Common Cents Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 14, 2026
Bottom line
The Common Cents Act aims to reduce U.S. Mint production costs by ending the general circulation of pennies and allowing for cheaper nickel compositions, without mandating cash transaction rounding.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to cease the production of one-cent coins (pennies) for general circulation, while allowing them to continue as legal tender and for sale as numismatic items. It also amends the specifications for the five-cent coin (nickel) to allow for a more cost-effective composition, specifically an inner layer of zinc and an outer layer of nickel, giving the Treasury flexibility to reduce minting costs. Notably, despite its official title, the bill's operative text does not include any provision requiring cash transactions to be rounded to the nearest five cents.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a fiscally responsible measure that addresses the long-standing issue of the penny costing more to produce than its face value, which represents a waste of taxpayer money. By also allowing for a cheaper nickel composition, the bill provides the Treasury with necessary flexibility to manage coinage costs efficiently and modernize the nation's currency system.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that eliminating the penny, even if it saves money, removes a traditional and symbolic piece of American currency, potentially causing minor inconvenience for consumers and businesses accustomed to exact change. While the bill as reported does not include a rounding provision, if it had, opponents would have raised concerns about potential inflationary effects from rounding up prices.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, making it very accessible for a reader to understand its provisions quickly.
Section 2(4), adding subsection (bb) to 31 U.S.C. 5112
Elimination of One-Cent Coin Production for General Circulation
This provision directs the Secretary of the Treasury to stop producing one-cent coins for everyday use and general circulation. However, it explicitly clarifies that any pennies minted and issued before the bill's enactment will continue to be legal tender for all debts. The Treasury is still permitted to produce and sell one-cent coins as numismatic items, meaning for collectors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is a common-sense measure to end the wasteful practice of producing pennies at a loss, thereby saving taxpayer money and improving the efficiency of the U.S. coinage system.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that while cost savings are desirable, eliminating the penny removes a familiar and traditional element of American currency, which could be met with public resistance or perceived as an inconvenience for those who prefer exact change.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the economic efficiency of ceasing production of an unprofitable coin against the symbolic value and public familiarity with the penny, while attempting to mitigate disruption by maintaining its legal tender status.
Section 2(1), (2), (3), amending 31 U.S.C. 5112(a), (b), (c)
Flexible Composition for Five-Cent Coins
This section amends existing law to allow the five-cent coin (nickel) to be manufactured using an inner layer of zinc and an outer layer of nickel, in addition to its current copper and nickel alloy. The Secretary of the Treasury is granted the authority to determine the specific composition of zinc and nickel, provided that testing and evaluation confirm such a composition reduces the cost of producing the coin.
The official title of H.R. 3074 explicitly states that the bill is 'To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting the penny, to require cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest five cents, and for other purposes.' However, the operative text of the bill, as reported with an amendment, *does not contain any language* that would require cash transactions to be rounded up or down to the nearest five cents. The bill's text focuses solely on coin specifications and the cessation of penny production.
Official Title vs. Enacting Clause (Section 1 and 2)
Why it matters:The discrepancy suggests a significant amendment was made during the committee process, removing a major policy component from the bill as reported. This is not standard legislative practice for a title to describe a provision that is entirely absent from the bill's text, indicating a substantive change in the bill's scope and intent since its introduction.
Case for: If the rounding provision were present, proponents would argue it simplifies cash transactions and makes the elimination of the penny more practical by providing a clear mechanism for handling fractional amounts. Its removal, as seen in the reported bill, avoids potential public backlash and simplifies the bill's path to passage.
Case against: If the rounding provision were present, opponents would argue it could lead to 'rounding up' inflation, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals, and create a hidden tax on cash transactions. Its removal from the reported bill text eliminates these contentious arguments.
Estimated impact: The *absence* of this provision means there is no direct impact on cash transaction rounding rules. This avoids the potential for widespread, albeit small, financial shifts for consumers and businesses that would have resulted from mandatory rounding.