby reducing Federal borrowing, possibly be destabilizing? The fact is coin redesign occurred in the middle of the Great Depression in 1932, to be precise. It was accepted; there was no confusion and no destabilization.
I ask unanimous consent that a table be printed in the RECORD showing the years in which various coins have been changed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
YEARS VARIOUS COINS HAVE BEEN CHANGED
$.01: 1793, 1794, 1794, 1798, 1857, 1859, 1860, 1909, 1959 rev.
$.02: 1867.
$.03: 1830, 1843, 1855, 1861.
$.05: 1866, 1883, 1913, 1938.
$.10: 1796, 1798 rev., 1809, 1837, 1892, 1916, 1946.
$.25: 1796, 1804 rev., 1815, 1838, 1892, 1916, 1932, 1975-6 rev.
$.50: 1793, 1794, 1796 obv., 1798, 1801 rev., 1807 total, 1838, 1839, 1865, 1888, 1892, 1913, 1916, 1938, 1948, 1964, 1975-6 rev.
$1: 1793, 1798, 1834, 1840, 1840, 1840, 1873, 1878, 1921, 1971, 1978.
$2.5: 1840, 1908.
$5: 1795, 1820, 1908,
$10: 1795, 1820, 1908.
$20: 1795, 1820, 1908.
----
SUMMARY OF YEARS COINS REDESIGNED
1793, 1793, 1793, 1794, 1794, 1794, 1795, 1795, 1795, 1796, 1796, 1796, 1798, 1798, 1798, 1801, 1804, 1807, 1809, 1813, 1820, 1820, 1820, 1834, 1837, 1838, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1840, 1840, 1840, 1855, 1857, 1859, 1861, 1864, 1865, 1873, 1878, 1882, 1892, 1892, 1892, 1908, 1908, 1908, 1908, 1913, 1913, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1921, 1932, 1938, 1938, 1946, 1948, 1959, 1964, 1975-6, 1975-6, 1975-6, 1978.
The present time is one of the longest periods this country has gone without a redesign change.
Mr. CRANSTON.
Mr. President, the fact is we are about to go into the longest period than we have ever gone in American history without a coin change. It is time for a change, time for a change here, and it is time for a change in many other aspects of our society and the doings of our Federal Government.
When we dealt with the God issue and the cost issue, a new false issue was dreamed by. The Senate conferees, in the spirit of compromise that is often the mark of a successful conference, had proposed reducing from five circulating coins to two the number of circulating coins that would be redesigned. The Senate has repeatedly passed a measure calling for redesign of all five circulating coins.
Accordingly, in conference, we dropped redesign of the penny, the nickel and the dime, leaving only the quarter and half dollar to be redesigned. That led to a new false charge that was hurled concerning the American eagle that presently appears on the reverse side, the tail side of the quarter and the half dollar. It was alleged untruthfully that it would be unpatriotic to vote for redesign because the bill mandated taking the *S5667 eagle off the quarter and the half dollar.
The bill did no such thing. But down the bill went again, but this time only by the narrow margin of 7 votes; only 7 votes caused it to go down and there were something like 30 absentees.
The Eagle issue, like the God issue, can be dealt with. So I urge that the matter go back to conference so we can make very plain by new language that the eagle shall remain on the reverse of the quarter and the half dollar.
Incidentally, we have had 25 different versions of the quarter and the half dollar in our Nation's history-some with one eagle or some other eagle and some with no Eagle.
There is an interesting story about the particular Eagle-now on the back of the quarter-that Members of the other body believe should be preserved exactly as presently designed, even if that preservation costs our country $250 million. The quarter was to be redesigned back in 1931. The Commission of Fine Arts conducted a design contest. The contest was won by a woman, a great artist named Laura Garden Fraser. However, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon overruled the Fine Arts Commission, rejected Laura Garden Fraser and chose an eagle designed by a man. It turned out that the Secretary felt that artistry was a man's work, not a woman's work.
Unemployment was huge then in the Depression and men needed jobs, while the woman's place, the Treasury Secretary felt, was in the home. The Secretary felt all this was particularly true when it came to designing coins for the world of commerce which was surely, in his view, the realm of men, not women.
The current Senate's redesign proposal might, in this more enlightened age, lead to an eagle on the quarter designed-of all things-by a woman. If, that is, the Senate stands by its convictions.
I feel very strongly, Mr. President, that the Senate should not succumb to wild rumors and false charges, particularly when a $250 million painless reduction in the horrendous national debt is at stake.
The manager of the bill in the other body complained about what he called the misrepresentation of facts by opponents of redesign. We should not be bullied and pushed around by misrepresentations and specious arguments.
Coin redesign will be economically beneficial to our country at a time when our economic needs are very great. I fail to see the urgency of dropping a pain-free 250 million-plus profit for the U.S. Treasury simply because of the complaints of semiprivate groups that they need their commemorative coins right now. That is why I urge rejection of the conference report and recommittal.
If we stand proud, if we stand fast, if we stand firm, we can knock $250 million-plus off the deficit painlessly. By making passage of the White House, Christopher Columbus, and the other commemorative coins contingent on passage of coin redesign, we can attain coin redesign. If we yield to the other body, the other body will get what it has passed, but we will not get coin redesign and we will not get reduction of the deficit by more than $250 million.
There are other reasons, valid and important reasons, for coin redesign: educational, cultural, artistic, and technological.
Coins travel the world and will reflect our society for thousands of years to come. Coins reflect the evolution of civilization. In many countries, a person's only contact with America is by holding in one's hand one of our coins. Our coins should represent our best contemporaneous art and the ideals of which we are most proud, like the Bill of Rights.
Witness after witness has testified at Senate and House Banking Committee hearings that it is time for change and that we can do better with the coins of the greatest Nation on Earth by using the work of living artists of today.
For all these reasons and more, Mr. President, I urge rejection of the conference report and resubmittal with instructions to stand by the Senate coin redesign measure.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Missouri.
Who yields time to the Senator?
Mr. GRAHAM.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOND.
I thank my colleague from Florida.
Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support passage of the conference report. The House has already passed this conference report by a vote of 410 to 0. As we all know, the saga of this coin package is amazingly long and drawn out, with most of the debate centering around the coin redesign bill.
I happen to think that our colleague from California makes a very good point. I think he has a strong argument. The Senate has passed the coin package with coin redesign included twice, and twice the House has rejected the package because of the inclusion of coin redesign. We have tried to convince the House to accept coin redesign. We have done everything we can. But they have repeatedly refused. They appear adamant not to accept a coin package if it contains coin redesign.
Today we have another opportunity to pass the coin bills. I fear it is our last opportunity, and that is why I say that we should pass the conference report.
********
138 Cong. Rec. S5663-01, 1992 WL 84619 (Cong.Rec.)
Congressional Record --- Senate
Proceedings and Debates of the 102nd Congress, Second Session
Tuesday, April 28, 1992
WHITE HOUSE COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT-CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KOHL).
The senior Senator from California is recognized, and controls 45 minutes.
Mr. CRANSTON.
Mr. President, may I address some questions to the chairman of the Banking Committee? I am glad that he is returning to the floor.
I appreciate the opportunity to address some questions to my friend, the chairman of the Banking Committee.
First, he said, I believe, that he has voted for coin redesign at least twice and he supports coin redesign except under the present circumstances that affect this particular conference report at this particular time.
Mr. RIEGLE.
That is correct.
Mr. CRANSTON.
Is it true that the Banking Committee has reported coin redesign unanimously several times?
Mr. RIEGLE.
That also is correct.
Mr. CRANSTON.
Is it true that the Senate has passed the measure calling for coin redesign a good many times unanimously without any vote or speech against it?
*S5664 Mr. RIEGLE.
I know of no vote or speech against it, and it certainly has passed the Senate.
Mr. CRANSTON.
