뉴햄프셔 주 하원 법안 225: 디지털 화폐와 개인정보 보호 권리

### 하원 법안 225: 중앙은행 디지털 화폐 및 개인정보 보호 권리 문제 해결
* 📺 프라이버시 권리를 위협하는 통화 금지에 초점을 맞춘 **하원 법안 225의 소위원회 청문회**는 유튜브를 통해 참여하여 진행되었습니다.
* 📜 마이크 벨처 의원이 발의한 이 법안은 **이전에 입법 준비에 대한 우려**로 인해 중간 검토를 위해 보류된 바 있습니다.
* 💬 벨처는 디지털 통제 메커니즘으로부터 뉴햄프셔 주민을 보호해야 할 필요성을 강조하며 **위원회에 향후 법안을 위한 더 나은 표현**을 개발해 달라고 요청했습니다.
* 👨 KO 연구소의 전문가 니콜라스 앤서니는 중앙은행 디지털 화폐(CBDC)에 대한 증언을 통해 **금융 거래를 중앙집중화**하고 **금융 프라이버시를 위협할 수 있는 잠재력**을 강조했습니다.
* 🌍 현재 **15억 명 이상의 인구가 CBDC를 도입한 국가**에 거주하고 있지만, 나이지리아의 경우 **인구의 0.5%만 사용하는 등 도입률은 여전히 낮은 편**입니다.
* 🔒 앤서니는 **CBDC가 금융의 자유와 프라이버시에 대한 정부의 제한**으로 이어질 수 있다고 경고하며, 여러 국가의 사례를 통해 이러한 통화가 미치는 부정적인 영향을 설명했습니다.
* ⚖ 위원회는 **CBDC 금지, 통일 상법 외부로 분류, 국가 기관 참여 제한** 등의 입법 옵션을 논의했으며, 후자가 균형 잡힌 접근 방식으로 여겨졌습니다.
* 📈 이 대화에서는 시민의 금융 개인정보를 보호하기 위한 사전 예방적 조치의 중요성과 **뉴햄프셔 주에서 추가적인 연구 및 입법 조치**가 필요하다는 점이 강조되었습니다.

위원회는 금과 은 화폐에 관한 새로운 법안을 검토하기 전에 다른 주의 법정 화폐 관련 법률을 연구하고자 합니다.

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e thank you. There we go. I'm going to start over. Um, now we are broadcasting on YouTube, so this is the subcommittee hearing for House Bill 225. The title of the bill is relative to prohibiting the use of currency that could be detrimental to privacy rights. This bill was introduced last year by Representative Belcher, and it was held over the summer, and then this year sent to interim study, and this is the interim study work session on the bill. The committee felt the bill was not ready for prime time, and the sponsor agreed with us and sent us some written testimony. He says, This is Representative Mike Belcher regarding the necessity of for such a bill as this. I believe it has become more and more clear that it is, in fact, wholly necessary to make measures to protect New Hampshire residents from the burgeoning digital control mechanisms that threaten freedom and liberty. However, many legitimate issues have been raised regarding the exact wording of

this bill. I would request that the committee consider taking whatever action deemed most appropriate to promote the study of the issue for the development of better language, such that another better Bill might come forward in the next session. So those are his comments, and so we're going to do something a little bit different. We have Nick Anthony, who is an expert on digital currency from the KO Institute, and he's joining us by Zoom, and we thank him for his time. We got started a little late here, so Nick, I'm going to turn it over to you. You have written testimony, which was emailed to the committee last night. Representative Gibbs, I have a copy for you. Oh, I saw your email, but okay, there's a written copy. Thank you. Representative Meu, do you need a copy? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take one, actually, if you have it. I don't know if I saw that email. See, we'll pass that on. And then, Mr. Anthony, I'm going to turn it over to

you and I'm gonna have to move my microphone to the speaker so that the people on YouTube that will listen to this can hear you speak. Oh, I apologize. I do have it. Actually, that was attached to the same email. I do have it, and I did read it. Okay, great. All right, so without further ado, Mr. Anthony, we'll give you up to 10 minutes, and then we might want to ask you some questions afterwards. Okay, and let me... That sounds good, and I'm gonna turn off... Go ahead. Well, Vice Chair Amon and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nicholas Anthony, and I'm a policy analyst at the KO Institute Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, a fellow at the Human Rights Foundation, and the author of the book Digital Currency or Digital Control: Decoding CBDC and the Future of Money. The term Central Bank Digital Currency, or CBDC, has quickly shifted from an academic idea to an economic reality. According to the Human Rights Foundation CBDC Tracker,

