[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11704-S11707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          IMPLEMENTATION OF THE METRIC CONVERSION ACT OF 1975

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2779, and 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2779) to provide for appropriate 
     implementation of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 in 
     Federal construction projects, and for other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 5417

   (Purpose: To provide for appropriate implementation of the Metric 
Conversion Act of 1975 in Federal construction projects, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. LOTT. Senator Burns has a substitute amendment at the desk. I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] for Mr. Burns, for 
     himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Hollings, 
     Mr. Kerry, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Grams 
     proposes amendment numbered 5417.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am happy to report today that the Senate 
is ready to pass legislation, H.R. 2779, designed to protect American 
businesses, American jobs, and the American taxpayers by providing for 
the appropriate implementation of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 in 
Federal construction projects. I was pleased both to introduce the 
Senate version of this measure, S. 1386, last fall along with my 
colleague Senator Shelby, and to lead the effort in the Senate to 
obtain bipartisan approval here. This legislation restores a degree of 
sensibility and sanity to the manner in which this country gradually 
converts to the metric system. It is good for small business.
  Bright and forward-thinking people have told me they believe the 
metric system is the future of this country. I will take them at their 
word. But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is a right 
way and a wrong way to bring about metric conversion. The right way is 
to work cooperatively with everyone who will be affected by metric 
conversion. The right way is to convert without unduly burdening 
businesses, without losing markets for U.S. firms, without forcing the 
taxpayers to pay a metric premium when Federal agencies procure metric 
products that are specialty items, not off-the shelf commercial items. 
The wrong way is to do precisely the opposite, which, unfortunately, 
has been happening.
  The 1988 Trade bill contained language which established the metric 
system as the preferred system of measurement for the United States. 
Why was the language on the trade bill? The rationale was that it would 
improve the ability of American companies to export goods to metric-
based countries if American firms could be moved to produce those goods 
in metric versions.
  The principal tool for urging American companies to switch to the 
metric system is to use Government procurement policy. The trade bill 
includes language, ``to require that each Federal agency, by a date 
certain and to the extent economically feasible by the end of the 
fiscal year 1992, use the metric system of measurement in its 
procurement, grants, and other business-related activities . . .''
  This legislation is being passed today because some Federal agencies 
responsible for implementing the metric policy either forgot to read or 
are completely ignoring the remainder of the above sentence: ``. . . 
except to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause 
significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms, 
such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products in 
non-metric units . . .''
  Congress never intended for the switch to metrication to be forced at 
any cost or without regard to its impact on people, small business, or 
industry. This legislation insures that the Federal construction 
procurement policy will no longer ignore this important language which, 
in turn, can cause staggering problems for some industries.
  We also need to keep in mind at the outset that metrication policy is 
rapidly running into conflict with other Government policies calling 
for the use of commercial products widely available in the private 
sector. Federal contracting personnel need to closely review 
procurement law developments such as the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act [FASA] to ensure that, in their fervor to bring about 
metrication through Federal procurement, they are not inadvertently 
violating key elements of procurement laws and policies designed to 
promote the use of widely available commercial products and maximum 
access to the commercial market place.
  Let me briefly describe some of the finer points of the legislation, 
and send a very clear signal to the agencies as to how the law is to be 
interpreted and applied.
  Agencies have begun to hide behind metric law to maintain Government 
unique specifications and the internal support staff needed to maintain 
the Government unique specifications. At the same time, Government 
procurement laws and procedures have been streamlined to require 
agencies to buy commercial items. In addition, some advocates were 
pushing the use of metrics without consideration of costs and industry 
impact, as required by the 1988 amendments. This substitution amendment 
to H.R. 2779 clearly states that procurement laws favoring commercial 
off-the-shelf items will be applied and certainly will not be 
overridden or avoided by the application of the metric law and policy. 
Where there is conflict between the two, procurement laws favoring 
commercial off-the-shelf items customarily used by the private sector 
will take precedence. This allows an orderly transition to items built 
in hard-metric configuration, when those items meet the economic and 
quality specifications of the commercial marketplace.
  FASA requires agencies to conduct preliminary market research to make 
sure they can obtain commercial items. This amendment to H.R. 2779 says 
the results of that market research must be used to determine which 
design method is suitable to ensure that the design will accommodate 
commercial items. It would make no sense whatsoever for an agency to 
design a building requiring hard-metric components after it has learned 
that hard-metric construction items that meet the 
definitional requirements in this amendment for commercial items are 
not available. Consistent with FASA, my legislation requires that 
agencies determine early in the process whether hard-metric or soft-
metric building materials are available. Even in a metric building, the 
design must accommodate non-hard-metric items if hard-metric versions 
of those products are not available as commercial, off-the-shelf, 
items.