The fact is that it has happened 13 times now.
Is the Senator also aware that the coin redesign measure makes very substantial money for the U.S. Treasury, moneys that would go to reduce the national debt, in contrast to the commemorative coins which do not make any significant money for the Treasury?
Mr. RIEGLE.
On that point, the estimate that I think is the most reliable one indicates that the CBO has indicated that there would be a savings, therefore additional revenue to the Government, of about $358 million over a 6-year period based on a redesign of all five coins generally in circulation. There may be other estimates, but that one from CBO would certainly indicate that it would generate additional revenue for the Government, which, therefore, obviously would be available to reduce the deficit or for whatever other purpose.
Mr. CRANSTON.
That is in contrast to the commemorative coins that are in the conference report now before us that do not produce any substantial revenue, if any, for the Government.
Mr. RIEGLE.
That is right. It would be fair to say, I think, that the commemorative coins have dedicated purposes. So they are designed to raise revenue, but it is to finance activities related to each purpose of those commemorative coins.
Mr. CRANSTON.
That is my understanding. In regard to the amount of money that would be made by coin redesign, I grant that there is some ambiguity about the testimony that was received by the mint some time ago about the amount of revenue, but there is no question that very substantial money, running into figures in excess of $200 million, would be made by redesigning coins.
The ambiguity relates to some testimony that was given by the mint that I believe related to all five coins when that was before the body for redesign. I want to correct myself. I think the testimony related to one coin and it was for over $250 million, the figure the Senator has used over several years.
If I am correct in believing that the testimony related to one coin, the revenue coming from five would be well in excess of $1 billion. I believe that to be the case. However, I have not used that figure because of the ambiguity. But the current measure, presumably the measure that I would like to see adopted by first rejecting the conference report, would bring in a very substantial amount of money to the Treasury.
Is the chairman aware of the fact that the Post Office now makes approximately $250 million a year by redesigning stamps?
Mr. RIEGLE.
Let me say with reference to the earlier point that the Senator from California just made, I think there is a clear consensus, in all of the analyses that I have seen, which indicate a coin redesign can generate a substantial amount of money for saving additional revenue for the Government. I have not heard that disputed. I think we can look at the varying estimates based on the number of coins redesigned, but I know of no one who has challenged that assertion.
With respect to the Postal Service, which has a different status within our Government as quasi-independent as opposed to the Mint, that does in its activities by producing stamps for collectors, principally, raise additional revenues on that basis. Certainly, that is part of why they do it and that is part of their history.
Mr. CRANSTON.
The revenues raised last year by the Post Office were approximately $250 million by redesigning stamps, 24 times. It is my believe that the mint should follow suit, perhaps not changing that often, and could thereby make very substantial money, as the bill that I would like to see adopted once again by the Senate and by the House would produce very substantial revenues.
Mr. RIEGLE.
If the Senator will yield, I say that I think that analogy is correct in the sense that the Postal Service has demonstrated that through redesign, additional revenues could be generated.
Within the law of course, the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority now, after a 25-year period of time, to be able to self-initiate a coin redesign. We are past the 25-year period when it was last done.
The Treasury Secretary, as I understand it, now would be in the position to take that initiative. For whatever reasons, he has, he has not done so.
But I think the point the Senator is establishing, that certainly chosen coin redesign can generate a savings to the Government, is an accurate statement.
Mr. CRANSTON.
I thank the Senator. Is the Senator aware that we are about to enter the longest period of time in American history without any redesign of any coin?
Mr. RIEGLE.
To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. As I say, we are now beyond the 25-year period of time set out in existing law since there has been coin redesign.
Mr. CRANSTON.
That concludes the questioning I wanted to address to the chairman of the committee. I want to ask Senator GARN some similar questions. The ranking Republican member of the Banking Committee has been a sponsor of coin redesign and has supported it, as has the chairman of the committee.
Mr. RIEGLE.
