[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8110-H8116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CORRECTIONS CALENDAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is the day for the call of the 
Corrections Calendar.
  The Clerk will call the bill on the Corrections Calendar.

[[Page H8111]]



                  SAVINGS IN CONSTRUCTION ACT OF 1996

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2779) to provide for soft-metric 
conversion, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 2779

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Savings in Construction Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 was enacted in order 
     to set forth the policy of the United States to convert to 
     the metric system. Section 3 of that Act requires that each 
     Federal agency use the metric system of measurement in its 
     procurements, grants and other business related activities, 
     unless that use is likely to cause significant cost or loss 
     of markets to United States firms, such as when foreign 
     competitors are producing competing products in non-metric 
     units.
       (2) Currently, many Federal construction contracting 
     officers are requiring as a condition of obtaining Federal 
     contracts that all bidders must agree to use products 
     measured in round metric units, materials which are known as 
     ``hard-metric'' products. This requires retooling, 
     substantial capitalization costs, and other expensive 
     production changes for most construction firms and suppliers 
     to physically change the size of the product.
       (3) This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement is often 
     being imposed only for the purpose of achieving rounded 
     numbers, and without regard to whether that method is 
     impractical or likely to cause significant costs or a loss of 
     markets to United States firms.
       (4) United States businesses that manufacture basic 
     construction products suffer great upheaval by being forced 
     to either convert to hard-metric production, or be foreclosed 
     from effectively bidding on Federal or federally assisted 
     projects.
       (5) This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement places 
     domestic producers at a competitive disadvantage with respect 
     to foreign producers; reduces the number of companies that 
     may compete for contracts with the Federal Government; and 
     forces manufacturers to maintain double inventories of 
     similar but incompatible products.
       (6) This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement raises the 
     cost to taxpayers of Federal construction projects, since the 
     Federal Government is often required to pay additional costs, 
     known as a ``metric premium,'' to procure hard-metric 
     products.
       (7) ``Soft-metric'' conversion would be a less costly and 
     less intrusive way of meeting the goals of Section 3 of the 
     Metric Conversion Act of 1975. The product itself would 
     remain the same size; its dimensions simply would be 
     expressed in metric units.
       (8) As the application of the soft-metric conversion 
     mandates no change in the size of the product, the goals of 
     the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 will be achieved without 
     excessive economic upheaval.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 4 of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 
     205c) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (3), (6), and (8), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) `domestic manufacturer' means a manufacturer at least 
     51 percent of whose production occurs in the United 
     States;'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3), as so redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section, the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) `hard-metric product' means a material or product 
     that is--
       ``(A) produced as a result of a hard-metric conversion; or
       ``(B) identical to a material or product described in 
     subparagraph (A), although originally produced in metric-
     based dimensions;
       ``(5) `hard-metric conversion' means a conversion that 
     requires, in addition to the expression of the dimensions of 
     a product under the metric system of measurement, a physical 
     change in the size of that product relative to the size of 
     that product established under existing production practices 
     of the appropriate industry;'';
       (4) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6), as so 
     redesignated by paragraph (1) of this section;
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (6), as so redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) of this section, the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) `industry' has the meaning provided that term by the 
     Board by regulation;'';
       (6) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8), as 
     so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this section, and 
     inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(9) `soft-metric product' means a material or product 
     that is produced as a result of a soft-metric conversion;
       ``(10) `soft-metric conversion' means a conversion that 
     requires the expression of the dimensions of a product under 
     the metric system of measurement without changing the 
     physical size of the product relative to the size of that 
     product established under existing production practices of 
     the appropriate industry; and
       ``(11) `small business' means a business that would be a 
     small business under the Standard Industrial Classification 
     codes and size standards in section 121.601 of title 13 of 
     the Code of Federal Regulations as in effect on the date of 
     the enactment of this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 4. METRIC CONVERSION.