  Hard-metrication for two classes of construction products has been 
particularly controversial: concrete masonry units [CMU] and lighting 
fixtures. The problems these industries are facing are well documented 
so I will not recount them here. The treatment for both classes is 
virtually identical, except that there is an extra criterion relating 
to voluntary industry consensus standards that would be inappropriate 
to apply with CMU. This legislation allows agencies to use the metric 
system of measurement but they may not incorporate specifications that 
can only be satisfied by hard-metric versions of these products

[[Page S11705]]

in solicitations for design and construction of Federal facilities 
unless certain criteria are met.
  One of the chief problems we are remedying in this amendment is that 
agencies have been using hard-metric specifications for CMU and 
recessed lighting fixtures to greatly hinder or eliminate offerors of 
soft-metric versions of these products from the opportunity to win 
contracts by rendering them nonresponsive because solely hard-metric 
versions have been specified. To address the problem of these two 
industries, the amendment specifically requires a determination by an 
agency head if the agency requires a contractor to design or build to 
hard metric specifications for CMU and lighting fixtures. In the 
provisions directly addressing CMU and recessed lighting fixtures, an 
agency solicitation ``may not incorporate specifications that can only 
be satisfied by hard-metric versions''. Congress' intent is that an 
agency can solicit offers in hard-metric, soft-metric or English 
standards but if it limits offers to hard-metric, the agency head must 
make a determination using the procedures laid out in sections (b) and 
(c) of this amendment to H.R. 2779.
  This language does not allow agencies to incorporate hard-metric 
specifications in a piecemeal manner to justify and specify hard-metric 
CMU and lighting fixtures in an entire project. In other words, a 
partial hard-metric specification may not be used to justify a hard-
metric requirement for an entire project.
  Even in those cases where agencies might be allowed to use a hard-
metric design and hard-metric products after the full and appropriate 
application of this act, we would encourage the agencies to use value-
engineering principles, which have the full support of Congress, to use 
soft-metric products where possible to reduce the costs to the 
taxpayers and incur all the benefits of the value-engineering concept.

  Regarding the criterion that the application requires hard-metric CMU 
or lighting fixtures to coordinate dimensionally into 100-millimeter 
building modules, I would reiterate that the preliminary market 
research should decide the design method, and the design method would 
have a very large impact on whether a 100-millimeter module is 
necessary or even allowable to comport with soft-metric versions of 
either of these products. It is quite possible that it might be a rare 
event that such a module would be required. The term ``required'' in 
this criterion means that an agency must use the 100-millimeter module 
to avoid otherwise not resolvable technical problems, and that other 
reasonable, low-cost or low-effort minor adjustments or solutions are 
unavailable. In other words, a bona fide requirement for a 100-
millimeter module based on technical necessity is implied as a 
requirement for this criterion to be satisfied.
  I would call attention to the criterion that states the total 
installed price of hard-metric CMU and lighting fixtures must cost less 
than the non-hard-metric versions. Estimates shall be prepared using 
pricing data or price analyses with data from similar projects as 
defined in the Truth in Negotiations Act. Estimates should be prepared 
very carefully with a strong emphasis on using pricing data and price 
analysis on actual projects in being where actual costs to the 
taxpayers can be obtained and compared. The most recent data available 
to provide the most accurate estimate possible should be sought; the 
emphasis is on the actual pricing that the Government pays. Because the 
method and information used are the basis for determining what the 
Government will buy, Congress expects ombudsmen, the GAO, and others to 
scrutinize these factors carefully if complaints are received relating 
to price estimates. Agency personnel who conduct estimates for this 
subsection should retain a detailed record of factors affecting their 
decisions and be prepared to provide such documentation.
  The designation of agency ombudsman is a reflection that either no 
appeals method to review actions of agency metrication decision exists, 
or if it does exist, it doesn't work. The CMU and lighting fixture 
industries have been working for years to persuade a change in Federal 
policy on metrication, to no avail. The key points to make about the 
ombudsman is that this person should be sufficiently highly placed in 
an agency so as to have agencywide authority, and sufficient resources 
to be able to quickly communicate the resolutions of complaints 
throughout the agency. A suitable ombudsman will be sufficiently 
insulated from the contracting process to remain objective. In order to 
effectively analyze complaints, the ombudsmen must maintain knowledge 
of both metrication and procurement laws, as the top-level business-
related activities of the agency.