If the Senator will yield for one other observation from the chairman based on the questions he has just posed and the responses that I have given and my own earlier opening statement, it would be this: That the Senator is correct in noting that the committee has acted on this previously and the Senate as a whole has acted on it previously. The assertions that he has made just now are accurate in terms of the foundations of support.
Our problem here, in my view, has nothing to do with coin redesign, or the merits of the coin redesign. It is the issue that we have run into where the House has now, on two occasions, been unwilling to incorporate that into a package with these commemorative coins. We have now, as the Senator well knows, run into a situation that is stated, I think, quite accurately from the letters of the House that I read into the RECORD and the Senator is familiar with, that we are at the point now where, because of our inability to resolve the coin redesign issue between the House and the Senate, we are going to adversely impact these other commemorative coins which are entirely separate matters of an entirely different sort.
I want to stress again that it is my view that the need to move on the commemorative coins is in no way intended to be prejudicial to the issue that the Senator from California is raising, which he knows and which I affirm I have previously supported and continue to support.
Mr. CRANSTON.
I appreciate that comment from the chairman. In other words, if the Senate unwisely, in my view, adopts the conference report and fails to make further reference to achieve the enactment of the coin redesign legislation, that is by no means a repudiation of the concept of coin redesign since all parties to this debate, so far as I know every single Senator, believes that coin redesign makes a great deal of sense, and should be done.
The only problem is, should it be done in connection with this particular bill at this particular time?
Mr. RIEGLE.
That is correct. I would go even further than that. While I have reached the conclusion-as I have stated previously, and as the Senator knows, we have to move these other items-that I think the underlying facts laid out here with respect to coin redesign remain clearly there. I expect the Senator to continue to press ahead, should the conference report be adopted, as I hope it will, and he will have my support in so doing.
Mr. CRANSTON.
I thank the Senator for his response to my questions. Before making some more general remarks, I want to comment on one point that was made by the chairman in his opening presentation, where he suggested that we need to act swiftly on the commemorative coins, because time is running out. The mint has taken the position-I think extraordinarily-that it takes a tremendous amount of time to redesign a coin, or *S5665 to create a new coin of one sort or another.
Let me just offer a bit of history on how long it has taken and, in fact, how short the time required has been in the past to redesign coins or make new coins. The Kennedy half dollar was authorized by Congress on December 30, 1963, and circulation started on January 30, 1964. The total elapsed time was 1 month from the authorization to the coin appearing in circulation. The Lincoln Memorial reverse design was started on September 1, 1958. Circulation began January 3, 1959; time elapse was 4 months. The 1921 Peace Dollar competition was held November 25, 1921. The coin was put into circulation January 13, 1922; time elapse was 6 weeks.
The Susan B. Anthony dollar was something different, because that was a brand new coin, not just a redesign of a circulating coin on one side. That was enacted into law October 10, 1978, requiring that coin to be produced. The first coins were struck in the Philadelphia Mint on December 13, 1978. It took 64 days, including weekends and holidays, to put the Anthony dollar in circulation after the Congress voted to authorize its production.
Changing the reverse on a coin is obviously not analogous to the Susan B. Anthony, in that that coin was totally new in size, shape, weight and denomination for coins.
The quarter and the half dollar, if they are redesigned, will be kept the same size, color, shape, content, weight, and the obverse-the head-will be unchanged. Therefore, with less than half of the amount of work to do, it could be done much more rapidly.
However, the commemorative coins are comparable to the Susan B. Anthony coin in that they are something brand new. To suggest that it would take a long, long time to get into production is nonsense. The mint has actually suggested that it needs 15 months-15 months-to redesign the tail side of a coin. In view of the speed with which coins have been redesigned in the past, that is hard to understand or to accept. If that is the best the mint can do now, the mint needs a serious management overhaul.
Mr. President, now going to the more general matters affecting the matter before us, I called for the defeat of the pending conference report for two main reasons. First, there are compelling institutional reasons for rejecting the conference report. Second, coin redesign-passed by the Senate repeatedly-is the only coin proposal that is of significant and measurable benefit to the whole United States. I am referring there to the commemorative coins that are in the conference report.