Over 1.5 billion people currently live in countries where CBDCs have been rolled out, yet many people still have no idea what a CBDC is, let alone whether their government is pursuing one. It's for this reason that I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify here today. So first, what is a CBDC? In short, it's a digital national currency that is a direct liability of a country's central bank. Typically, discussions of CBDCs revolve around the retail model, where CBDCs are designed for consumers to use in day-to-day purchases. At first glance, this description might sound uncontroversial, considering most of us make some form of digital payment every day. What is different with a CBDC, however, is that it's the government that would ultimately be the one processing those transactions. So rather than have transactions spread across banks, credit unions, and the like, financial transactions would be centralized in the hands of the federal government. And it's for this reason the creation of a US CBDC would pose a fundamental threat to financial privacy, likely the greatest

since the enactment of the bank secrecy Act and the establishment of the third party Doctrine, with so much information in hand, a cbdc would enable the government to restrict Financial Freedom in countless ways. Unfortunately, the observations in practice have given us little to be hopeful about. If I were to summarize the international experience thus far, it would boil down to two categories: a restriction on the lives of citizens and a waste of taxpayer resources. For example, in Nigeria, the government caused a cash shortage in hopes of spurring adoption when only 0.5% of the population was using its cbdc. In the Bahamas, the government will soon Force Banks to distribute its cbdc. And most recently, in Thailand, the government launched a quasi cbdc through a digital wallet that restricts payments to government-approved Goods at government-approved stores within the district listed on each person's ID card. These restrictions are also taking place in subtler ways, as documented in the human rights Foundation cbdc tracker. Officials in the Bahamas, the Eastern Caribbean currency Union, Jamaica, Lebanon, Nigeria, Peru, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands

and more have all said the goal is to go cashless and that CBDCs are the way they will get there. But what about the question of whether CBDCs are an appropriate use of taxpayer resources? Again, from the international experience, we see that governments that have launched CBDCs are struggling to get anyone to use them on a day-to-day basis. The public generally recognizes that their needs are being met by existing options like mobile banking, payment apps, and cash. So, in the best case, it's a waste of taxpayer resources because it does not offer any unique benefits that are not already being provided for by the market. In the worst case, CBDCs could threaten financial privacy, freedom, and markets at large, issues that have already begun to surface with these concerns in mind. What role is there, though, at the state level? It's a difficult question. Members of Congress have the authority to limit the Federal Reserve so it doesn't move forward, but options are limited at the state level. There are really three legislative approaches that officials have taken or considered thus far. The

first option is to prohibit the use of CBDCs entirely. Given concerns on the table, it's understandable why this option might appear appealing. However, it poses significant concerns. Imagine if a constituent went to the Bahamas on vacation and came home with some of the Bohemian CBDC left over. How would enforcement work? Would the state establish a surveillance network to monitor travel? Would the citizen be searched upon returning to the state? Unfortunately, this path can quickly devolve into its own assault on financial privacy and freedom. The second option lies in what many states have done over the past few years, namely classify CBDCs within state statute so they are excluded from the definition of money in the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC. Unfortunately, these options also have extended consequences. A person or business may still use a CBDC under this approach; it's just that they are not afforded the legal protections one might typically expect under the UCC. So again, it's unfortunately the citizens that stand to lose. A third option is to explicitly

prohibits State agencies from using a CBDC or participating in CBDC programs. The first option is too hot, and the second option is perhaps too cold. This third option might be just right. It does not restrict the freedoms of individual citizens, but it does limit the hands of government. Now, unfortunately, all three options appear vulnerable to the supremacy clause. In fact, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis acknowledged that his bill would likely be overridden if Congress chose to move forward. But it should be said that the 10th Amendment Center has argued that the supremacy clause is not so black and white in practice. The same argument came up when states initially began to legalize cannabis, and the experience with the ongoing delay of Real ID implementation shows that states are, if nothing else, able to establish roadblocks that slow down the process. With that in mind, there's a fourth option on the table that should also be considered. All three legislative approaches have in common that they send a message. They show that states are watching, and they will not silently fall.

into line. However, there are other ways to do this too. State officials are in a unique position to bridge the gap between citizens and the larger government. Raising awareness and making sure concerns are being heard by members of Congress is crucial. That can be done through town halls, op-eds, letters, and even meetings such as this one. These avenues should not be underestimated in closing the committee. It is correct to keep an eye on the rise of CBDCs and what options are on the table. I thank CH Vice Chair Amon and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak on this issue, and I welcome any questions you may have, large or small. Thank you very much for your testimony. Um, you have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Nick, for your testimony. I appreciate it. Um, so if I understand you correctly, the KO Institute recommendation would be passing similar legislation to some of the other states or recommending that New Hampshire consider legislation that limits New Hampshire's participation or ability to accept digital