  The ombudsmen should act aggressively, quickly and affirmatively to 
deal with complaints. They should thoroughly examine the documentary 
record, especially with regard to cost estimates. The CMU and lighting 
fixtures industries may avail themselves of the ombudsman if necessary 
at any time prior to the expiration of this act. It is expected that 
ombudsmen will genuinely review the actions of the contracting 
personnel which are the subject of complaints. Ombudsmen should 
endeavor to recommend agency-wide solutions in cases where it is 
readily apparent that the conditions giving rise to complaints are not 
localized or could be repeated.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks as to specific provisions in 
this legislation. I urge agency contracting personnel to understand the 
spirit as well as the letter of legislation and I hope that they will 
adhere to both equally. Mr. President, without objection, I would like 
to submit newspaper articles that further chronicle the details of the 
problem that brings us to the Senate floor today to be printed in the 
Record.
  Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to thank my very good 
friends for their help and very responsive assistance in developing 
improvements to the bill and moving it quickly for the benefit of many 
American businesses, workers and taxpayers. Senator Richard Shelby was 
an original co-sponsor of S.1386. Senator Larry Pressler has always 
shown tireless leadership in standing up for the concerns of everyday 
people on this issue, and I thank him for his support. Many thanks go 
to my Senate colleagues on both the Governmental Affairs and the 
Commerce Committees, especially Senators Ted Stevens and John Glenn for 
their indispensable expertise on procurement issues, and Senator Ernest 
Hollings for his contributions to the bill in time for final passage. 
Not only have my colleagues contributed their support, but their very 
fine staffs including Timothy Kyger, Patrick Windham, Mark Forman, John 
Pettit, Debbie Cohen Lehrich and Sebastian O'Kelley have worked hard in 
support of this effort and should be acknowledged. Mark Forman with the 
Governmental Affairs Committee staff proved to be an invaluable source 
of procurement law and technical knowledge of FASA.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From Investor's Business Daily, Jan. 4, 1996]

           Moving to Metric May Harm Construction Contractors

                           (By Carl Horowitz)

       Conversion to the metric system may not fit the mold--
     literally. That could be costing contractors, and ultimately 
     taxpayers, extra.
       That's the view of Sens. Conard Burns. R-Mont., and Richard 
     Shelby. R-Ala., in the Senate, and Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., 
     in the House.
       The lawmakers have sponsored similar bills that would 
     clarify the intent of the National Metric Conversion Act of 
     1975. That law in part, requires bids on federal construction 
     contracts to be in metric form.
       The intent of the bills is to reduce the compliance burden 
     on firms. Supporters say in the absence of such action, 
     federal agencies will continue making the 1975 law into an 
     unfunded mandate, despite lacking statutory authority. They 
     add that these agencies are ignoring some basic economics of 
     construction.
       The issue comes down to definition.
       Federal contractors until recently submitted bids by 
     converting English-derived ``inch-pound'' measures into 
     fractional metric equivalents. This process, known as ``soft 
     metric conversion,'' requires only minor design and marketing 
     changes.
       But agencies in the past couple of years have made 
     contractors express metric figures as whole numbers. This is 
     ``hard metric conversion.''
       The Senate and House bills would ban federal procurement of 
     hard-metric modular