Let me explore both of these points in more detail. First, the institutional issue.
This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue between the Senate and the other body in this Congress. Coin redesign is supported, in the Senate, by Democrats, Republicans, liberals, moderates, conservatives. It is demonstrated in the questions I was posing to the chairman of the committee, and his responses, that the leadership of the committee, the chairman and the ranking minority member, Senator GARN, are both supporters of coin redesign.
Coin redesign has been reported out of the Banking Committee several times, always unanimously. It has been passed by the Senate 13 times without one word spoken or one vote cast against it. Once it was introduced by 67 cosponsors. Once it was introduced by Senator DOLE, the Republican leader, Senator SIMPSON, the Republican whip, Senator WALLOP, and myself.
The other body, however, has always ignored the Senate's actions. When we sent coin redesign over as a freestanding bill, it was never considered in the other body. When we sent it over attached to something else, like a housing bill, or in one case a reconciliation bill, when Chairman RIEGLE added redesign to a conference measure to cover a cost incurred by another unrelated item, when this has happened, the other body objected on the specious grounds that our procedure was improper.
The fact is that every Member of Congress knows that it is common practice to attach a measure by amendment to a measure others want for other reasons, whether it be something other Senators want or something the other body wants, or something that is veto-proof because the White House wants it, or a combination of such desires, as is the present case. Certain Senators and House Members want various commemorative coins that are authorized in the pending conference report. The White House wants its commemorative coin; the Senate wants redesign.
So the Senate attached redesign to the commemorative coin bill passed by the other body, but the other body still objected once again-this time for totally false and totally fallacious reasons. The other body obviously expects the Senate to back down. I say we should not back down. We should reject the conference report. We should send it back to conference. We should appoint conferees. We should instruct them to insist on adoption of the Senate's amendments calling for coin redesign.
If the Senate fails to do this, the Senate would be yielding to the other body on a matter about which we have no reason to be weak and acquiescing.
On the other hand, we have very compelling reasons to stand strong and stand firm. We met the other body much more than halfway, making compromise after compromise in the redesign title. I will summarize these compromises shortly. The other body has made no compromise at all. We have offered further compromises. The other body has refused even to consider them. It is time for the Senate to stand up for what it knows is right.
That leads to the second and more important issue: the merit of the Senate redesign proposal.
Mr. President, having discussed the institutional issues in regard to the pending matter, where I feel the Senate's responsibility is to stand up for what it believes, and what is important, I will now talk about the reasons for supporting coin redesign.
The fact is that the coin redesign provisions are the only part of the bill that benefits the whole American public in a measurable and very significant way. All the rest-allegedly so desperately needed right now-are proposals for semiprivate fundraising purposes that are not strictly Government business. They raise millions of dollars for sponsoring organizations.
Let's take a very brief look at each proposal. The White House commemorative coin will produce funds that can be used to refurbish and renovate the White House with new and antique furnishings and so forth. That will be very nice for the President and the White House staff, and it will impress the limited number of Americans and foreigners who manage to visit the White House.
The World Cup commemorative coin will produce funds that will benefit soccer fans, a great many of them foreigners, who will attend the World Cup soccer championships in 1994. And it will benefit a few American cities that will host the games.
The Christopher Columbus quincentennial coin celebrates the " discovery" of America and will please Italian-Americans, it will displease Native Americans. It will also please a Member of the other body in whose honor the Christopher Columbus title of the bill has been named. It will also raise money for a Christopher Columbus foundation that will be run by unnamed individuals and that will grant scholarships.
The Desert Storm medals will be produced so that one can be given to each veteran of the Iraq conflict. The first time we have ever given, incidentally, a medal to every veteran of a war. This will happen, provided a sufficient number of copper duplicates of the medals are purchased by collectors or gifts are received for this purpose from other sources.
