[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19564-19565]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      UNITED STATES MINT NUMISMATIC COIN CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 5273) to clarify the intention of the Congress with 
regard to the authority of the United States Mint to produce numismatic 
coins, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5273

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States Mint 
     Numismatic Coin Clarification Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF MINT'S AUTHORITY.

       (a) Silver Proof Coins.--Section 5132(a)(2)(B)(i) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended by striking ``paragraphs 
     (1)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2)''.
       (b) Platinum Coins.--Section 5112(k) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``bullion'' and inserting 
     ``platinum bullion coins''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL REPORT REQUIREMENT.

       Section 5134(e)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``reflect'' and inserting ``contain'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) a supplemental schedule detailing--
       ``(i) the costs and expenses for the production, for the 
     marketing, and for the distribution of each denomination of 
     circulating coins produced by the Mint during the fiscal year 
     and the per-unit cost of producing, of marketing, and of 
     distributing each denomination of such coins; and
       ``(ii) the gross revenue derived from the sales of each 
     such denomination of coins.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).


                             General Leave

  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5273.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, introduced by and at 
the request of the Treasury Department, is a simple technical 
corrections bill and does just three things. Most importantly, the mint 
has sought language that would excuse it from the law that requires it 
to make a silver proof version of the new golden $1 coin. It is obvious 
that this makes no sense at all to make a silver version of a coin that 
is gold in color. But language left over from the time when the silver-
colored Susan B. Anthony dollar coins were made would require the all-
silver proof version.
  Not having this clarification has held up the mint's production of 
proof sets for collectors, and it is illegal to produce coins in a year 
other than in which they are issued. Failure to pass this bill would 
result either in a nonsensical proof set or no proof set for collectors 
at all this year.
  Also contained in the bill is a clarifying section inserting the word 
``platinum'' inadvertently dropped when Congress authorized production 
of platinum and platinum bullion coins a few years ago and a section 
calling for increased reporting requirements for the mint's cost of 
producing, distributing, and marketing circulating coins.
  This is a small bill, but important to the mint and important to coin 
collectors. It has no cost implications whatsoever. I urge its 
immediate passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 19565]]


  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the United States Mint Numismatic 
Coin Clarification Act of 2000. The Act operates to introduce a 
``technical correction'' into the language of the Dollar Coin Act of 
1997. The Act that we consider today, will permit us to achieve the 
purposes of the Dollar Coin Act by removing the requirement that newly 
minted dollar coins be composed of 90% silver and 10% copper. Instead, 
the silver/copper content requirement will apply only to half-dollar, 
quarter-dollar and dime coins. A dollar coin, minted in gold coloring 
with manganese-brass content will be included with the proof sets.
  The Act also grants the Secretary of the Treasury the discretionary 
authority that he or she may exercise from time to time to mint and 
issue platinum bullion coins.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the United States Mint Numismatic Coin 
Clarification Act of 2000, instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to 
provide periodic reports to Congress that will set forth the general 
and per-unit costs of production, marketing, and distribution of each 
denomination of circulating coins.
  I would add for the record that the maximum mintage of 1 million 
(1,000,000) silver proof sets contemplated by the Act is eagerly 
anticipated by the numismatic community and will be produced at the 
U.S. Mint in San Francisco.
  Due to the need for the correction in the legislative language that 
would be enacted by passage of the United States Mint Numismatic Coin 
Clarification Act of 2000, I urge my colleagues to support this measure 
as well.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, introduced 
by request of the Treasury Department, is a simple technical 
corrections bill, and does just three things.
  Most importantly, the Mint has sought language that would excuse it 
from law that requires it to make a silver ``proof'' version of the new 
golden one-dollar coin. It's obvious that it makes no sense at all to 
make a silver version of a coin that is golden in color, but language 
left over from the time when silver-colored Susan B. Anthony dollar 
coins were being made would require the all-silver ``proof'' version. 
Not having this clarification has held up the Mint's production of 
``proof'' sets for collectors, and as it is illegal to produce coins in 
a year other than the one in which they are issued, failure to pass 
this bill would either result in a nonsensical ``proof'' set or no 
``proof'' set for collectors at all this year.
  Also contained in the bill is a clarifying section inserting the work 
``platinum,'' inadvertently dropped when Congress authorized the 
production of platinum and platinum bullion coins a few years ago, and 
a section calling for some increased reporting requirements on the 
Mint's costs of producing, distributing and marketing circulating 
coins.
  This is a small bill, but important to the Mint and important to coin 
collectors. it has no cost implications whatsoever. I urge its 
immediate passage.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5273.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________