       Section 12 of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 
     205j-1) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof the following new subsections:
       ``(b) No agency of the Federal Government may develop, 
     implement, or continue the use of construction design or 
     procurement guidelines that require the use of a hard-metric 
     product if a majority of the contracts that would be proposed 
     pursuant to such guidelines would be likely to result in a 
     certification described in subsection (c)(3)(A).
       ``(c) No agency of the Federal Government may establish or 
     apply a bidding requirement or preference with respect to any 
     federally assisted construction contract that specifies the 
     use of a hard-metric product if--
       ``(1) the use of soft-metric product is technologically 
     feasible; and
       ``(2) an appropriate representative (as selected pursuant 
     to subsection (d) of the industry that manufactures the 
     product) notifies the agency, within 30 days after enactment 
     of this Act, that the representative makes certification or 
     intends to make certification under paragraph (3)(A); and 
     either--
       ``(3) the certification establishes or will establish 
     that--
       ``(A) such industry-specific or product-specific factors 
     exist that--
       ``(i)(I) the product is not readily available as a hard-
     metric product from 50 percent or more of the domestic 
     manufacturers in the United States; or
       ``(II) a hard-metric product does not constitute 50 percent 
     or more of the total production of that product by that 
     industry;
       ``(ii) a hard-metric conversion would require domestic 
     manufacturers that are small businesses that produce the 
     product to incur capital outlays in an average amount greater 
     than $25,000 per manufacturer to invest in new equipment to 
     produce a hard-metric product; and
       ``(iii)(I) based on the economic situation and customs of 
     the industry, any potential offsetting benefits that could be 
     achieved by that industry by carrying out a hard metric 
     conversion to produce that product would be negligible or
       ``(II) hard metric conversion would substantially reduce 
     competition for Federal contracts and increase by 1 percent 
     or more the per unit cost of that product; or
       ``(III) hard metric conversion would create a special 
     hardship with respect to domestic manufacturers that are 
     small businesses by placing those manufacturers at a 
     competitive disadvantage with respect to foreign competitors; 
     or
       ``(4) less that 180 days have elapsed after the appropriate 
     representative has been notified of a proposed contract 
     specifying hard-metric product.
       ``(d) The head of each agency of the Federal Government 
     shall establish a list of appropriate representatives of each 
     industry that may make a certification under subsection 
     (c)(3)(A). The agency head shall update that list on an 
     annual basis. The list shall include appropriate professional 
     or trade associations that are recognized as representing the 
     industries.
       ``(e) When an appropriate representative submits a 
     certification under subsection (c)(3)(A), the representative 
     shall also submit a list of domestic manufacturers that have 
     the capability to manufacture the product that is the subject 
     of the certification as a soft-metric product.''.


           committee amendment in the nature of a substitute

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: strike 
     out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Savings in Construction Act 
     of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 was enacted in order 
     to set forth the policy of the United States to convert to 
     the metric system. Section 3 of that Act requires that each 
     Federal agency use the metric system of measurement in its 
     procurements, grants and other business related activities, 
     unless that use is likely to cause significant cost or loss 
     of markets to United States firms, such as when foreign 
     competitors are producing competing products in non-metric 
     units.
       (2) Currently, many Federal agencies are requiring as a 
     condition of obtaining Federal construction contracts that 
     all bidders must agree to use products measured in round 
     metric units, materials which are known as ``hard-metric'' 
     products. This can require retooling, substantial 
     capitalization costs, and other expensive production 
     changes for some suppliers to physically change the size 
     of the product.
       (3) This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement has 
     sometimes been imposed without

[[Page H8112]]

     appropriate regard to whether that method is impractical or 
     likely to cause significant costs or a loss of markets to 
     United States firms.
       (4) Some United States businesses that manufacture basic 
     construction products suffer harm by being forced to convert 
     to hard-metric production, or by being foreclosed from 
     effectively bidding on Federal or federally assisted 
     projects.
       (5) This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement may place 
     domestic producers at a competitive disadvantage with respect 
     to foreign producers; may reduce the number of companies that 
     may compete for contracts with the Federal Government; and 
     may force manufacturers to maintain double inventories of 
     similar but incompatible products.
       (6) This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement has 
     unnecessarily raised the cost to the Government of some 
     lighting and concrete masonry products and there is consensus 
     that relief is in order.
       (7) While the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 currently 
     provides an exception to metric usage when impractical or 
     when it will cause economic inefficiencies, there is need for 
     ombudsmen and procedures to ensure the effective 
     implementation of the exceptions.
       (8) The changes made by this Act will advance the goals of 
     the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 while eliminating 
     significant problems in its implementation.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 4 of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 
     205c) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (3), (6), and (7), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) `converted product' means a material or product that 
     is produced as a result of a hard-metric conversion;'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(4) `hard-metric' means measurement, design, and 
     manufacture using the metric system of measurement, but does 
     not include measurement, design, and manufacture using 
     English system measurement units which are subsequently 
     reexpressed in the metric system of measurement;
       ``(5) `hard-metric conversion' means a conversion that 
     requires, in addition to the expression of the linear 
     dimensions of a product under the metric system of 
     measurement, a physical change in the size of that product 
     relative to the size of that product established under the 
     system of English measurements in production practices of the 
     appropriate industry;'';
       (4) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6), as so 
     redesignated by paragraph (1) of this section;
       (5) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7), as 
     so redesignated by paragraph (1) of this section, and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) `small business' has the meaning given the term 
     `small business concern' in section 3 of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 632).''.

     SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION EXCEPTIONS.

       The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 205a et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 11 the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 12. (a) In carrying out the policy set forth in 
     section 3 (with particular emphasis on the policy set forth 
     in paragraph (2) of that section) a Federal agency may 
     require that specifications for structures or systems of 
     concrete masonry be expressed under the metric system of 
     measurement, but may not require that concrete masonry units 
     be converted products.
       ``(b) In carrying out the policy set forth in section 3 
     (with particular emphasis on the policy set forth in 
     paragraph (2) of that section) a Federal agency may not 
     require that lighting fixtures be converted products unless 
     the predominant voluntary industry consensus standards are 
     hard-metric.''.

     SEC. 5. OMBUDSMAN.

       Section 12 of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as added 
     by section 4 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) The head of each executive agency that awards 
     construction contracts shall designate a senior agency 
     official to serve as a construction metrication ombudsman who 
     shall be responsible for reviewing and responding to 
     complaints from prospective bidders, subcontractors, 
     suppliers, or their designated representatives related 
     to--
       ``(A) guidance or regulations issued by the agency on the 
     use of the metric system of measurement in construction 
     contracts; and
       ``(B) the use of the metric system of measurement for 
     products or materials required for incorporation in 
     individual construction projects.

     The construction metrication ombudsman shall be independent 
     of the contracting officer for construction contracts.
       ``(2) The ombudsman shall be responsible for ensuring that 
     the agency is not implementing the metric system of 
     measurement in a manner that is impractical or is likely to 
     cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United 
     States firms in violation of the policy stated in section 
     3(2), or is otherwise inconsistent with guidance issued by 
     the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the 
     Interagency Council on Metric Policy.
       ``(3) The ombudsman shall respond to each complaint in 
     writing within 30 days and make a recommendation to the head 
     of the executive agency for an appropriate resolution 
     thereto. In such a recommendation, the ombudsman shall 
     consider--
       ``(A) the availability of converted products and hard 
     metric production capacity of United States firms, or lack 
     thereof;
       ``(B) retooling costs and capital investment impacts;
       ``(C) the impact on small business;
       ``(D) the impact on trade;
       ``(E) the impact on competition for Federal contracts;
       ``(F) the impact on jobs;
       ``(G) the impact on the competitiveness of United States 
     firms; and
       ``(H) the cost to the Federal Government.
       ``(4) After the head of the agency has rendered a decision 
     regarding a recommendation of the ombudsman, the ombudsman 
     shall be responsible for communicating the decision to all 
     appropriate policy, design, planning, procurement, and 
     notifying personnel in the agency. The ombudsman shall 
     conduct appropriate monitoring as required to ensure the 
     decision is implemented, and may submit further 
     recommendations, as needed. The head of the agency's decision 
     on the ombudsman's recommendations, and any supporting 
     documentation, shall be provided to affected parties and made 
     available to the public in a timely manner.''.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to provide for 
     appropriate implementation of the Metric Conversion Act of 
     1975 in Federal construction projects, and for other 
     purposes.''.

  Mrs. MORELLA (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. 
McCarthy] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Science has reported H.R. 2779, the 
Savings in Construction Act of 1996, introduced by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] to the House for its consideration under the 
Corrections Day Calendar.
  H.R. 2779 provides for the appropriate implementation of the Metric 
Conversion Act of 1975 in Federal construction projects. The Metric 
Conversion Act, as amended, requires that all Federal agencies use the 
metric system in procurements, grants, and other business-related 
activities, except when such use is impractical or is likely to cause 
significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms.
  In the implementation of the act, however, certain American 
construction industries have suffered an adverse economic impact and 
the government has had to incur additional costs for using metric in 
certain Federal construction projects. Therefore, there is a need to 
correct the Metric Conversion Act by providing for flexibility in its 
implementation.
  With H.R. 2779 we can achieve the goals of the act in Federal 
construction projects without closing project bids to American 
companies, especially small manufacturers who do not export and who 
cannot afford to retool their production facilities at great cost to 
produce products which are identical except for a slight change in 
size.
  The Committee on Science has heard testimony from these affected 
companies that, under the current implementation of the act, domestic 
producers are at a competitive disadvantage with respect to foreign 
metric producers. The number of companies that compete for contracts 
with the Federal Government are reduced and manufacturers are forced to 
maintain double inventories of similar but incompatible products.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology which has 
jurisdiction over our Nation's technology and competitiveness policy, I 
am a strong supporter of encouraging the use of the metric system in 
the interests of our Nation's industrial competitiveness in world 
markets. Despite our current laws to promote metric, the United States 
still remains the only major industrialized country in the world which 
does not predominantly use metric as the standard measurement system.
  Converting to the metric system is a goal that Congress has wisely 
decided

