[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11599-H11602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SAVINGS IN CONSTRUCTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4233) to provide for appropriate implementation of the 
Metric Conversion Act of 1975 in Federal construction projects, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4233

       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 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 measurements in its 
     procurement, 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) In accordance with that Act and Executive Order 12770, 
     of July 25, 1991, Federal agencies increasingly construct new 
     Federal buildings in round metric dimensions. As a result, 
     companies that wish to bid on Federal construction projects 
     increasingly are asked to supply materials or products in 
     round metric dimensions.
       (3) While the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 currently 
     provides an exemption to metric usage when impractical or 
     when such usage will cause economic inefficiencies, 
     amendments are warranted to ensure that the use of specific 
     metric components in metric construction projects do not 
     increase the cost of Federal buildings to the taxpayers.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 4 of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 
     205c) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking ``Commerce.'' in paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``Commerce;''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) `full and open competition' has the same meaning as 
     defined in section 403(6) of title 41, United States Code;
       ``(6) `total installed price' means the price of purchasing 
     a product or material, trimming or otherwise altering some or 
     all of that product or material, if necessary to fit with 
     other building components, and then installing that product 
     or material into a Federal facility;
       ``(7) `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;
       ``(8) `cost or pricing data or price analysis' has the 
     meaning given such terms in section 304A of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     254b); and
       ``(9) `Federal facility' means any public building (as 
     defined under section 13 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 
     (40 U.S.C. 612) and shall include any Federal building or 
     construction project--
       ``(A) on lands in the public domain;
       ``(B) on lands used in connection with Federal programs for 
     agriculture research, recreation, and conservation programs;

[[Page H11600]]

       ``(C) on or used in connection with river, harbor, flood 
     control, reclamation, or power projects;
       ``(D) on or used in connection with housing and residential 
     projects;
       ``(E) on military installations (including any fort, camp, 
     post, naval training station, airfield, proving ground, 
     military supply depot, military school, or any similar 
     facility of the Department of Defense);
       ``(F) on installations of the Department of Veteran Affairs 
     used for hospital or domiciliary purposes; or
       ``(G) on lands used in connection with Federal prisons,

     but does not include (i) any Federal Building or construction 
     project the exclusion of which the President deems to be 
     justified in the public interest, or (ii) any construction 
     project or building owned or controlled by a State 
     government, local government, Indian tribe, or any private 
     entity.''.

     SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION IN ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (15 U.S.C. 205 et 
     sec.) is amended by inserting after section 13 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 14. IMPLEMENTATION IN ACQUISITION OF CONSTRUCTION 
                   SERVICES AND MATERIALS FOR FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Construction services and materials for 
     Federal facilities shall be procured in accordance with the 
     policies and procedures set forth in chapter 137 of title 10, 
     United States Code, section 2377 of title 10, United States 
     Code, title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.), and section 
     3(2) of this Act. Determination of a design method shall be 
     based upon preliminary market research as required under 
     section 2377(c) of title 10, United States Code, and section 
     314B(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 264b(c)). If the requirements of this 
     Act conflict with the provisions of section 2377 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or section 314B of the Federal Property 
     and Administrative Services Act of 1949, then the provisions 
     of 2377 or 314B shall take precedence.
       ``(b) Concrete Masonry Units.--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 the acquisition of 
     structures or systems of concrete masonry be expressed under 
     the metric system of measurement, but may not incorporate 
     specifications, that can only be satisfied by hard-metric 
     versions of concrete masonry units, in a solicitation for 
     design or construction of a Federal facility within the 
     United States or its territories, or a portion of said 
     Federal facility, unless the head of the agency determines in 
     writing that--
       ``(1) hard-metric specifications are necessary in a 
     contract for the repair or replacement of parts of Federal 
     facilities in existence or under construction upon the 
     effective date of the Savings in Construction Act of 1996; or
       ``(2) the following 2 criteria are met:
       ``(A) the application requires hard-metric concrete masonry 
     units to coordinate dimensionally into 100 millimeter 
     building modules; and
       ``(B) the total installed price of hard-metric concrete 
     masonry units is estimated to be equal to or less than the 
     total installed price of using non-hard-metric concrete 
     masonry units. Total installed price estimates shall be 
     based, to the extent available, on cost or pricing data or 
     price analysis, using actual hard-metric and non-hard-metric 
     offers received for comparable existing projects. The head of 
     the agency shall include in the writing required in this 
     subsection an explanation of the factors used to develop the 
     price estimates.
       ``(c) Recessed Lighting Fixtures.--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 the 
     acquisition of structures or systems of recessed lighting 
     fixtures be expressed under the metric system of measurement, 
     but may not incorporate specifications, that can only be 
     satisfied by hard-metric versions of recessed lighting 
     fixtures, in a solicitation for design or construction of a 
     Federal facility within the United States or its territories 
     unless the head of the agency determines in writing that--
       ``(1) the predominant voluntary industry consensus 
     standards include the use of hard-metric for the items 
     specified; or
       ``(2) hard-metric specifications are necessary in a 
     contract for the repair or replacement of parts of Federal 
     facilities in existence or under construction upon the 
     effective date of the Savings in Construction Act of 1996; or
       ``(3) the following 2 criteria are met:
       ``(A) the application requires hard-metric recessed 
     lighting fixtures to coordinate dimensionally into 100 
     millimeter building modules; and
       ``(B) the total installed price of hard-metric recessed 
     lighting fixtures is estimated to be equal to or less than 
     the total installed price of using non-hard-metric recessed 
     lighting fixtures. Total installed price estimates shall be 
     based, to the extent available, on cost or pricing data or 
     price analysis, using actual hard-metric and non-hard-metric 
     offers received for comparable existing projects. The head of 
     the agency shall include in the writing required in this 
     subsection an explanation of the factors used to develop the 
     price estimates.
       ``(d) Limitation.--The provisions of subsections (b) and 
     (c) of this section shall not apply to Federal contracts to 
     acquire construction products for the construction of 
     facilities outside of the United States and its territories.
       ``(e) Expiration.--The provisions contained in subsections 
     (b) and (c) of this section shall expire 10 years from the 
     effective date of the Savings in Construction Act of 1996.''.

     SEC. 5. OMBUDSMAN.

       Section 14 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:
       ``(f) Agency Ombudsman.--(1) The head of each executive 
     agency that awards construction contracts within the United 
     States and its territories 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 contracts for the 
     construction of Federal buildings; and
       ``(B) the use of the metric system of measurement for 
     services and materials required for incorporation in 
     individual projects to construct Federal buildings.

     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 while ensuring that the 
     goals of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 are observed.
       ``(3) The ombudsman shall respond to each complaint in 
     writing within 60 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) whether the agency is adequately applying the 
     policies and procedures in this section;
       ``(B) whether the availability of hard-metric products and 
     services from United States firms is sufficient to ensure 
     full and open competition; and
       ``(C) the total installed price 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.
       ``(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     supersede the bid protest process established under 
     subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31, United States 
     Code.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Savings Provisions.--This Act shall not apply to 
     contracts awarded and solicitations issued on or before the 
     effective date of this Act, unless the head of a Federal 
     agency makes a written determination in his or her sole 
     discretion that it would be in the public interest to apply 
     one or more provisions of this Act or its amendments to these 
     existing contracts or solicitations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring before the House of 
Representatives H.R. 4233, the Savings in Construction Act of 1996. 
H.R. 4233 was introduced yesterday by Congressman Chris Cox and 
Congresswoman Connie Morella, chairwoman of the Technology 
Subcommittee. I would like to thank both these Members for their 
tireless work on this important legislative measure.
  H.R. 4233 is a modified version of H.R. 2779, a bill by the same 
name. H.R. 2779 was ordered reported by the Science Committee on June 
26, 1996, and passed the House on July 23, 1996 as part of the 
Corrections Day Calendar.
  H.R. 4233 represents a compromise worked out with the Senate which I 
hope the other body will send expeditiously to the President. The bill 
is now entirely noncontroversial, and I

[[Page H11601]]

hope all my colleagues will support the measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. BROWN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, although in 
light of the schedule that I observe today, we might as well take as 
much time as we can.
  I would like to confirm the statement that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has already made. The bill before us has been 
the result of bipartisan, bicameral cooperation and has produced a good 
piece of legislation.
  There are a couple of points that I would like to make.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4233, the Savings in Construction Act, 
which is now before us. The text of this bill has been agreed upon by 
the Senate and is based on the House-passed H.R. 2779.
  I would like to express my appreciation of the courtesy shown to 
House Members on both sides of the aisle by our Senate colleagues in 
developing this new bill.
  This bipartisan and bicameral cooperation has produced H.R. 4233 
which is superior to the previously House-passed H.R. 2779 on a number 
of points. I would like to mention a few examples.
  First, H.R. 4233 clearly demonstrates that the legislative intent of 
the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and the subsequent 1988 amendments 
remain the policy of the United States as well as the law of the land.
  Nothing in this bill is contrary to our longstanding goal of catching 
up to the rest of the world in the use and understanding of the metric 
system of measurement.
  As Congressman Ehlers so eloquently stated during the Science 
Committee debate on this measure, it is really a shame that our economy 
has lost billions of dollars over the years due to the inability of 
U.S. industry to meet the metric requirements of export markets.
  The sooner the metric system becomes the standard for measurement 
here as it is in the rest of the world, the better off we will be.
  Second, H.R. 4233 continues the House intent of easing the transition 
to metric by the concrete masonry industry and the recessed fluorescent 
lighting industry by taking into consideration their special needs.
  The decision of the Senate to sunset both of these exemptions to 
metric conversion after 10 years is sensible. This 10-year exemption 
provides these industries plenty of time to convert while preserving 
the overall goal of U.S. metric-based construction. These two 
exemptions are consistent with the policy of the 1988 amendments of 
exempting industries from metric conversion where conversion does not 
make economic sense.
  Third, H.R. 4233's transition rules and other qualifications on the 
exemptions are helpful and add certainty to the process. H.R. 4233 
takes a number of positive steps to make sure delaying metric 
conversion does not increase Federal costs and ensures that metric 
projects that are now underway are not required to absorb the costs 
associated with reengineering to the inch-pound system.
  Finally, H.R. 4233 has done a credible job of streamlining the 
original ombudsman provisions in H.R. 2779. These new provisions will 
reduce costs and better serve the need of potential Government 
contractors.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which 
gives small businesspeople a needed break while still helping us move 
forward to when the U.S. economy will reap the benefits of being fully 
metric.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me time. I appreciate the remarks of the ranking member.
  As the sponsor of this legislation, I am pleased we are here at the 
conclusion of the 104th Congress to see this measure enacted into law. 
There is not much question that the metric system is a superior 
alternative to the other random measures that have been employed 
throughout the ages. In particular, it is the superior system in the 
world today. The question before us is not whether the metric system is 
a good idea or whether Congress in 1975 was wise to put us on an 
inextricable path toward metrification, but, rather, whether we can 
inject some common sense into the enterprise.
  We have to ask ourselves what is good about the metric system to 
begin with. Probably the best thing about it is that it permits the 
addition, multiplication, subtraction, division, with ease, of 
fractions. The metric system is not new. In fact, the Mohenjo-Daro 
civilization on the Indus River about 5,000 years ago used the decimal 
system. The Scotsman, John Napier, who pioneered the use of the decimal 
point so that we could show fractions to the right-hand side and whole 
numbers to the left, lived at the turn of the 16th century.
  There is nothing new about this at all. What is new is that we are 
finding increasingly better ways to use tiny measures. It is routine 
now for us to measure in angstroms. We have to ask ourselves whether or 
not the Congress should pass a law outlawing the use of fractions, when 
after all, the great attraction of the decimal system is we can use 
with great facility fractions. That, unfortunately, is at least what 
the administration had been doing up until we introduced this measure.
  Specifically, they said that using the metric system in America means 
you cannot use fractions, you have to use whole numbers, and it was an 
edict, a fiat, a new case, that fractions should be outlawed in 
American manufacturing.
  Let me give you an example. In Wilmington, MA, a company named 
Lightolier that manufactured light fixtures, has done so for 70 years, 
employing about 200 people, was told they had to use round numbers if 
they wanted to sell light fixtures to the Federal Government for 
Federal buildings. This was no small thing, because they would have had 
to buy all new equipment. They would have had to retool in their entire 
factory. The general manager of the plant told the local newspaper they 
could not do this without spending at least $5 million. This is a 
company with 200 workers.
  We cannot retool, he lamented, and if somebody else does, we are at a 
disadvantage. During the past year, Lightolier sales have fallen due to 
their inability to participate in Federal projects, forcing them to lay 
off 35 workers.
  Now, the taxpayer is not any better off for this, because the cost of 
the projects goes up 15 to 20 percent. Many examples: Kansas City, MO, 
the courthouse was estimated to cost $117 million. Fortunately for the 
American taxpayer, the Clinton administration was forced to drop their 
hard metric requirement, let people use decimal fractions, and the 
revised cost of the project turned out to be $97 million, or a savings 
of about $20 million.
  That is what this bill is all about. I am very, very pleased our 
colleagues on the Senate side, as well as our colleagues here, the 
minority and majority working together, have come up with a bill that 
is acceptable to everyone that will put us on the path of common sense.
  We ought to, as we try to serve the interests of the American people, 
remember that there is a limit to what Government can do. When Arabic 
numerals were introduced into Europe, it was not because a Government 
passed a law saying you cannot use Roman numerals anymore, and, by the 
way, there are always advantages to Arabic numerals, they add up to 
columns and are much superior. It was because merchants of the time 
found it worked a lot better.
  That is what is happening in commerce in America around the world 
right now. The Federal Government's job should be to facilitate that. 
What we have seen here is an example, if I may say so, of stupidity, or 
at least a preference for complex error to simple truth. The advantage 
of the metric system is its ability to work in fractions. We should not 
outlaw fractions, we should welcome them.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the work on this bill, 
particularly

[[Page H11602]]

the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker]. This is a measure that originally came up on Corrections Day 
for obvious reasons. I am pleased as we adjourn this Congress 
momentarily, that this will be part of our finished work.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 4233, the 
Savings in Construction Act of 1996, introduced by Congressman Cox of 
California.
  H.R. 4233 reflects bipartisan modifications made by both the House 
and the Senate to H.R. 2779, the original Savings in Construction Act. 
H.R. 2779 passed the House on July 23 under corrections day calendar 
consideration and was reported out of the Science Committee and the 
Technology Subcommittee, which I chair.
  H.R. 4233 provides for the appropriate implementation of the Metric 
Conversion Act of 1975 in Federal construction projects.
  The Metric Conversion Act, as amended, requires all Federal agencies 
to 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 U.S. 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.
  There is a need to correct the Metric Conversion Act by providing for 
flexibility in its implementation.
  With H.R. 42233, 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 identific except for a slight change in 
size.
  In subcommittee hearings, we 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 the chair of the Technology Subcommittee, 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 predominately use metric as a standard measurement system.
  Converting to the metric system is a goal that Congress has wisely 
decided 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. 4233 is a bill worthy of our support because it balances the 
need for the Federal Government to maintain our current efforts to 
promote metric which providing for appropriate implementation of the 
Metric Conversion Act in Federal construction.
  I commend Congressman 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 wish to recognize the chairman of the Science Committee, 
Congressman Walker, the Committee's Ranking Member, Mr. Brown, and the 
Ranking Member of the Technology Subcommittee, Mr. Tanner, for their 
bipartisan efforts in reporting this legislation to the House.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4233.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4233.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________