Buckle up, this one's a long one with lots of ground to cover as the coin legislation was subject to some major revisions...If you missed Part I, check it out here:
1993 World War II 50th Anniversary Coins - Part I.
Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) was back in the First Session of the 102nd Congress (March 1991) with a re-introduction of her World War II 50th Anniversary coin bill. (She also re-introduced her bill to establish a World War II Memorial.) The coin bill included the same coin mintage specifications: 500,000 Gold Half Eagles, three million Silver Dollars and two million CuNi Clad Half Dollars. The bill also continued to list "1993," as the authorized issue date and the date to appear on the coins. The design specifications and surcharge amounts to be collected on each coin denomination also remained the same as in her previous bill. The distribution model for the surcharge funds remained the same as well.
Per Kaptur, her WWII coin bill was delayed in the previous Congress due to issues with other coin proposals vs. problems with her bill, so her action in the 102nd Congress was truly a re-introduction of her previous bill.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, with a subsequent referral to its Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage (July 1991). As it did with the previous Kaptur WWII coin bill, the Subcommittee held a Hearing that included Kaptur's coin bill (this time out, however, the Subcommittee also discussed the 1994 World Cup USA Soccer coin program, the 1993 James Madison/Bill of Rights coin program and the Benjamin Franklin Firefighters medal).
The Hearing brought to light the bill's presentation to more than the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage. It was also discussed with the Veterans Affairs Committee due to the coin bill's link to the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) and also the Committee on House Administration due to the Memorial's planned site within the District of Columbia. Neither of these other Committee's was the deciding authority on the coin bill, but each was a necessary step in the process.
Kaptur also identified the veterans organizations (in addition to the Veterans of Foreign Wars - VFW) that had been consulted regarding the coins: the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the American Ex-Prisoners of War and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. She noted that all had expressed their support for the coins.
Representative Kaptur also expressed how it was her desire to have a ceremonial coin strike conducted at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1992, and so was hopeful that the coin bill would be approved in time to allow such. (This was also an intent for the 1991 coin bill, if it had been approved.) If the coins could not be struck at Pearl Harbor, Kaptur stated that it was hoped that they could, at least, be announced at the December ceremonies.
Kaptur also lamented about how the delay in securing the coins had prevented them from being marketed/sold in conjunction with the WWII anniversary events being staged by the US National Archives. Missed opportunities!
Subcommittee member Druie Douglas Barnard, Jr. (D-GA) somewhat derailed the Hearing by asking Representative Kaptur about the WWII Memorial that was under consideration vs. specific coin program questions. To her credit, Representative Kaptur did her best to answer Barnard's questions and/or redirect him to the matters before the Subcommittee (namely the commemorative coin program) and offered to review with him the concepts and details worked out regarding the proposed Memorial by the ABMC outside of the Hearing.
One coin-related question/comment raised by Barnard was in regards to the coins' dating. He wondered if "With all the planning that has got to go into the memorial, wouldn't the year 1995, which was the cessation of hostilities, VA Day, wouldn't that be just as appropriate as 1993?"
This appeared to frustrate Kaptur a bit, as she responded "Well, if that is the best we can get out of the subcommittee, Mr. Barnard, we would certainly be grateful for that, just to get it passed . My concern truly is for the veterans themselves. I want them to know that this will be there. And I want them to have the chance to buy the coins for their families during this period."
Barnard expressed his belief that a 1993 date would not help the sales of the WWII coins due to competing programs and queried Kaptur about the role of the veterans organizations in the marketing of the coins. Kaptur indicated that while the US Mint would be the primary marketer, the various veterans organizations had indicated their support of the marketing effort.
Fortunately, Subcommittee Chairman Edward Esteban Torres (D-CA) cut Barnard off and refocused the discussion. He promised Kaptur that the Subcommittee would consider all of the testimony that it heard, as well as the statements submitted, and "try to come up with something that can meet your desires and of course our constraints."
Numerous changes were made to the coin bill during its Subcommittee markup session before it was reported back to the House (June 1991).
The amended bill had several key changes:
1)
Three new "Findings" were inserted: with the previous #6 becoming #9 as a result:
(6) the June 6, 1944, invasion of northern France, when in one day 176,000 Allied military personnel were landed on the beaches of Normandy, was one of World War II's most celebrated achievements;
(7) the "D-Day" invasion was the largest seaborne invasion in history and the ensuing 76-day Battle of Normandy was one of the largest land battles in history;
(8) the Battle of Normandy was a key to the Allied forces' eventual liberation of Europe; and (9) numerous organizations and individuals across the United States have expressed interest in or a.re engaged in efforts to draw attention to the 50th anniversary of World War II. 2)
Joint D-Day Issue with France: A third "Sense of Congress" was added:
[i]3) the minting of a United States coin to commemorate the Battle of Normandy and `D-Day' would be an appropriate concomitance to the commitment by the Republic of France that it will mint a French commemorative coin in recognition of the anniversary."
3)
Maximum mintage figures were adjusted: 300,000 Gold Half Eagles ($5) - down from 500,000; one million Silver Dollars - down from three million and two million Clad Half Dollars - Same.
4)
Design details added for the Gold and Silver coins: "the design of the gold coin authorized...shall be emblematic of the Allied victory in World War II and the silver coin authorized...shall be emblematic of the Battle of Normandy."