[[Page H8113]]

and should be fully supported. We must continue to promote, sensibly 
and as vigorously as possible, the metric system to advance our 
Nation's long-term international competitiveness.
  H.R. 2779 is a bill worthy of our support because it balances the 
need for the Federal Government to maintain our current efforts to 
promote metric while providing for appropriate implementation of the 
Metric Conversion Act in Federal construction projects.
  Specifically, H.R. 2779 provides specific recourse for the concrete, 
masonry, and lighting industries in the implementation of the act. The 
record of the Committee on Science hearing on this bill is clear, that 
these two industries are suffering a demonstrated adverse economic 
impact under the Metric Conversion Act which necessitates immediate 
relief.
  Second, the bill provides a mechanism through the appointment of an 
ombudsman in each executive branch agency for other afflicted 
industries to gain such relief in the future if in fact needed. The 
ombudsman would be obligated to balance harm to the industry and 
objectively apply the flexibility of the existing law to alleviate 
hardship.
  I want to commend the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox], for his corrective legislation providing for this 
less costly and less intrusive method of meeting the goals of the 
Metric Conversion Act.
  I also want to recognize the chairman of the Committee on Science, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the committee's ranking 
member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], and the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Technology, the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Tanner] for their bipartisan efforts in reporting this legislation 
to the House, and also the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], 
who is a member of the Subcommittee on Technology, who is handling this 
bill across the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2779, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend our subcommittee chairwoman, the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], for her efforts on behalf of H.R. 2779; 
in addition, our ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Tanner], who worked diligently to make this truly a substantial 
bipartisan effort that shows the results of a great deal of hard work 
on the part of members on both sides of the aisle of the Committee on 
Science and on the subcommittee, as well as the staffs of the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy, the Department of Commerce, and the General 
Services Administration.
  While there are areas where we hope the Senate will clarify our 
actions, the problems with the original text that led the 
administration initially to oppose the legislation, these areas have 
been resolved, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate the flexibility of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], who has shown that the can be 
flexible in these matters. He did not object to the current version as 
the administration sought, and we heartily support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include as a general leave statement for the 
Record the more detailed views of the Committee on Science's ranking 
Democratic member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], who has 
been a leader on metric issues for over two decades.
  Mr. Speaker, the current version of H.R. 2779, the Savings in 
Construction Act, deserves the bipartisan support of this body, and 
while the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], in his support, 
believes that the Committee on science's actions have improved H.R. 
2779 substantially, he, too, wishes that we use this legislation as an 
opportunity to develop a more imaginative approach to measurements and 
policy questions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me. Also, I thank the members of the minority for 
their kind comments and, more importantly, their hard work in support 
of a very worthwhile venture.
  I think it is also important to underscore that almost to a person on 
the Committee on Science, and I think throughout our House of 
Representatives and the other body, we are supporters of the eventual 
conversion of the United States to the metric system. This is a 
decision taken by Congress in 1975. It is a course to which we are 
committed. It is an irrevocable course.
  But it has been 8 years since Congress evaluated our progress in 
converting to the metric system: how well it is going, where are the 
shortcomings, and what is our long suit. We have found some successes, 
but also some problems. This bill, I think, will help the conversion to 
the metric system and deal with a significant problem.
  Mr. Speaker, while many of us in Congress, and I think, as I said, 
almost all of us in Congress do support this conversion to the metric 
system, I should also point out that there are opponents. There are 
people who for reasons of history, heritage, or perhaps even romance 
are more attached to the system of pounds and ounces and inches and 
feet that we all have become so accustomed to here in America.
  It is, in fact, very personal. I define myself as a person who weighs 
170 pounds. I am 5 feet 10 inches tall. I took a run for 4 miles. These 
are parts of our daily experience. It is a very personal matter. The 
truth is, almost the entire world outside of the United States would 
not define me that way. They are using a more efficient system, 
frankly, of meters and grams. This is a good thing.
  We can learn from history. Back when the Moors in Spain were 
introducing what we now call Arabic numerals to Europe, there was great 
resistance to that, because Roman numerals were in use everywhere. The 
trouble was, you could not add up Roman numbers. You could not put them 
in columns the way you can with Arabic numerals.
  Despite the great convenience of the new system of Arabic numerals, 
there was great suspicion. The change was resisted, indeed for 
centuries, by European society. Some quarters thought Arabic numerals 
were, in fact, the work of the devil. But it was the shopkeepers, the 
traders, and the merchants who had to add up the numbers every day who 
eventually caused society to convert. That is the lesson of history 
that we need to be mindful of here today.
  It will be our market system, our global trading environment, that 
will succeed in converting American industry and American consumers, 
eventually, to the metric system. It will not be sheer government 
edict.
  Today with this legislation, the Savings in Construction Act, we are 
not at all backing away from the metric system. We are saying that we 
still want people who bid on Federal construction jobs to offer their 
bids in metric, but we are taking advantage of one of the features of 
the metric system that makes it so superior to our old system of feet 
and inches and so on that work on different bases than base 10.