[[Page S11706]]

     building materials, including flooring, ceilings, and 
     wallboard. As long as English-measure product is available, 
     and as long as hard-metric use would cost more than $25,000, 
     a firm could not be forced to use hard-metric standards.
       In 1991 President Bush issued an executive order requiring 
     federal agencies to develop goals and timetables to complete 
     a conversion to the whole metric system.
       Agencies agreed to begin instituting hard-metric measures 
     by January 1994, and did so ahead of schedule.
       The ``soft vs. hard'' distinction seems minor. For one 
     thing, federal contracts make up only about 5% of U.S. 
     building construction. For another, it appears to be just a 
     question of plugging in numbers.
       But appearances are misleading, says Randall Pence, 
     director of government relations for the National Concrete 
     Masonry Association, a Herndon, VA.-based trade group.
       Pence argues full conversion would inflate bids and 
     inventory costs, making concrete masonry producers less 
     competitive. Putting metric figures in round numbers would 
     require redesigning concrete masonry products from scratch.
       ``Using whole metric numbers would force us to make a 
     standard 8'' by 8'' by 16'' block an eighth of an inch 
     smaller,'' he said.
       That change would necessitate making new block molds at 
     $10,000 to $300,000 per mold, hitting small firms the 
     hardest.
       ``Producers tell me it would cost on average between 
     $250,000 and $300,000 to buy a complete compliment of hard 
     metric molds. If our entire industry had to shift to hard-
     metric conversion, it would cost $250 million to $500 
     million. And we'd get a product no more durable, fire-
     resistant or energy-efficient,'' remarked Pence.
       He noted a few cases of how hard-metric use can inflate 
     bids--or how soft-metric use can lower them.
       At a House Science subcommittee hearing, Rep. Connie 
     Morella, R-Md., revealed a General Accounting Office cost 
     estimate of a new lab building for the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology. Hard-metric standards would add 20% 
     to 25% to project costs, the GAO said.
       A deletion of the hard-metric requirement lowered average 
     bids on a courthouse project in Kansas City, Mo., by some $17 
     million, a more than 15% decrease.
       Pence worries contractors might not find suppliers.
       Among 32 potential suppliers for a Centers for Disease 
     Control building, none made hard-metric block, he said. A 
     recent NCMA member survey revealed only one respondent among 
     nearly 400 made hard-metric block.
       But the NCMA exaggerates, says architect Bill Brenner, 
     executive director of the Construction Metrication Council.
       ``Only a handful of projects will ever have to use hard-
     metric measures. And the new bills before Congress, if 
     anything, will raise contractor cots,'' he said.
       Brenner added if the legislation became law, it would favor 
     one industry type over others, block new technologies, and 
     undermine America' position in a metric-oriented global 
     economy.
       Brenner admits hard-metric mandates might harm smaller 
     firms. Thus, he urges federal agencies to continue their 
     ``go-slow'' approach.
       Pence says that the council's end goal is universal hard-
     metric use. A December draft report by the council lends 
     support to his view.
       ``It is only a matter of time before the U.S. construction 
     industry, which accounts for 6 million jobs and 8% of the 
     gross national product, joins the nation's automobile, health 
     care, and electronics industries (among others) in completely 
     converting to the metric system,'' the report read.
                                                                    ____


             The Regulators: Building a Case for Exemption


            Blockmakers Find No Concrete Reason to Go Metric

                          (By Cindy Skrzycki)