currency as a means of tender, uh, essentially to message the federal government that we do not approve of such currency. Does that make sense? Were we able to hear that, Nick? Maybe not. Nick, were you able to hear Representative M's question? Uh, looked like it. Okay, see what's going on here by the stunned silence. Uh, there you are. Maybe not. I had, we had a little feedback earlier. I turned the microphone off. Okay, so we were talking to you, Nick, and you able to hear us. So, I'll let Representative MCU repeat the question. Hi, hi, it's Representative Tim MCU. Um, so I'm just gonna sort of paraphrase then. Is it the KO Institute's suggestion that we can, that New Hampshire consider legislation that would perhaps limit the state of New Hampshire's ability to accept digital currency as a means of payment for any sort of payment to the state as a means to essentially send a message to the United States federal government that we don't approve of, uh, this sort of invasive privacy, uh, type of currency like, like, like the

way you've described it being implemented in other countries. So, I have to be very careful, uh, in that the KO Institute can't endorse any legislation. But what I can say is that if states are to take a legislative approach, I think that's the best option on the table, is to make sure that it's saying that the state agencies are not going to require this as payment or force citizens to use it, and they're not going to participate in these programs that make sure that you're not having any sweeping restrictions on the citizens. And also, you're still managing to send that message and ultimately have the federal government have to say something. If they want to push forward with this, then they have to acknowledge why all these states had a problem with it and why they're moving ahead anyway. Well, thank you. Yes, I guess I follow up, um, but the, but your, your position is pretty clear that it's a, it's an invasive means of tracking expenditures, tracking individual movements, expenses, U, all sorts of things that the

the federal government could use for countless other things. I mean, every bit of somebody's personal life and, and that's the potentially Orwellian future if the Central Bank digital currency comes to pass. And that's potentially why North Carolina and several other states have decided that this isn't the right way for their state to go. I mean, am I understanding that correctly? I mean, what I've read and heard from your testimony and others and the research from other states, it's why it's really not the New Hampshire way, and it's not in line with our constitutionally protected right to privacy, right, in New Hampshire. Yeah, you are correct. That is why so many people are concerned about this and why so many people have been speaking out just really year after year. And it's why I spend a lot of my time working here in DC with Congress to try to put serious restrictions on the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury to say they cannot go ahead and

do this of their own accord because it represents a fundamental, uh, affront to really the Constitution at large, very specifically the Fourth Amendment, quite obviously, but really it gets into a whole Hornet's Nest of problems. And again, to your point, that is why so many states are looking at this and saying, Wait, no, this is not something that we want to have you question. I do so. We passed a set of Bill 255. It was a privacy act. I was one of the sponsors. It was one of the first bills to get signed this year. I mean, isn't this kind of a follow-up? I mean, isn't this one of the things that we couldn't, we didn't pass it this by any of them, but shouldn't it be one of our legislative priorities to look at other things that we can do to proactively protect the privacy of our citizens? I mean, isn't that what we're seeing happen across the country? Yes, I really could not agree more that this is something that should

be a focus, and the timing is really quite brilliant because across the country, Americans are noticing that this financial privacy that they thought they had, and even this general sense of privacy that they thought they had, is really an illusion of privacy. It's been something that's been chipped away at for decades, and now people are noticing more than ever before. And so, it really is good to get ahead of this and not wait for the next catastrophe, whether that be a CBDC, a data leak, or what have you. It's better to get ahead of these problems and try to fix them before they become problems that are affecting people's day-to-day lives. Yeah, I mean, it frightens me now. You talk about something in your living room, and you know she is listening, right? The, you know, Alexa, Siri, one of them is listening, and then the next thing you know, you're in your car, and you get an ad for whatever you just talked about. I mean, that's creepy.

enough yeah represent have a question do thank you and thank you Mr. Anthony um for coming in in a somewhat unusual manner um but I appreciate it um I have a couple of questions one very specific and the other very general uh the first specific one is you mentioned that some countries are have actually decided to use a uh Central Bank digital currency uh and what I am wondering is while such a decision may have been made is anybody in that in that country for instance in the Bahamas uh actually using such a currency and more specifically if I were to go to the Bahamas and go to a bank to exchange my dollars for the local currency would I get the local currency as I normally would in a foreign country or would I get some kind of a digital currency thank you those are such good questions uh on the first one uh unfortunately uh despite the countless amount of money that's being spent on these projects they are not going to good use people are not using the Central Bank digital currencies where they've been launched.