The James Madison Bill of Rights commemorative coins will be $5 gold coins; $1 silver coins, and 50-cent silver-copper coins to be sold at a profit, with the profit to go to the James Madison Memorial Trust Fund to be used to promote teaching and graduate study of the Constitution.
The coin redesign provisions of the Senate-passed bill also commemorate the Bill of Rights; but do so in a way that actually produces huge revenues *S5666 for the U.S. Treasury. The coin redesign provisions call for redesigning the reverse side-the tail side of two coins-the quarter and the half dollar, with designs celebrating the Bill of Rights and commemorating the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. This celebration and marking of the Bill of Rights is a good reason for insisting on the Senate's coin redesign amendment, but it is by no means the main reason.
The main reason for rejecting the conference report that is before us and insisting on the Senate amendments calling for coin redesign is that coin redesign will make, as we have already discussed, a great deal of money for the U.S. Treasury painlessly-without any increase in taxes or without any cutting of services. The U.S. Mint estimates that coin redesign will net the Government more than $250 million. That is more than a quarter of a billion dollars.
The Office of Management and Budget approved the revenue estimate and CBO concurred. That $250 million-plus cannot be spent. It can only be used to reduce the national debt. Some Members of the other body may think that is a small amount, accustomed as we are around here to dealing with billions and even trillions of dollars. I do not think that reducing the horrendous national debt that plagues our economy and our society by more than $250 million is a trivial thing. That is more than $250 million we will not have to borrow and pay interest on in coming years.
There is another reason for not yielding to the other body in this matter. The principal reason for the rejection of coin redesign by the other body was that totally false rumors and charges were circulated about coin redesign. There have been two votes in the other body fairly recently. Just before the first vote, rumors somehow spread like lightening on the floor of the other body that to vote for coin redesign would be a vote against God because it would lead to taking "In God We Trust" off the coins. That is absolutely false. "In God We Trust" occurs on the face side, the head side of the coins, not on the reverse side, the tail side, that coin redesign would call for and, furthermore, present law requires that "In God We Trust" be and remain on all coins.
But that rumor terrified House Members, seeing themselves accused of voting against God and down went the measure. We dealt with that in conference. We specifically then added language stating what was already actually the fact, by stating in the bill that was going to be voted upon that "In God We Trust" had to remain on the coins.
It was also alleged that coin redesign would be costly, would cost taxpayers, would be a new burden of expense. That, too, as we have already discussed, was obviously, very, very false information. The Senate should not throw up its hands and give up because of blatant misrepresentation.
I have already mentioned the concurrence of the mint, OMB, and CBO that coin redesign would make more than $250 million for the U.S. Treasury. The fact is that coins have been redesigned 68 times in American history. Every single time redesign has produced revenues painlessly for the U.S. Treasury-every single time.
Redesign is profitable for three reasons: One is something called seigniorage. That is the difference between the cost of producing the coin and what people pay for it. Example: It costs 2.5 cents to mint and put into circulation a quarter; it is bought for 25 cents. That is a net profit of 22.5 cents for every quarter.
Second, there is interest earned on seigniorage.
And third there are earnings on sales to collectors of proof sets and uncirculated sets of coins. That is where the revenues come from.
There are 10 million coin collectors in America-many in every State of every U.S. Senator. There are also millions of foreign coin collectors and all of these people are looking for the day when there will be a redesign of American coins for them to collect.
The post office, as we mentioned a bit ago, redesigns stamps with great regularity and makes approximately $250 million every year from the new designs. Last year, that was the net profit to the Treasury as a result of redesigning 24 stamps.
We dealt with this cost issue in the conference and amended bill to provide that there would be no redesign if there would be any cost to the Federal Government which obviously was not really needed. But it was put there to placate and to make plain to people who fell for the false rumor that there would be a cost, that there would be no cost.
It was also suggested in the other body that redesign would confuse the American people in this time of economic crisis in our country. I say that is an insult to the American people. They have dealt regularly with stamp changes, Zip Code changes, area code changes, and a myriad of other innovations. Surely, they have the capacity to tell one coin from another.