       The concrete block industry hates to be hard-headed about 
     it, but it absolutely refuses to make its blocks fit the 
     government's specifications for using metric measurements in 
     federal construction projects.
       Led by the National Concrete Masonry Association, a 
     collection of smaller-sized companies that make concrete 
     blocks, the industry is pushing legislation to exempt 
     concrete block and recessed-lighting fixture makers from 
     retooling to make the slight size modifications that go along 
     with becoming ``hard metric.''
       ``We don't like to be the skunk at the picnic . . . but the 
     idea of forcing the concrete block industry to go hard metric 
     is just ludicrous,'' said Randall Pence, director of 
     government relations for the National Concrete Masonry 
     Association. ``There's no private market interest in this.''
       Hard metric?
       Most people I know couldn't convert a mile to a kilometer 
     if you offered them a million dollars. And they sure wouldn't 
     know there is a metric pecking order. But here it is:
       The United States primarily uses the English standard of 
     inches and pounds. The nation has been trying to convert to 
     the metric system gradually since 1975. This conversion means 
     specific things to people who carry around tape measures and 
     calculators: ``Soft'' metric means simply relabeling 
     measurements in metric units. ``Hard'' metric means 
     physically changing the size of the product to rounded metric 
     measurements.
       Because concrete blocks and recessed light fixtures are 
     coordinated with other products, they won't fit in the new 
     metric world unless the molds used to make the blocks and the 
     machines used to make the fixtures are changed. Concrete 
     blocks now being produced are one-eighth of an inch higher 
     than a hard-metric concrete block. What is now 7.58 inches 
     (194 millimeters) would have to be refigured to 7.48 inches 
     (or 190 millimeters) to become hard metric.
       The industry said that if all its producers bought new 
     molds, it could cost as much as $500 million. That's big 
     money to the thousands of block producers. The profit margin 
     on each block now is about 2 cents.
       The industry group claims that producers would be forced to 
     keep two inventories--one for government jobs and one for 
     private builders. It predicted mix-ups in which the wrong-
     sized block would get shipped to a job because, to the 
     untrained eye, the size difference is indistinguishable. But 
     to the engineer on the job, mixing English with hard metric 
     is like trying to build something with both Legos and their 
     larger-sized Duplo cousins. It comes out looking like an East 
     Bloc apartment building.
       The association said it has been pleading its case for 
     several years with the Construction Metrication Council, a 
     collection of government construction experts who are the 
     high priests metric conversion.
       William Brenner, director of the council, said he and 
     others are sympathetic to the block executives, but an 
     outright exemption is not the way to go. ``Federal agencies 
     should be able to use whatever is rational,'' Brenner said. 
     He noted that in most cases, going metric has been smooth and 
     relatively inexpensive.
       Pence said changes that the General Services Administration 
     and the council tried to make to accommodate the industry 
     have been ignored by federal project managers. So the 
     association went to Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), who 
     sponsored a bill to get concrete and lighting off the metric 
     hook.
       The House Science Committee agreed on the bill June 26 and 
     the association hopes to get similar support in the Senate.
       The industry and Cox relied on a provision in the 1988 
     Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, which said the United 
     States should go metric ``except to the extent that such use 
     is impractical or is likely to cause significant 
     inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms. . . 
     .''
       In the end, the association predicts that if the government 
     continues to take a hard line, it will have to pay a metric 
     premium. Of course, the United States could buy from Mexico 
     and Canada. They already use hard-metric molds for concrete 
     blocks.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Senator Burns for 
his leadership on the Savings in Construction Act of 1996. Senator 
Burns' original version of the bill, S. 1386, was referred to the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair. Senator Burns substitute 
amendment to H.R. 2779, the version passed by the House, conforms the 
bill with important recent improvements in Federal purchasing laws.
  Mr. President, recent procurement reforms have directed agencies to 
use commercial specifications and standards for all agency purchases, 
including construction of Federal facilities. However, GSA's new 
construction design guide contains Government-unique metric 
specifications for concrete blocks, ceiling tiles, lighting fixtures, 
and so forth. We received information last fall, indicating that the 
new GSA metric building design requirements would cost 20 percent or 
more than commercially available items. Also, the electric fixtures 
manufacturing and concrete masonry industries have registered concern 
with us about significant harm from the GSA guide reliance on 
noncommercial items. This is inconsistent with the recent laws 
streamlining Federal procurement and the 1988 amendments to the Metric 
Conversion Act of 1975.
  The Burns substitute amendment makes three important improvements in 
acquisition of Federal buildings. First, it ensures agencies conduct 
market research and design buildings to use commercially available 
components, allowing use of hard metric specifications as industry 
converts. Second, it allows Government to require hard metric 
specifications for concrete masonry and electrical fixtures when an 
agency head determines it is required and cost-effective. In making 
this determination, the agencies can take advantage of price analyses 
prepared to comply with recent modifications in the Truth in 
Negotiations Act. Third, it establishes a check-and-balance within each 
agency, an ombudsman, to review complaints. The ombudsman will review 
metrics-related complaints from prospective bidders on construction 
contracts. The bill makes clear that the ombudsman authority