5)
Coin date adjusted: The "1993" specification was removed and replaced with a specification for a dual date of "1991-1995" to better reflect the period of US engagement in WW II. Coining authority remained limited to calendar year 1993.
6)
Added options for Silver Dollar: "the silver coin authorized...may bear a designation of the date "June 6, 1944" and an inscription of the words "Battle of Normandy" or "D-Day Invasion".
7)
Design competition added: An open, nationwide design competition was to be sponsored by the Treasury Department with winning designs selected by the Secretary of the Treasury after consulting with:
(A) the American Legion;
(B) the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States;
(C) AMVETS (American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam); and
(D) the Disabled American Veterans; and
"in the case of the one dollar silver coin authorized...the Battle of Normandy Foundation."
8)
New Sales/Marketing Rules: The Treasury was tasked with determining the role of the American Battle Monuments Commission, and other groups potentially established by the Congress in connection with the WWII Memorial. This provision removed any reliance on veterans organizations for direct coin promotion/marketing. The Treasury was also enabled to secure outside marketing contracts for coin promotion if it deemed such would be of benefit.
9)
Battle of Normandy Foundation: The Treasury was to decide the role of the Battle of Normandy Foundation (BNF) in coin promotion/marketing. The BNF was an organization whose mission was to raise awareness about the D-Day Landing at the beaches of Normandy, France. (I took a brief look at a BNF US-France commemorative coin set that I've always enjoyed having as part of my collection. You can see it here:
[1993 Battle Of Normandy Set.)
10)
Surcharge Changes: Multiple changes were made to the surcharge distribution model for the coin program:
- The first $3 million in surcharge funds was to be "transferred to the Battle of Normandy Foundation and used to create, to endow, and to dedicate, on the 50th Anniversary of D-Day, a United States D-Day and Battle of Normandy Memorial in Normandy, France, adjacent to the largest World War II Museum in the world in Caen, France, and to encourage and support visits to the memorial by United States citizens, and especially students."
- The next $7 million in surcharge funds collected was to be made "available to the American Battle Monuments Commission for the expenses incurred in establishing a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columl; or its environs to honor members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in World War II and to commemorate the participation of the United States in that war."
- Surcharge funds beyond the first $10 million were to be split 30/70 between the NBF and the ABMC. If funds designated for the NBF exceeded the needs of its planned Memorial, the excess funds were to be transferred back to the US Secretary of the Treasury and deposited in an account for dedicated use with commemorative works in Washington, DC (and its environs). If the WWII Memorial was not authorized by Congress, collected coin surcharge funds earmarked for the ABMC for the WWII Memorial were to be deposited in the same account and used for the same purpose as the excess Normandy Battle Foundation Funds. (It seems unimaginable that the US Congress would not pass a bill to establish a World War II Memorial, but the bill's wording covers such a possibility!)
The new surcharge provisions definitely made for a more complex surcharge distribution model vs. Kaptur's original bill and, unfortunately, cut out the Smithsonian Institution from potential funding.
The various changes created a major re-write to Kaptur's original bill. Kaptur was involved with the changes, however, working with the Subcommittee that held a Hearing on the original bill and Sam Melville Gibbons (D-FL) to edit and develop the amended legislation that was designed to "honor our Nation's World War II veterans and leave a legacy for world peace."
The amended bill face some opposition, however, when it was brought up for consideration in the House . Alfred McCandless rose to express concerns over the "structure of the World War II Commemorative Coin Program and the process which has brought this legislation before us." He joined William Louis Dickinson (R-AL) (see below) in being opposed to the use of Government resources to build the WWII Memorial, believing that it and other memorials/monuments should be funded by private donations. In line with this, he stated the obvious that the US Mint was most definitely a "Government resource." With the bill to establish the WWII Memorial already passed by the House, he did not press this objection, however.
He turned, instead, to his objection to the proliferation of issues within the modern US commemorative coin series, citing their increasing number and potential for negative outcomes. He also continued to have issues with the "1993" issue year on the coins, and the fact that 1993 was not a milestone year for WWII in terms of the subjects to be commemorated on the coins (i.e., 50th Anniversary of Allied victory on the Gold Half Eagle and D-Day on the Silver Dollar - 1945 and 1944, respectively).
He stated, "We should not rearrange history to accommodate fund raising, or to avoid competition with a commemorative soccer coin."
Representative Dickinson followed McCandless in rising in opposition to the bill. Dickinson had previously objected to the use of Government resources to erect the WWII Memorial during the debate over its legislation. (An objection that was overruled when the bill was passed by the House.) He again expressed his view that funds to support a WWII Memorial should come from private donations and not through use of Government resources. To this end, he had introduced competing legislation for the Memorial that used only private funds; the bill did not gain traction.
Representative Gillespie V. Montgomery (D-MS) countered Dickinson's objections by noting that "no public funds would be used in designing and constructing the memorial, all costs would be funded from private donations and from revenues derived from the sale of the commemorative coins."
The objections raised by McCandless and Dickinson were not enough to keep the House from passing the coin bill (as it had done with the Memorial bill). The bill was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking. That is where it stalled (July 1992).
I'll conclude the story of the journey of the World War II 50th Anniversary coins in Congress and discuss the coins themselves in Part III.
For other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, including other World War II stories, see:
Commems Collection. 
Posted 06/09/2025 12:22 pm
