Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)

[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.

[[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.

____________________