[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-908 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MAXINE WATERS, California DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois PETER T. KING, New York
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York RON PAUL, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Carolina
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
JOE BACA, California SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Virginia
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina TOM FEENEY, Florida
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia JEB HENSARLING, Texas
AL GREEN, Texas SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota TOM PRICE, Georgia
RON KLEIN, Florida GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
TIM MAHONEY, Florida PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio JOHN CAMPBELL, California
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ADAM PUTNAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois
BILL FOSTER, Illinois KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
JACKIE SPEIER, California KEVIN McCARTHY, California
DON CAZAYOUX, Louisiana DEAN HELLER, Nevada
TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi
Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and
Technology
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois, Chairman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York RON PAUL, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas Carolina
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JEB HENSARLING, Texas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois TOM PRICE, Georgia
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota
BRAD SHERMAN, California PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi DEAN HELLER, Nevada
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, Cummins-Allison 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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, 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.
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 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.
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.
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 first-time 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
day-to-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 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
stand-alone 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 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
currently 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.
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.
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 entry-level 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 address 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 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.
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 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
companies 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.
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 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 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.
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
visually-impaired 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?
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
Cummins-Allison 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 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 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
Cummins-Allison 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 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.
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 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.]
A P P E N D I X
July 30, 2008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 44908.045