The question might be asked, what about the Susan B. Anthony dollar? It failed. It failed for a very good reason. It was exactly the same size as a quarter and that did lead to confusion. But there will be no such confusion when a coin is simply redesigned. The Senate redesign bill, I emphasize, will not change the size, shape, weight, color, or metallic content of any coin.
It was also suggested in the course of debate in the other body that coin redesign would be destabilizing in this time of economic difficulty in our country. Yet, many of our worst economic problems stem from our huge national debt and our towering deficits. How can a measure that would reduce the havoc-wreaking national debt by a quarter of a billion dollars, thereby reducing Federal borrowing, possibly be destabilizing? The fact is coin redesign occurred in the middle of the Great Depression in 1932, to be precise. It was accepted; there was no confusion and no destabilization.
I ask unanimous consent that a table be printed in the RECORD showing the years in which various coins have been changed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
YEARS VARIOUS COINS HAVE BEEN CHANGED
$.01: 1793, 1794, 1794, 1798, 1857, 1859, 1860, 1909, 1959 rev.
$.02: 1867.
$.03: 1830, 1843, 1855, 1861.
$.05: 1866, 1883, 1913, 1938.
$.10: 1796, 1798 rev., 1809, 1837, 1892, 1916, 1946.
$.25: 1796, 1804 rev., 1815, 1838, 1892, 1916, 1932, 1975-6 rev.
$.50: 1793, 1794, 1796 obv., 1798, 1801 rev., 1807 total, 1838, 1839, 1865, 1888, 1892, 1913, 1916, 1938, 1948, 1964, 1975-6 rev.
$1: 1793, 1798, 1834, 1840, 1840, 1840, 1873, 1878, 1921, 1971, 1978.
$2.5: 1840, 1908.
$5: 1795, 1820, 1908,
$10: 1795, 1820, 1908.
$20: 1795, 1820, 1908.
----
SUMMARY OF YEARS COINS REDESIGNED
1793, 1793, 1793, 1794, 1794, 1794, 1795, 1795, 1795, 1796, 1796, 1796, 1798, 1798, 1798, 1801, 1804, 1807, 1809, 1813, 1820, 1820, 1820, 1834, 1837, 1838, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1840, 1840, 1840, 1855, 1857, 1859, 1861, 1864, 1865, 1873, 1878, 1882, 1892, 1892, 1892, 1908, 1908, 1908, 1908, 1913, 1913, 1916, 1916, 1916, 1921, 1932, 1938, 1938, 1946, 1948, 1959, 1964, 1975-6, 1975-6, 1975-6, 1978.
The present time is one of the longest periods this country has gone without a redesign change.
Mr. CRANSTON.
Mr. President, the fact is we are about to go into the longest period than we have ever gone in American history without a coin change. It is time for a change, time for a change here, and it is time for a change in many other aspects of our society and the doings of our Federal Government.
When we dealt with the God issue and the cost issue, a new false issue was dreamed by. The Senate conferees, in the spirit of compromise that is often the mark of a successful conference, had proposed reducing from five circulating coins to two the number of circulating coins that would be redesigned. The Senate has repeatedly passed a measure calling for redesign of all five circulating coins.
Accordingly, in conference, we dropped redesign of the penny, the nickel and the dime, leaving only the quarter and half dollar to be redesigned. That led to a new false charge that was hurled concerning the American eagle that presently appears on the reverse side, the tail side of the quarter and the half dollar. It was alleged untruthfully that it would be unpatriotic to vote for redesign because the bill mandated taking the *S5667 eagle off the quarter and the half dollar.
The bill did no such thing. But down the bill went again, but this time only by the narrow margin of 7 votes; only 7 votes caused it to go down and there were something like 30 absentees.
The Eagle issue, like the God issue, can be dealt with. So I urge that the matter go back to conference so we can make very plain by new language that the eagle shall remain on the reverse of the quarter and the half dollar.
