PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
Coin Metal Modification Authorization and Cost Savings Act of 2025
This bill authorizes the United States Mint to modify the metallic composition of circulating coins (including by prescribing reasonable manufacturing tolerances with respect to those coins) if a study and analysis conducted by the Mint indicates that the modification will
reduce costs incurred by the taxpayers;
be seamless, which means that the coins must have the same weight and diameter as current coins and that the coins work interchangeably in most coin acceptors using electromagnetic signature technology; and
have as minimal an adverse impact as possible on the public and stakeholders.
The Mint must notify Congress before making the modification and provide a justification for the modification. Congress may disapprove of any proposed modification through a joint resolution.
People & committees
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1278 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1278 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1278 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1278 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would let the U.S. Mint change the metals in circulating coins if a Mint study supports taxpayer savings, compatibility with most electronic coin-accepting machines, and the smallest possible adverse impact on the public and affected businesses. Coins would have to retain their diameter and weight. Congress would receive advance notice and could block a proposed change by enacting a resolution of disapproval during the review period.
may modify the metallic composition of circulating coins to a new metallic composition
(A) reduce costs incurred by the taxpayers of the United States; (B) be seamless, which shall mean the same diameter and weight as United States coinage being minted on the date of enactment of this subsection and that the coins will work interchangeably in most coin acceptors using electromagnetic signature technology; and (C) have as minimal an adverse impact as possible on the public and stakeholders.
unless Congress, during the period of 90 legislative days beginning on the date on which the Director submits that notice— (A) finds that the modification is not justified in light of the information contained in that notice; and (B) enacts a joint resolution of disapproval of the proposed modification.
Section 2 would add authority to the federal coinage statute allowing, but not requiring, the Mint Director to change circulating-coin metals after consulting the Secretary. That authority would apply despite other provisions of law and would include setting reasonable manufacturing tolerances—allowable variations in production.
Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of the United States Mint (referred to in this subsection as the Director), in consultation with the Secretary, may modify the metallic composition of circulating coins to a new metallic composition (including by prescribing reasonable manufacturing tolerances with respect to those coins)
Before a change could qualify, the Mint would have to conduct a study and analysis and solicit input from potentially affected industry stakeholders. That input would include the operating requirements and tolerances of coin-accepting machines.
if a study and analysis conducted by the United States Mint, including solicitation of input (including input on acceptor tolerances and requirements) from industry stakeholders who could be affected by changes in the composition of circulating coins, indicates that the modification will
The study would have to indicate that the change would reduce taxpayer costs and have the smallest possible adverse impact on the public and stakeholders. These are conditions for exercising the proposed authority, not evidence that any particular change would produce savings or avoid harm.
indicates that the modification will— (A) reduce costs incurred by the taxpayers of the United States;
(C) have as minimal an adverse impact as possible on the public and stakeholders.
A qualifying change would have to preserve the diameter and weight of coins being minted on the provision's enactment date. New coins would also have to work interchangeably in most machines that identify coins by their electromagnetic properties; the text does not require compatibility with every machine.
(B) be seamless, which shall mean the same diameter and weight as United States coinage being minted on the date of enactment of this subsection and that the coins will work interchangeably in most coin acceptors using electromagnetic signature technology;
The Director would have to notify Congress at least 90 legislative days before starting a change. The notice would need to justify the change using the Mint study, explain taxpayer savings, and certify compatibility and the smallest possible adverse impact. Legislative days are a congressional timing measure, so this is not simply a 90-calendar-day wait.
On the date that is at least 90 legislative days before the date on which the Director begins making a modification described in paragraph (1), the Director shall submit to Congress notice that— (A) provides a justification for the modification, including the support for that modification in the study and analysis required under paragraph (1) with respect to the modification; (B) describes how the modification will reduce costs incurred by the taxpayers of the United States; (C) certifies that the modification will be seamless, as described in paragraph (1)(B); and (D) certifies that the modification will have as minimal an adverse impact as possible on the public and stakeholders.
The Director could begin a proposed change only after the 90-legislative-day waiting period. Congress could prevent that change under this procedure by finding it unjustified based on the notice and enacting a joint resolution of disapproval during the review period.
The Director may begin making a modification proposed under this subsection not earlier than the date that is 90 legislative days after the date on which the Director submits to Congress the notice required under paragraph (2) with respect to that modification, unless Congress, during the period of 90 legislative days beginning on the date on which the Director submits that notice— (A) finds that the modification is not justified in light of the information contained in that notice; and (B) enacts a joint resolution of disapproval of the proposed modification.
The bill would prescribe the wording of a disapproval resolution and use the House and Senate procedures referenced in chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code. Those procedures are not reproduced in the supplied text.
(A) a joint resolution of disapproval is a joint resolution the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: That Congress disapproves the modification submitted by the Director of the United States Mint.; and (B) the procedural rules in the House of Representatives and the Senate for a joint resolution of disapproval described under paragraph (3) shall be the same as provided for a joint resolution of disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.
Section 3 would determine the bill's budget effects for statutory pay-as-you-go compliance—a federal budget-accounting requirement—using the latest designated statement submitted by the House Budget Committee chair for publication in the Congressional Record. This would apply only if the statement was submitted before the passage vote. The section itself supplies no savings estimate.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 8, 2026, records introduction in the House on February 13, 2025, and referral that day to the Financial Services, Budget, and Rules committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions. This snapshot does not establish passage or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-08T19:31:27Z.
2025-02-13: Introduced in House
2025-02-13: Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status in other versions or accompanying materials is not established.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 8, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI