Brad Sherman

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 10167, the Common Cents Act, sponsored by Representative McClain.

Last year, the President announced on Truth Social--not the best way to make a government announcement--that Treasury would stop minting pennies. Frankly, I disagree with almost everything the President does, but this one makes sense. I have been advocating for the abolition of the penny for over 20 years in our committee, and it is time that we move forward on this.

Following this announcement, the Treasury moved forward, and the Mint has stopped producing pennies. Unfortunately, the decision to stop minting pennies ignored the authority of Congress in regulating currency and overseeing a major transition away from producing pennies. We saw that this abrupt decision resulted in major consequences across the country that led to penny shortages for banks, retailers, and consumers and created confusion in the economy.

It is not enough to stop minting pennies. We need a bill that tells retailers and customers how much they are supposed to pay in nickels, dimes, and dollars. However, as written, this legislation addresses many of these issues and establishes much-needed standards and guidelines going forward.

Since we marked up the Common Cents Act in our committee, this bill has continued to be meaningfully improved, thanks to the work of our ranking member, Maxine Waters, and other Financial Services Committee Democrats, including Representative Garcia.

The Common Cents Act formally directs the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting pennies. It also allows the Mint to test a lower-cost composition for the nickel, which chiefly would be zinc, and to make use of the zinc that is now going into pennies. Moreover, by using zinc for the nickel, not only will we save money, but it will be lighter, and that will be important for the cost of those who are transporting large quantities of coins, and it will be a little lighter in your pocket. This bill not only deals with the penny, but it also improves the nickel.

The bill provides clarity on rounding cash transactions. When I proposed in committee 20 years ago, and I proposed it at townhalls, people were concerned that somehow this would lead to higher prices and that somehow retailers would benefit.

The fact is, it is the consumer, not the retailer, who determines whether you buy two nail files at the same time and that happens to round down, and then buy another two nail files at the same time, and that transaction is rounded down. I can't imagine anybody doing that to save a nickel, but it is the consumer, not the retailer, that decides what goes into the basket. I can't imagine anybody looking at this. If somebody does care, it is the retailer in control.

We have formal rules here on rounding down when it is 2 cents or 1 cent. That is important for commerce to go forward.

Under this bill, the Federal Reserve would be required to issue a strategic plan for managing and limiting disruptions in the penny supply.

Recently, in August, the Senate added a new section that requires the Treasury to submit notification to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee regarding potential plans to discontinue any coin, among other requirements. This is important because Congress plays a key role in these processes. There has been some disruption, and we need to be in a position to manage it.

My focus on the fact that we didn't need pennies arises from the fact that I used to head the second largest sales

tax agency. What consumers may not know is that every time you do a transaction--last year, last decade, 20 years ago--the amount you pay the retailer is subject to rounding. There is a tax of 5 percent or 8 percent, and the amount you actually owe is $1.125, which is rounded down.

We have been rounding transactions for a long time in this country. Now, we will be rounding to the nearest nickel instead of rounding to the nearest penny.

Further, by eliminating the penny, we create extra room in the cash register where the penny used to go. That room could be used for a dollar coin. We all know that it costs more than a dollar to print a dollar and that a paper dollar wears out.

I look forward to popularizing the dollar coin. This will be a boon to our transit agencies, vending machines, and others when people use a dollar coin. Growing up, we had a dollar coin. We just called it a quarter. We had a quarter. We used it. It was worth about what a dollar is worth today.

Mr. Speaker, while I am not a big fan of the inflation that has taken place in my lifetime, I do think it is time to popularize the dollar coin. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), the State that is the Land of Lincoln.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 2978, the GUARD Act, sponsored by Representatives Nunn and Gottheimer. The GUARD Act would allow State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to tap into certain Federal grant programs to support investigations into senior fraud, romance scams, and general financial fraud.

The bill would also permit Federal law enforcement to assist State and local law enforcement with tracing tools for blockchain technology. This bill is particularly important because blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, is so often used in scams, and it is the Federal Government that has the best chance--and it is only a chance--of using technology to defeat the scams and to hold those responsible accountable.

Certainly, now that we are faced with crypto scams, we need to react, and this bill is part of that reaction. This is a sensible bill that will help Americans who are losing literally billions of dollars to fraudsters and scammers.

I support this bill, but I must express a significant concern of the Democratic Caucus that should be addressed. That is the potential misinterpretation or misuse of this bill to allow agencies to siphon funds from defined grant programs for unrelated purposes.

One of the grant programs, for example, is found in the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which allows grants to nonprofits and local governments to provide support for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

I believe that all Members and organizations supporting this bill have no intent to deny grants or reduce grants to address domestic violence and sexual assault. This bill is not meant to be a way for the President to raid those funds.

Rather, the bill intends to augment the funds and to cover areas where GUARD Act activities overlap with the existing grant programs, such as where the victim of domestic violence is also the target of a romance scam.

I stress again that when the bill says ``eligible Federal grant funds,'' no Member voting on this bill intends to ignore or change the purpose of existing Federal grant programs from which the GUARD Act draws.

Thus, going forward, this bill or our statutes must add clarifying language that makes it clear that VAWA and this bill's other programs are intended to combat financial fraud and abuse within the bounds of the grant programs that are listed.

Mr. Speaker, with these concerns about our intent to fix the text of the bill noted, I urge colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman from Texas also has no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the GUARD Act allows State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to use certain Federal grant programs to investigate senior financial fraud, romance schemes, and general financial fraud.

There are two points that I made in my earlier statement that I will reiterate. The first is that crypto has facilitated frauds and scams, and it is necessary that we give law enforcement the tools to react to that. The second is that while this is a very worthwhile bill, we do need to clarify that the GUARD Act overlaps and augments, doesn't steal from, the funds mentioned in the bill. It can help victims and survivors of domestic violence, among others, as they are targeted by fraudsters and scammers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 8278, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act, as amended, authored by Representative Stutzman.

I particularly note that this bill starts with the word ``fostering,'' and so it is appropriate that it is co-led by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster). Who else could do a better job of fostering than Mr. Foster?

This bill represents an important step in allowing Congress to better understand the technological vulnerabilities our banking regulators face. They come in at least two categories. One is to understand how banks are using AI and to make sure that banks are complying with all of our consumer protection and prudential standards. The second is to make sure that our regulators are in a position to make sure the banks are able to prevent themselves from being hit by malicious actors who could imperil consumers or, even more, the prudential solvency of the bank. It is better for Congress to understand the technological vulnerabilities that bankers face.

This bill requires the Federal banking agencies to assess and to report to Congress on gaps and vulnerabilities in their supervisory tools and their procurement processes.

As AI tools continue to be deployed by financial institutions, we have to be able to make sure that our regulators understand what the banks are doing. While malicious actors are beginning to use AI, it is important for our regulators to know the threats that that could pose to our banking system.

Concerns have increased about the speed and scale of AI threats to the financial system and, as Mr. Foster pointed out, the particular threat of accelerating the speed of a run on a particular bank.

Requiring regulators to meet emerging risks by utilizing their own technology to support their supervisory rulemaking and enforcement activities is an important step. This is known as supervisory technology and can include both AI, as well as cloud-based services and other technologies. Supervisory technology is used by agencies with the goal of improving their supervision process, while ensuring firms comply with regulatory requirements.

Importantly, this bill requires Federal banking agencies to assess the procurement process rules for new technology they may need to acquire.

Now, under the Trump administration, AI has been politicized, which has created challenges for consistent procurement practices. For example, on July 23, 2025, an executive order directed agencies not to procure AI models that contain AI outputs driven by ideologies like diversity, equality, and inclusion.

This is a dangerous approach which ignores the well-documented harms from algorithmic bias in housing and financial services, the workforce, and criminal justice. It also appears to contradict our existing laws.

When the government agencies do their enforcement, they need to enforce all of our laws. When they use AI, they need to enforce all of the laws that apply to banking institutions. That includes the laws that prohibit discrimination, and those are just as important as any of the other laws that our bank

supervisors might be called upon to enforce. The AI technology that they acquire should be applicable to enforcing those laws as well as the others.

Since this bill was proposed last Congress, many of the challenges we are facing with AI are now much more apparent. It seems as though every day the news and warnings about AI becomes more dire.

This bill will help Congress to better ensure that our Federal banking agencies are able to keep up with the challenges they face. But let us remember, this bill is based on last decade's big issue--how AI could be used by human beings in a way that is harmful and how AI could be used by human beings in a way that promotes the enforcement of our law, but in any case, how AI is a tool in the hands of humans beings.

Now, what has exploded into our consciousness is a second issue this bill doesn't and wasn't intended to deal with, and that should not be ignored by Congress. That is what happens if AI isn't being used by human beings to achieve a human purpose but instead develops its own self-awareness, its own goals?

It pains me that this Congress is leaving town at the end of this week, leaving town on Thursday, when we should be spending at least the next 2 weeks focused on what our national response is to being told that AI may not just be a tool in the hands of good and bad people, used well and perhaps not so well, but maybe something we haven't confronted before; and that is, in effect, a new and powerful self- directed intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on those issues. For now, we ought to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8278 is an important step to allowing Congress to better understand the technological vulnerabilities of our banking system and what is faced by our bank regulators. Requiring Federal banking agencies to assess and report to Congress on gaps and vulnerabilities in their supervisory tools and their procurement process would further efforts by our regulators to meet emerging risks.

Additionally, this bill will allow Federal banking regulators to evaluate and report on the impact of the Trump administration's executive orders, which, unfortunately, ignore well-documented harms from algorithmic bias in housing and financial services.

Ultimately, Congress would use the reporting from this bill to ensure that our banking agencies are able to keep up with the challenges that they face, including rapidly developing AI capacities and the need to make sure that our bank regulators are appropriately using AI to enforce all of our banking laws, including those that prevent discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.