[[Page S11707]]

does not undercut the bid protest authority of the General Accounting 
Office.
  Mr. President, Senator Burns' legislation should result in savings to 
the taxpayers, while still allowing the Government to convert to 
metrics in building construction in a cost-effective manner. I am 
cosponsoring this amendment and encourage its adoption. I want to thank 
Senators Pressler and Hollings, the chairman and ranking member of the 
Commerce Committee and Senator Glenn, for working with us in drafting 
the substitute amendment. I would also like to commend their staff and, 
especially Senator Burns' staff, for their work on this legislation.
 Mr. KERRY. I am pleased to cosponsor with my colleague from 
Montana, Senator Conrad Burns, the Senate substitute to H.R. 2779, the 
Savings in Construction Act of 1996. This important legislation will 
amend the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 to enable lighting and masonry 
companies in Massachusetts and around the country to compete for 
Federal contracts.
  Under present law, each Federal agency is required to use the metric 
system in its procurements, grants, and other business related 
activities. In certain instances, the act requires that specific 
products be produced in round metric dimensions. This requirement 
effectively mandates that such products, known as ``hard-metric'' 
products, be slightly altered from their current dimensions, thus 
forcing companies to undergo costly retooling and other production 
changes if they intend to compete for Federal contracts. Though the act 
contains an exception where metric conversion is likely to cause 
significant cost or market loss to U.S. firms, this exception has been 
implemented too narrowly, and, therefore, the act has caused 
substantial hardship to segments of the electrical and concrete masonry 
industries in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Indeed, several companies in 
my State, such as Lightolier, Inc., in Wilmington, MA, have had to turn 
down opportunities to compete for Federal contracts because they could 
not feasibly manufacture the necessary materials according to hard 
metric dimensions.
  The implementation of the Metric Act in this manner has ultimately 
resulted in the U.S. Government paying a substantially inflated price 
for basic products such as bricks and lighting fixtures because 
companies that do undergo the cost of producing hard-metric products 
for Federal contracts often offer the products at a premium.
  This bill will make commonsense changes to the procurement process. 
It will allow Federal agency officials to require that concrete masonry 
and lighting products subject to Federal procurement be expressed in 
metric terms. However, agency officials will not be permitted to demand 
that such products be produced according to hard-metric specifications 
without first making specific findings that such requirements will save 
Federal dollars. In addition, to ensure that this bill is implemented 
in a commonsense manner, it requires each agency that awards 
construction contracts to designate a senior official as a 
``construction metrication ombudsman.'' Among other things, the 
ombudsman would be responsible for reviewing and responding to 
complaints from prospective bidders, subcontractors, and suppliers 
relating to agency actions on the use of the metric system in 
construction contracts. The ombudsman also would be responsible for 
ensuring that the agency is not implementing the metric system in a 
manner that causes significant inefficiencies or market loss to U.S. 
firms.
  I would like to thank the Commerce Committee ranking Democrat, 
Senator Hollings, and his fine staff, Pat Windham, for their efforts in 
bringing this bill forward during this especially busy time as this 
104th Congress is concluded. I wish to recognize the fine work of 
Senator Pell, whose continued dedication to metric conversion we all 
have come to admire. I also wish to thank Senator John Glenn and 
Senator Ted Stevens and their staffs on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. Finally, I wish to thank Senator Burns for sponsoring the 
legislation in the Senate and for his continued persistence on this 
matter.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time, and passed, the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements 
relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I am 
just very pleased we can pass one that I will not have to object to. 
So, therefore, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I hear no objection. Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5417) was agreed to.
  The bill (H.R. 2779), as amended, was deemed read a third time and 
passed.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have no further requests at this time. 
Seeing no Senator seeking recognition at this moment, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________