so one example is in Nigeria. This is the largest population in Africa, if I'm not mistaken. Only [Music] 0.5% of the population started using the CBDC. We're seeing that same experience elsewhere in the Bahamas. Very few people are using it, and that's why the government is going to soon force the banks to distribute it to try to make people use it. Even in China, we've seen examples of people saying they get, for example, government employees get their e-uh follow-up question on the specific issue. Um, if I went to the and got that digital wallet that you were describing, um, and I then went to a souvenir shop to buy a souvenir, could I actually pay for it with that digital wallet, or would they refuse to accept it? Of a tricky answer, it's a coin flip, so to speak. Uh, one of the big problems that they've been having in the Bahamas specifically is to get any merchant to onboard with this. Nobody wants to have a brand new payments terminal on their

desk so they refuse to use it, and so you might find some shops that use it, but the vast majority do not use it. And this CBDC has been out there for, I believe, four years now, and it's still just such a toss-up if you have any opportunity to use it. Um, oh, sorry, uh, second follow-up question. Um, so doesn't that seem to get rid of the problem that somebody could come back from the Bahamas and have some of these, uh, CBDCs left over? Because if they're not using it, you're not going to get it, and you're not going to have any left over. It seemed that problem would kind of not exist, of a silver lining when we consider any of the risks, whether in this case coming back to the States or with the financial privacy, freedom, and market concerns that are there, is that if nobody uses them, then there really isn't those problems coming into practice. They luckily were remain in the theoretical realm. Um, I'm not surprised. Do you have another question? I do. May I ask it? Yeah.

We have, uh, we're 20 minutes in, so we want to keep conscious of time. Um, okay, I'll try and be as quick as I can than you. Uh, okay, the general question has to do with the fact that um, my bank knows a great deal about me. You mentioned that this would be the government processing transactions instead of banks. My bank knows a great deal about me, but I don't trust them with any information that I don't have to because historically, banks are not that reliable. Um, so I don't give them any information I don't have to. Now, I have had to give them a lot of information, but I try and keep it to the minimum. Uh, the federal government, on the other hand, already knows everything about me because I used to work for the federal government and I had to get what was very like a security clearance. It, in fact, used the same form as a security clearance. I got investigated. The federal government knows everything about me. Um, and that was part of my job. Um, and the bottom line for me was that I

trusted the federal government more than I trusted the bank. Based on the historical record, so I guess my general question for you is why do you trust the bank more than you trust the federal government. Oh gosh, there's a lot of angles that I could go with this with, but the main what I want to focus because our time's limited is I much rather have my information at one place here, and they have only what they need, just like you described, only what they need, and I have someone else with only what they need, so that if any one of those is compromised, whether it's a hack, whether it's an employee mishap, or something else, at least not everything is taken. When it comes to having everything in the hands of the federal government, I'm very glad to hear that you have had a positive experience, but I very much worry that if we talk about having every American's information in a central database, that's not only going to present a target for like four profit hackers that might be targeting the

banks, but unfortunately, that's also going to inspire this country's enemies who are going to do it as an act of warfare as well and not think about it in the same economic calculation of is it worth it to go after this. It's just going to be we're trying to completely undermine the system, and it presents a unfortunately unprecedented Target in what it would have, and it's a little rare that that uh somebody like myself speaking from the the KO Institute, a Libertarian Think Tank, will have room for agreement with officials from the Federal Reserve, but this is even something that the Federal Reserve has come out and said we are deeply concerned about, and it's something that we don't know how to avoid. Thank you, Nick. Um, so, North Carolina just passed House Bill 690, and they did it. They even overrode the governor's veto with a bipartisan override. Thank House Bill 690 in uh North Carolina. They overrode the governor's veto in a bipartisan way, Democrats and

Republicans came together to pass this fairly simple bill. It has a definition of Central Bank digital currency, and then it just says that state agencies, and it has a list, basically shall not be involved with the testing or using a central bank digital currency. Why do you think they did that? First part of the question, and if you could project from short term out to long term, what do you think is your projection as the risk of a central bank digital currency being imposed on us at some point in the future, maybe during a financial crisis or some other event? So, I think specifically on the state level, I think one benefit to take out of there is that if we have states speaking out and saying that they are not going to be involved in this project, they're not going to require it, force it, basically a signal, a kind of unofficial vote of sorts. I will say it seems to be more of an if question now. A few years ago, it felt like a when. Most people were talking

about it as an inevitable, but what you flagged is so important because it used to be that it was inevitable that'll happen no matter what good times or bad times. Now it feels like an if question for at least the good times, but if there's a crisis, heaven forbid, another pandemic, a war, a recession, or what have you, we have seen that the federal government will mobilize quickly, and specifically the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury will mobilize quickly. Both were considering in CBDC during the pandemic, and it was really only by the speed of what was happening, interrupting plans. So, it's very likely that one could be rolled out if a sufficient crisis were to rise. Granted, again, I just want to emphasize that becomes harder and harder with the more people that are speaking out because those concerns have to be addressed if it is to happen. All right, any further questions? Any further questions? Thank you very much for your time, Nick, and you broke, believe it or not, in the 21st century.

that's great super so thank you very much and you're welcome to stick around or drop off. I know you have a flight to catch, but we will continue the conversation here. Thank you so much, and if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me anytime. I'm always happy to lend it. Very good. All right, bye for now. Thank you. All right, uh, I think we, I appreciated having someone who's been thinking about this for years. Great. You want to try your own microphone key? Yeah. Was that turned off? Uh, okay. I think uh, the master switch there. Never mind. Um, if you hit this, just leave it so we can, everybody can talk. There you go. Yeah, okay. Uh, I appreciated the remote testimony. Uh, we might have had a few hiccups for the YouTube stream, but we'll get it worked out next time. Um, any thoughts on uh, how to proceed with our subcommittee recommendation? I think it's just representative M and myself. Yeah, so thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's um, so

If I understand correctly, our only motion to make is to recommend further legislation. I mean, when we exec the bill, I mean, we will have an executive session, and we'll recommend as a full committee, yeah, we'll recommend as a full committee that someone should file another LSR or not, yeah, and that really is a bit non-binding. It is very non-binding. I would say that the current bill 225 is not recommended for future legislation, and mainly because the definitions aren't very well defined, right, um, and then maybe somewhere in the blurb we mentioned that, uh, I mean, this bill would be a lot closer to something that I think might get pasted, the North Carolina, the North Carolina, and that's just the latest version. So maybe, maybe something else will come out between now and filing day, but re-recommend 225 not for future legislation with the caveat, yeah, put it in the blur, in the blur. We can recommend just pointing to this other bill that exists, and that's at least a better-defined bill, yeah, subject matter-wise. I

mean it's important we consider for the reasons I mentioned. Um, I mean it's a pretty high priority that we do what we do in New Hampshire, which is get ahead of the game on these types of issues. I mean, it's important that we do that. That clearly wasn't the right vehicle. It's not the right language. There's some other better language out there. But this committee does it very well when it comes to considering those types of issues ahead of parts of the rest of the country, and we should continue to do that. I think so too. Um, there's talk in the full committee about prophylactic legislation. Haha, prophylactic. Um, but to me, you want to put barriers between incos on our citizens' rights. So, if there's a potential incos on a right, it's good to have a barrier there that needs to be penetrated before the rights are infringed upon, right? So, that proactive right, it's some sure, but we want to do that selectively and carefully, so

Yeah, I agree. All right, so I'll make a motion. Not the subcommittee will recommend not for future recommendation with the caveat. Just at least making people aware of the South, the North Carolina Bill, and any other similar bills that have passed recently. Second. Okay, all right. All in favor? I think it's just me and you, Tim. Oh, well, there we go. I okay. Two to nothing. Anyos? No. Two to nothing. It's amazing what you can do. Take five before we start. Yeah, you want to take five? Yeah, I go to bathroom. All right, we'll take five. E, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e, e,

probably too big of a bite at the Apple because it contained three different sections. It was to make the state declare gold and silver as legal tender, which several other states have done. The second one was the state treasurer would set up a bullion deposit depository, and at least Texas has done that already, so gold bullion depository. And the third thing, which was a little bit of a stretch, was to issue digital tokens as receipts for the bullion. Those digital tokens could be redeemable and exchangeable, and there are gold-backed digital tokens in the marketplace, but just not backed up by a sovereign state, so nobody's done that yet. And in talking with Senator Fora, who has since passed away unfortunately, he died in a windsurfing accident, and has passed. But in talking to him, his concern is about the fact that the federal monetary policy seems to be going off the rails. And just like some current stats, the national debt is 34 plus trillion.

uh over 200,000 per taxpayer. The largest budget item in the federal budget, even higher than National Defense, is the interest on the debt. It's over a trillion dollars, and our deficit spending is almost $2 trillion a year. So, the government is spending $2 trillion more than it takes in every year, and that seems to be accelerating. And so, the thought is that, um, because the federal government has the ability to print new money, they can debase the currency, and that debases the value that they owe, that 34 trillion plus dollars. They can pay it back in dollars that are worth less in the future, and that seems to be the direction that it's going in. How do we protect our citizens from that, uh, process? Senator Foresight was a big sound money guy, and we know in the state con, or in the Federal Constitution, it's in Article 10. It talks about gold and silver being money. Um, you know, that's a very old, so here, here it is. I have it on the screen.

there any make anything so that it says the powers denied to the states they can do the they cannot do these things and they they cannot make anything but gold and silver a tender and payment in debts and so that's the key phrase that other states have picked up on um our committee researcher Kristen has kindly uh given us a list um this is as recent as February so this might have might have changed since but but there are um I'll list a couple of the states that have uh some legal tender laws on the books Arizona Indiana Kansas City um Kansas sorry Louisiana Missouri Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah and West Virginia all have some uh some exemption that take gold and silver and give it the status of legal tender one of the things you notice when you look through this is that a lot of it has to do with exempting from sales and income taxes and so our our state doesn't have a sales or income tax but we do have business taxes so there might be some application for businesses to

transact in gold and silver. I think the demand is probably very low at the current time. Um, so anyway, that's a gist of the original House Bill 16 74. What I did, uh, at our last session right before our executive session, I just carved out the legal tender portion of it. So, I, I whittled it way back, took out the Boolean depository, and took out the digital tokens. Um, those are ideas before their time, in my opinion. Um, and just made it to the legal tender aspect. So, maybe we can just limit our discussion to the legal tender piece of it, and that's, uh, House Amendment 2024-25 3H. That's the amendment that I'm talking about. If you need a copy, I have some copies here. You want to take a minute to read it over? And this, this was sort of mimicking what other states have done. And again, um, I think there's some concerns about, uh, municipalities, uh, accepting gold and silver. And so, so the intention would be to not mandate this, but make it, uh, make

it you know enabling, but I don't know Municipal Association. Do you want to have anything to add? I know you've weighed in before. Yeah, you want to come up, and I'll just when I put this bill in in November 2023. Gold was at $1,900 an ounce, and yesterday it was 2670 20. So it's 40% more, but um, the way to think about it is the value of the dollar has gone down. The purchasing power of that gold stays roughly the same. So that's a really difficult thing for the American mind to comprehend because we're not used to dealing in different currencies. Uh, maybe the old before the EU was established. You would think about uh, you know, exchange rates between countries, but um, so anyway, that's just a a little piece of tribute. Would you like to introduce yourself? Sure, thank you so much. Um, representative aan. My name is Katherine hack. I represent the 234 cities and towns in New Hampshire at the municipal Association, and we did have some

conversations and some testimony around the original Bill and some concerns we had about municipalities being mandated and working with the sponsors. We discussed having it be enabling legislation because, as Representative Aman just pointed out, it would be like trading in foreign currency on a regular basis, and municipalities, especially our smallest communities, are not set up to trade in any type of currency on a daily basis and check prices. And these are tax dollars that we're working with. So, if the price went down one day and we happened to trade because we needed to make payroll, because we were even in under enabling, we could potentially be losing tax dollars in the trade of the exchange of funds, right? So, we also, if it's physical silver and gold, you know, the physical metals, maybe palladium, platinum, whatever it happens to be, we don't have facilities to store them safely. And we are required already by law to bring $1,500 or more to the bank on a daily basis. That's already in

state law. So if you can imagine a small piece of gold, that you know, right, a gold coin, essentially an ounce. We would, and the only place to go would be to conquer to the treasurer. So then we would have to be paying employees mileage and time. So for municipalities, it might be a challenge under any type of mandated system for us to operate safely, effectively, and efficiently, and of course, preserving the principle of the tax dollar. Because there's also costs for trading and spot, and there's all sorts of other logistics as far as a digital currency that would have to be much more understood and socialized for municipalities to understand what their role might be in a digital platform. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anything you'd like to say, Representative Gibbs? Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for coming in. I guess my question is fairly general. Are the cities and towns set up to act as

gold exchanges and calculate the price. Since taxes are calculated in dollars, calculate the worth of if somebody brought in gold coins to pay taxes. Are they set up to calculate the worth um and what would they have to do to be set up that way? So, thank you for your question um that's an excellent question. No, we are not set up that way and we are to purchase silver and gold right now. You'd have to go to a silver and gold dealer. In addition, we don't report um other than payroll taxes to the IRS and anytime you trade in more than $10,000 in Precious Metals, you do have to do reporting to the IRS. So, those would be also additional pieces but essentially someone could come in at 9:00 in the morning and pay something in silver and gold or ask for their paycheck in silver and gold depending whether it's an employer or a taxation and gold could be trading at $2,641 and by the end of the day it

could be higher or lower. And of course, we're decoupled from the US dollar, and we do business based on the value of the US dollar, not based on another commodity. So, because it's a commodity right now, it's in the Commodities market. So again, there would have to be a lot of education and training for a municipality to take that on. And the preservation of your tax dollar maintenance value, of course, is first and foremost on our minds. And a comment as a follow-up. Sure, this is free-for-all. You can okay um I'm uh I I actually am familiar with using different currencies. Most Americans I agree probably aren't, but when I was young, I traveled through uh a lot of small countries one after another after another over a period of a few weeks and was constantly uh working from one currency to another. And what we dealt with were currency exchanges uh that were set up to calculate the value of those currencies one against another or one against the dollar. However, that particular one

worked um so I'm aware of how complex this kind of thing actually is. And considering that gold is traded as a commodity, which uh, well, at that time, the uh Yugoslav uh um, it may have been the darar. I wouldn't swear to it um, whatever the Yugoslav currency was when Yugoslavia existed um, it it wasn't being traded as a commodity in the same way that gold is. So I I could see how that could be a lot more complicated. All right, very good. Thank you for Testimony um. Thank you. So I'm GNA make a recommendation for a motion and a and a report. So see if I can get this out of my. So we're going to recommend that this particular bill is not recommended for future legislation. But um, we may want to consider this amendment for future legislation or at least studying it for future legislation. And what I I guess what I would like to have a better understanding of we just heard. Okay, let me just finish my thought here. We just heard that municipalities

might not be able to manage it. We do have other states that have done this, and they even have sales and income taxes that they have to deal with. So maybe we need to delve a little more into how these other states are handling the concerns that you just raised before we craft legislation. And we would just narrow it down to the legal tender piece as like a stepping stone, as like a potential First Step, but making sure that the municipalities aren't burdened by some unforeseen thing. So recommendation would be not for a future recommendation, the committee report. I'm going to mention studying existing states that have similar, and then referencing this amendment, so at least people can find the amendment, which is the smaller version of the original bill. You want to add to that? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question, and it was actually for the Municipal Association. Well, for both of you, don't, if memory serves, we have a requirement, I thought, in statute already, maybe our committee.

Researcher knows um or somebody here probably already knows. Don't we have a requirement that municipalities have to take cash for payment of certain things, or was it enabling? Was that enabling? I thought we passed that at one point. Does anybody remember? You do know. I don't. You don't know. The city of Concord does take cash. I know this because I once had to pay my property taxes in cash. It was a long story, and I won't bore you, but the city of Concord took cash for property tax. Yes, we are required to take legal tender. Okay, so the follow-up, the follow-up Part B is then um the H. How many gold coins, and it's more than one, how many gold coins are legal tender? I mean certainly the American Eagle is legal tender, and it's a gold coin um, and it's worth more than 50 bucks, which is what's marked on the face value. So in that case, we can take it at its face value. So if it's a $5 coin because it's our exchange at the bank or or 500.

whatever the face value of the coin is, is how we currently have to do business. So for the person handing you that, they would be losing a significant amount of money. MH, right, because I have a gold coin in a necklace. So if I use that as cash, I would only get its face value because I have to go to a Chartered bank or a federally Chartered Bank authorized by the state of New Hampshire to do business. And it's whatever they will give me for that coin, which is its face value right now. Then what do you do with this $1 or $50 face value gold coin that's worth spot value $2,670 at today's spot price? Well, which of the which of the which what what applies that $1,500 got to run it to the bank or the spot price? The face value in this case would apply. Okay, so you drop it until like a $50 bill, right? But in this bill originally, as the sponsor crafted it, municipalities would have been required

to take silver and gold as legal tender right, and that would include the commodity value, not the face value of the coin. And that's where the difference comes in, right? Because a $2 gold coin is just $2 to us, I'm guessing. It doesn't happen all that often that somebody, I would hope that people know what they have in their hand for value and would not. The coin doesn't make it all the way to the bank, right? So we, I have not heard of that in my role. They stop at a pawn shoping. All right, it's possible, sure, sure. All right, so that's a valid concern. So and uh, anyhow, so let's uh, we'll talk about that. Other states have done this and that we should study what their approach was more before um, offering something similar to this amendment or something based off of it as a starting point, something like that. Yeah, well, we should at least offer legislation that, I mean, legal tender is legal tender. People should be able to pay with whatever

legal tender they want to pay with, and it sounds like we already can. And I think, sorry, I think we would want to find out in addition to whether they've actually enacted it, which, you know, I understand some states have, whether anybody is actually doing it, whether anybody is walking into a city tax office with gold coins to pay their property taxes, whether that's actually happened. Yeah, probably rarely. But it is very, you mentioned the face value of the coins, and just think about the disconnect between what that actual face value used to be and the value of the metal that's in the coin. It's drastically, there's a big, it kind of illustrates how the dollar is going down in value, each individual unit. So anyway, we won't beat that horse to death anymore. So I'll make a motion to, I'll just restate what I was going to write in the committee report, subcommittee report, not recommended for future legislation for House Bill 1674. We need to study other states that

have passed legal tender or species legal tender as specific bills, uh, and we have a list of them. And then, if we're going to move forward, potentially looking at amendment 2 2024 d373 as a starting point, uh, and implementing anything we find in researching these other states. Second, all right, hopefully, I said that correctly, but you did. All right, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right, two to zero, and we're done. Thank you very much for

House Commerce and Consumer Affairs (10/01/2024)

NH House of Representatives Committee Streaming

하원 법안 225: 해로운 통화 사용 금지

벨처 의원이 발의한 하원 법안 225는 프라이버시 권리를 위협하는 화폐를 금지하는 것을 목표로 합니다.

이 법안은 문구에 대한 비판에 직면해 있으며 현재 더 나은 표현을 위해 중간 연구 중입니다.

전문가 닉 앤서니는 금융 거래의 중앙 집중화, 금융 프라이버시와 자유에 대한 위협 등 중앙은행 디지털 화폐(CBDC)의 잠재적 위험성에 대해 강조합니다.

CBDC를 전면 금지하면 집행 및 개인정보 보호 문제가 제기되고, 주법에 따라 분류하면 법적 보호가 거부됩니다.

세 번째 옵션은 시민의 자유를 보호하기 위해 주 정부 기관의 CBDC 프로그램 참여를 제한하는 것입니다.

모든 옵션은 우월권 조항의 도전에 직면하지만, 주 공무원은 연방 차원에서 시민의 우려에 대한 인식을 제고하고 옹호할 수도 있습니다.

중앙은행 디지털 화폐(CBDC)의 도입은 나이지리아와 바하마와 같은 국가에서 사용량이 미미한 등 낮은 채택률에 직면해 있습니다.

바하마 정부는 현재 채택률을 높이기 위해 은행에 CBDC를 배포하도록 강제하고 있습니다.

바하마의 가맹점들은 새로운 결제 시스템을 도입하기를 꺼려하고 있으며, 이로 인해 디지털 화폐를 사용하려는 고객들이 동전 던지기를 하는 상황이 발생하고 있습니다.

은행과 연방 정부에 대한 신뢰와 중앙은행 디지털 화폐의 영향

화자는 은행에 대한 불신을 표명하며 최소한의 정보만 공유하는 것을 선호하는 반면, 연방 정부는 이전 직장을 통해 은행에 대한 모든 것을 알고 있다고 말합니다.

이들은 모든 사람의 정보를 연방 데이터베이스에 중앙 집중화할 경우 해커와 적의 표적이 될 수 있다는 점을 우려하며 그 위험성에 대해 우려하고 있습니다.

주정부 기관이 중앙은행 디지털 화폐를 테스트하거나 사용하는 것을 금지하는 하원 법안 690이 초당적으로 통과된 것은 노스캐롤라이나의 디지털 화폐 도입 가능성에 반대하는 의미 있는 발언으로 여겨지며, 연설자는 위기가 닥치면 출시로 이어질 수 있다고 예상했습니다.

소위원회는 향후 입법에 대한 권고안을 논의한 결과, 법안 225는 정의가 명확하지 않아 권고하지 않기로 결정했습니다.

위원들은 시민의 권리를 보호하기 위한 사전 예방적 입법의 중요성을 강조하며 노스캐롤라이나의 법안과 같이 보다 명확하게 정의된 법안을 고려할 필요성을 언급했습니다.

회의는 법안 225에 대한 반대 권고와 함께 최근 통과된 유사한 법안에 대한 경각심을 고취하는 것으로 마무리되었습니다.

연방 정부의 부채 이자는 1조 달러가 넘는 가장 큰 예산 항목으로, 매년 2조 달러에 가까운 적자 지출을 하고 있습니다.

일부 주에서는 정부의 통화 절하 능력에 대응하여 금과 은에 법정 화폐의 지위를 부여하는 법정 화폐법을 제정했습니다.

제안된 하원 수정안은 기업이 금과 은으로 거래할 수 있도록 하는 것을 목표로 하지만, 실현 가능성과 지방 자치 단체의 잠재적 재정 위험에 대한 우려가 있습니다.

금을 통화로 취급하는 지자체의 과제

지자체는 직원 비용과 디지털 화폐에 대한 이해도 향상 필요성 등 금 거래 의무화 시스템을 운영하는 데 어려움을 겪고 있습니다.

현재 지자체는 금 거래소 역할을 하거나 세금 납부를 위한 금의 가치를 계산하도록 설정되어 있지 않습니다.

이러한 시스템을 구현하려면 상당한 교육과 훈련이 필요할 뿐만 아니라 귀금속 거래에 대한 IRS 신고 요건도 해결해야 합니다.

지자체에서는 현금을 포함한 법정 화폐를 결제 수단으로 사용해야 합니다.

아메리칸 이글과 같은 금화도 법정 화폐로 간주되지만 액면가가 실제 가치를 반영하지 못할 수 있습니다.

이 논의는 동전의 액면가와 상품 가치 사이의 괴리를 강조하며, 법정 화폐 법안에 대한 다른 주의 접근 방식에 대한 추가 연구가 필요함을 시사합니다.