Incidentally, we have had 25 different versions of the quarter and the half dollar in our Nation's history-some with one eagle or some other eagle and some with no Eagle.
There is an interesting story about the particular Eagle-now on the back of the quarter-that Members of the other body believe should be preserved exactly as presently designed, even if that preservation costs our country $250 million. The quarter was to be redesigned back in 1931. The Commission of Fine Arts conducted a design contest. The contest was won by a woman, a great artist named Laura Garden Fraser. However, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon overruled the Fine Arts Commission, rejected Laura Garden Fraser and chose an eagle designed by a man. It turned out that the Secretary felt that artistry was a man's work, not a woman's work.
Unemployment was huge then in the Depression and men needed jobs, while the woman's place, the Treasury Secretary felt, was in the home. The Secretary felt all this was particularly true when it came to designing coins for the world of commerce which was surely, in his view, the realm of men, not women.
The current Senate's redesign proposal might, in this more enlightened age, lead to an eagle on the quarter designed-of all things-by a woman. If, that is, the Senate stands by its convictions.
I feel very strongly, Mr. President, that the Senate should not succumb to wild rumors and false charges, particularly when a $250 million painless reduction in the horrendous national debt is at stake.
The manager of the bill in the other body complained about what he called the misrepresentation of facts by opponents of redesign. We should not be bullied and pushed around by misrepresentations and specious arguments.
Coin redesign will be economically beneficial to our country at a time when our economic needs are very great. I fail to see the urgency of dropping a pain-free 250 million-plus profit for the U.S. Treasury simply because of the complaints of semiprivate groups that they need their commemorative coins right now. That is why I urge rejection of the conference report and recommittal.
If we stand proud, if we stand fast, if we stand firm, we can knock $250 million-plus off the deficit painlessly. By making passage of the White House, Christopher Columbus, and the other commemorative coins contingent on passage of coin redesign, we can attain coin redesign. If we yield to the other body, the other body will get what it has passed, but we will not get coin redesign and we will not get reduction of the deficit by more than $250 million.
There are other reasons, valid and important reasons, for coin redesign: educational, cultural, artistic, and technological.
Coins travel the world and will reflect our society for thousands of years to come. Coins reflect the evolution of civilization. In many countries, a person's only contact with America is by holding in one's hand one of our coins. Our coins should represent our best contemporaneous art and the ideals of which we are most proud, like the Bill of Rights.
Witness after witness has testified at Senate and House Banking Committee hearings that it is time for change and that we can do better with the coins of the greatest Nation on Earth by using the work of living artists of today.
For all these reasons and more, Mr. President, I urge rejection of the conference report and resubmittal with instructions to stand by the Senate coin redesign measure.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Missouri.
Who yields time to the Senator?
Mr. GRAHAM.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOND.
I thank my colleague from Florida.
Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support passage of the conference report. The House has already passed this conference report by a vote of 410 to 0. As we all know, the saga of this coin package is amazingly long and drawn out, with most of the debate centering around the coin redesign bill.
I happen to think that our colleague from California makes a very good point. I think he has a strong argument. The Senate has passed the coin package with coin redesign included twice, and twice the House has rejected the package because of the inclusion of coin redesign. We have tried to convince the House to accept coin redesign. We have done everything we can. But they have repeatedly refused. They appear adamant not to accept a coin package if it contains coin redesign.
Today we have another opportunity to pass the coin bills. I fear it is our last opportunity, and that is why I say that we should pass the conference report.
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
That was a really interesting read. Obviously the Senate did, eventually, back down. It's too bad because most of the reasons mentioned in favor of redesign are accurate. As far as I see, the only potential drawback to redesigning the coins is that we might well get more hack designs, such as the redesign of the initially decent Missouri state quarter to the awful coin that was issued, complete with stalks of broccoli in place of the trees near the arch.
Mark
I think the main issue that the Secretary of the Treasury sees is the fact that it is possible for the President and Congress to change the Secretary of Treasury much more often than every 25 years!
Mark