                              {time}  1100

  If we have a base 10 system like the metric system, you can work 
marvelously well in fractions. The government, up until today, was 
telling some bidders on Federal contracts not only do they have to use 
the metric system but everything had to be in a round number. So every 
block, every board, every shingle, every tile, every fixture, every 
window would have to be in a round metric unit.
  What business is it of government whether the American people in 
their commerce use round numbers or not for every measurement? It is 
good enough that they are using metric measurements as well as the old 
system of pounds and ounces and feet and yards, and so on. Rather than 
require whole plants to retool, to remanufacture these blocks and tiles 
and lighting fixtures, and so on, we are letting the government say, as 
purchaser, if it will save the taxpayers a lot of money not to have a 
wholesale retooling, then we are going to save the money.
  We had an experience with a Federal courthouse where out of roughly 
$100 million, 20 percent was going to be added cost from having 
building supplies furnished in round metric units.

[[Page H8114]]

So today we are saying occasionally you can use fractions. As over time 
our industries are more and more competitive in the global environment, 
when they discover that their customers in France or in Germany or 
Japan will not buy things unless they are manufactured in metric, then 
of course that conversion will be brought about through the market. The 
government here is being very wise for a change. We are correcting 
significant government errors and mistakes that have occurred and cost 
jobs in many, many industries.

  I would just like to draw to my colleagues' attention one example of 
a firm in Wilmington, MA, a small company called Lightolier of 
Wilmington that has manufactured light fixtures for 70 years. They 
employ about 200 people. The general manager of the plant told a local 
newspaper that their equipment could not produce fixtures in round 
metric units unless they retooled it at a cost of about $4.5 million. 
But they did not have $4.5 million in a plant of 200 workers. So their 
alternative was not to bid at all on these jobs. Because they would 
lose the work, they also would lose the jobs.
  Of course, our foreign competitors do not have this problem over in 
Germany or Japan. So what government was doing was giving foreign 
competitors an advantage over our United States firms. This was a 
mistake. It is a mistake that we will fix with our legislation today. 
We will save a great deal of money in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend once again our chairman, our ranking 
member, and all of the people who worked so hard on this, but most of 
all the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], for making this 
corrections day bill such a success. I expect that it will pass with 
flying colors.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, 
and I applaud her leadership and the leadership of the gentleman from 
California in getting this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2779, the Soft Metric 
Conversion Act of 1996. This bill clarifies the 1975 Metric Act that 
required Federal construction projects to use a hard metric system. 
This bill enables companies that use soft metric conversion over hard 
metric conversion where applicable, and this will save many jobs in our 
country.
  The 1975 act mandated the use of government-specific hard metric, 
custom sized products. Often these mandated products would have no 
market use at all except for the Federal Government. It would require 
retooling and the purchase of new expensive machinery by firms wishing 
to enter into a contract with the Federal Government. Many U.S. firms 
are unable to meet these increased costs of retooling, which are 15 to 
20 percent higher than the standard method used now. These firms are 
missing out on the opportunity to do business with the Federal 
Government.
  As the gentleman from California mentioned, one such company is in my 
district, the Lightolier Co., a company that makes light fixtures and 
is located in Wilmington, MA and employs 200 people. Recently I toured 
Lightolier and met with many of the employees there. Lightolier cannot 
afford the multi-million dollar cost of retooling to these arbitrary 
requirements.
  In the past Lightolier had a steady flow of Federal Government 
contracts. Currently the company has had to turn down opportunities to 
bid on these contracts that require this hard metric conversion. 
Recently the company had to lay off 35 people.
  If the Federal Government had not required these hard metric 
conversion standards, Lightolier may have been able to keep these jobs 
through secured Federal contracts. This bill when it passes will allow 
companies like Lightolier to be competitive again and bid on contracts 
with the Federal Government.
  In addition to that, another interesting point that was mentioned in 
Lightolier had asked their competitors over the border in Canada what 
standard would you adopt, because Canada has obviously been in the 
metric system for some time. They said that the Canadian competition 
would still be manufacturing to the same size that Lightolier had been 
prohibited from submitting as a bid to the Federal Government.
  The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers estimates that 
H.R. 2779 will have an impact on 25,000 American jobs that would be 
threatened otherwise.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to correct this problem and pass 
this bill today.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for 
her leadership and for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Savings in 
Construction Act, which I am pleased to have cosponsored along with my 
friend from California. This bill is consistent with bringing back 
common sense to regulations regarding metric design and labeling of 
products used in new Federal construction.
  The fundamental issue here involves whether to require soft metric 
conversion where inches are converted to millimeters or centimeters on 
existing products or to require hard metric conversion where products 
must be redesigned to arrive at rounded metric dimensions.
  Under current GSA regulations, manufacturers of a few products, such 
as concrete blocks and lighting fixtures, must produce their products 
in hard metric dimensions for Federal construction. To illustrate, a 
typical fluorescent lighting fixture is 4 feet by 2 feet. Tens of 
millions of these fixtures are used throughout the United States in 
these dimensions. Soft metric conversion would mean relabeling these 
lighting fixtures as 609.6 millimeters by 304.8 millimeters, a simple 
and inexpensive approach.
  Instead, this industry is being required--as a condition of doing 
business with the Government--to completely retool their operations to 
produce fixtures in hard metric, measuring 600 by 300 millimeters, and 
only for products used in Federal construction projects. The products 
are not any better, but they just sound better to the Federal 
regulators.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has already seen fit to provide exceptions in 
the amended Metric Conversion Act to this hard metric requirement when 
production costs for hard metric conversion were too high. This bill 
simply puts teeth into these exceptions by providing a mechanism by 
which soft metric standards can be substituted.
  Without this legislation, bids on all Federal projects for these 
products will be left to only a very few of the largest manufacturers, 
leaving a very in competitive marketplace. In other words, this 
corrections day bill is good for competition and will save money for 
the taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, it is commonsense legislation, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], who actually chaired the task force on 
corrections day.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 2779, the 
17th bill brought to the floor this session under the corrections day 
process.
  The Corrections Day Calendar has just passed its first year 
anniversary. Since the commencement of corrections day, eight bills 
have been signed into law by the President, and eight bills have passed 
the House and are waiting further action in the Senate. I believe we 
are compiling a record of success, and that the Corrections Calendar 
will continue to be relied upon by the House.
  The American people are demanding a more responsive Government, and 
corrections day is a key part in meeting their demands. H.R. 2779, the 
Soft Metric Conversion Act, would prohibit agencies from requiring 
contractors to convert masonry and lighting fixtures into hard metric 
sizes. This legislation would provide specific relief to the concrete 
masonry and lighting industries that have suffered an adverse economic

[[Page H8115]]

impact under the Metric Conversion Act of 1975. I believe that the bill 
we are considering today is a good example of how the corrections day 
process works to correct outdated regulations that place financial 
burdens on many industries in the United States.
  I would like to thank the members of the Corrections Day Advisory 
Group. I also want to recognize Chairman Walker, Mr. Cox, and the 
Science Committee for the expedient and hard work they did to get this 
bill to the floor. I am hopeful that the Senate will recognize the need 
for quick action and send this bill to the President without delay.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert], who is the vice chair of the Subcommittee on 
Technology of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Chris 
Cox, for his foresight and hard work on this important piece of 
legislation. In addition, I would also thank subcommittee Chair Morella 
for shepherding this bill through the Science Committee.
  In many cases hard metric conversion requires plants to retool their 
facilities to produce a product that is in no way improved. It is 
merely a slightly different dimension.
  In the construction industry, virtually no domestic U.S. 
manufacturers produce hard metric products.
  Only Canadian and other foreign firms have the production capacity to 
produce sufficient hard metric products.
  H.R. 2779 would put teeth into the Metric Conversion Act's 
impractical, inefficient, loss of markets limitation by providing a 
mechanism by which a soft metric standard could be substituted when 
problems arise.
  It does not seek to prevent a metric conversion for Federal projects. 
This bill clarifies the law to more closely pursue its intent, 
providing for the most efficient and least costly conversion possible.
  H.R. 2779 has broad bipartisan support. Vice President Gore's 
National Performance Review recommended that Federal agencies avoid 
Government-unique products and requirements due to excessive expense 
and delays.
  H.R. 2779 will do just that. It will eliminate the burdensome hard 
metric requirement in Federal construction. This alone will reduce 
Federal construction costs by 15 to 20 percent.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan proposal.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland and I particularly appreciate the gentleman 
from California who introduced this bill. I was very proud to cosponsor 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is another of the commonsense reforms that this 
Congress is trying to make with laws that we have on the books right 
now. This is simply a way to look at a law that really is not just an 
inconvenience on those folks who are trying to bid on Federal projects, 
but it is an inconvenience and a mandate on those folks that really 
causes an increase in cost to the ultimate consumer, which is the 
taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I ask its passage.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cox] for this support of the metric system, and again all who 
worked on the Committee on Science and various agencies, for coming 
together in this bipartisan effort.
  As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], a member of our 
Committee on Science, so eloquently pointed out during our committee 
deliberations on this bill, our Nation's failure to adopt the metric 
system of measurement in a timely manner has cost United States 
companies millions of dollars in lost trade opportunities. This 
situation is ongoing and it has the potential to get worse.
  We need to work together for effective metric conversion to close the 
trade imbalance that now exists. We can increasingly expect our trading 
partners to require American exports to their countries to be designed 
and manufactured using the internationally accepted metric system of 
measurement.
  H.R. 2779 exempts small companies from metric usage, and this 
approach is just one possible solution to the one that represents a 
can't-do rather than a can-do attitude. With more time, we could look 
for ways to solve problems while advancing the cause of metrication. We 
need to continue to work together to help small businesses to 
participate in international trade.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Senate will have the time to make a 
conscious effort to improve our work on this bill. Then we will be able 
to feel comfortable that the entire Congress did its best to meet the 
long-term needs of the companies we are trying to help. I urge support 
of this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to commend the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cox] for authoring this bill, and the Subcommittee on Technology 
for working in such a bipartisan manner, the full Committee on Science, 
the corrections committee, and urge my colleagues to support a good 
bipartisan bill that is certainly going to assist a number of the 
companies in our great country.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2779, the Savings in Construction Act. I'd like to thank our 
distinguished chairs, Mrs. Morella and Mr. Walker, as well as Ranking 
Member Brown for moving this bill quickly through the Science 
Committee.
  Most of all, I'd like to thank my good friend, the chairman of the 
Republican Policy Committee, Mr. Cox, for all his hard work on this 
legislation. When the gentleman from California learned about the 
thousands of American jobs that could be lost, and the millions of tax 
dollars that would be wasted pursuing a hard metric standard, he 
responded by crafting this commonsense, bipartisan piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, as part of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, the 
Congress required each Federal agency to ``use the metric system of 
measurement in its procurements, grants, and other business related 
activities'' but with the important exception of not mandating its use 
when ``such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant 
inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms.'' Thus, under 
this law, it seems clear that Federal agencies should seek to use a 
soft metric standard--for example, requiring that building materials be 
measured in metric units. This is certainly a reasonable policy.
  However, a number of Federal agencies have exceeded the intent of the 
Metric Conversion Act and are now seeking to apply a universal hard 
metric standard to purchases of certain construction materials by the 
Federal Government. A hard metric standard stipulates that not only 
must materials be measured in the metric system, but that they must 
also be manufactured in round metric dimensions. In many cases, this 
would require plants manufacturing construction materials to completely 
retool their production facilities, and rework their product line to 
produce a product with slightly different dimensions.
  This expensive process would satisfy only the needs and desires of a 
few Government bureaucrats, not the demands of the free market. Since 
Federal contracts account for only about 5 percent of the construction 
industry, only the biggest firms will go to the expense of retooling. 
This would effectively eliminate hundreds of American small businesses 
from competition for Federal contracts. The exclusion of these small 
businesses from the market will result in less competition, fewer bids 
on contracts, and greater costs to the American taxpayer. What's worse, 
in seeking to apply a hard metric standard, some Federal agencies are 
ignoring the direct warning of the Metric Act not to do so in cases 
where it would be impractical, inefficient, or result in a potential 
loss of markets.
  Mr. Speaker, through the corrections process, H.R. 2779 addresses 
this problem by taking the existing metric law and giving it teeth. It 
requires the Government to use common sense in its purchasing 
decisions, and allows the free market to play a bigger role. It will 
prevent Federal bureaucrats from arbitrarily imposing a hard metric 
requirement for Federal contracts on key industries providing 
construction materials for Federal construction projects. It also 
creates the position of metric ombudsman, who will make decisions 
regarding future metric implementation using some basis commonsense 
standards: the availability of hard metric products, the impact on 
American jobs, the competitiveness of American firms, and the cost to 
the United States taxpayer.

[[Page H8116]]

  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this commonsense legislation. By passing H.R. 2779, Congress 
can act to enhance the competitiveness of American industry, protect 
small businesses, save thousands of union jobs from foreign 
competition, and save the American taxpayer money. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bipartisan bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed emotions on 
the bill H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act. While I believe 
that the Science Committee's actions have improved H.R. 2779 
substantially, I regret that we did not use this legislation to develop 
a more imaginative approach to measurement policy questions.
  At the outset, I also want to make sure our colleague from Tennessee, 
Mr. Tanner receives credit for the pivotal role he played in the 
improvements in H.R. 2779. His March 5 letter to Under Secretary of 
Commerce Mary Good, which was co-signed by most of the other committee 
Democrats, began the chain of events which has permitted this bill to 
move forward. The end results of his efforts are a more favorable 
atmosphere within the administration for the concrete block and 
recessed lighting industries and the improved legislative language now 
before us. This bill is no longer harmful to the Federal procurement 
process, and its potential damage to our national policy of metric 
conversion has been limited.
  H.R. 2779, as reported, does a credible job in solving $10,000 
problems of a number of small businesses, but it lets a billion dollar 
national problem fester. As Congressman Ehlers so eloquently pointed 
out during Science Committee deliberations on this bill, our Nation's 
failure to adopt the metric system of measurement in a timely manner 
has cost U.S. companies billions of dollars in lost trade 
opportunities. This situation is ongoing and has the potential to get 
worse. The United States is the only industrialized nation to hold onto 
the English system of measurement. We can increasingly expect our 
trading partners to require American exports to their countries to be 
designed and manufactured using the internationally accepted metric 
system of measurement. If, as in this bill, we restate English 
measurements in metric terms rather than actually design and measure in 
metric, we will not fool anyone. American companies that are unwilling 
or unable to manufacture in rational metric units will lose out to 
foreign companies that will.
  The case was made in our hearings on H.R. 2779 that some block 
manufacturers have difficulty bidding on construction projects which 
require their products to be dimensioned in rational metric. However, 
exempting these companies from metric usage is just one possible 
solution and one that represents a ``can't do'' rather than a ``can 
do'' attitude. With more time, we could have looked for ways to solve 
the block manufacturers problems while advancing the cause of 
metrication. We could have made sure that metric block molds are an 
allowable expense under Federal construction contracts. We could have 
funded research in the design of adjustable molds which could be used 
for making both metric and English-dimensioned block. As a minimum, we 
could have limited the duration of the metric block exemption and 
committed to finding a better solution to this problem during that 
time. I hope the Senate will take a closer look than we were able to do 
at alternative ways to help block manufacturers and at setting 
appropriate limits on the duration of this exemption.
  Our solution for lighting industry metrication problems may turn out 
to be more appropriate. Our lighting industry is positioned to begin 
manufacturing metric lighting products; a number of the affected 
companies already have issued metric lighting catalogs. H.R. 2779, 
through its lighting standards trigger, will allow the exemption to be 
ignored when the reason for it no longer exists.
  The ombudsman concept is a dramatic improvement over the procurement 
bureaucracy contained in section 4 of the introduced version of H.R. 
2779, but the jury is still out on whether it is really necessary. The 
Government has built a dozen major buildings using metric measurement 
and only two industries have not been willing to go along. One would 
think if metric were a problem for other building subcontractors that 
the problem would have arisen by now.
  The busiest time for the metric ombudsmen will probably be at the 
time of enactment when agencies must figure out what to do with the 
hundreds of metric-dimensioned construction projects which are in 
various stages of design and construction. H.R. 2779's silence on this 
point is likely to lead to problems of interpretation. I urge the 
Senate to come up with a set of principles to cover ongoing projects 
and urge the ombudsmen to use common sense in these cases.
  In summary, my desire to see the concrete masonry industry get relief 
leads me not to oppose this bill, but I regret that we did not have 
more time to perfect our work product. Perhaps the Senate will have the 
time to make a conscious effort to improve the bill. Then we will be 
able to feel comfortable that the entire Congress did its best to meet 
the long-term needs of the companies we are all trying to help.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute and on the bill.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor 
thereof) the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________