[House Report 104-639]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-639
_______________________________________________________________________
SAVINGS IN CONSTRUCTION ACT OF 1996
_______
June 26, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Walker, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2779]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
2779) to provide for soft-metric conversion, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Amendment.......................................................2
II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................4
III. Background and Need for Legislation.............................4
IV. Summary of Hearing..............................................5
V. Committee Actions...............................................7
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................8
VII. Section-By-Section Analysis.....................................8
Section 1. Short Title..........................................8
Section 2. Findings.............................................8
Section 3. Definitions..........................................8
Section 4. Implementation Exceptions............................8
Section 5. Ombudsman............................................9
VIII. Committee Views.................................................9
IX. Committee Cost Estimate........................................11
X. Effect of Legislation on Inflation.............................12
XI. Oversight Findings and Recommendations.........................12
XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight................................12
XIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........12
XIV. Committee Recommendations......................................14
XV. Additional Views...............................................15
XVI. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup.............................17
XVII. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup...........................26
I. Amendment
The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Savings in Construction Act of
1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 was enacted in order to
set forth the policy of the United States to convert to the
metric system. Section 3 of that Act requires that each Federal
agency use the metric system of measurement in its
procurements, grants and other business related activities,
unless that use is likely to cause significant cost or loss of
markets to United States firms, such as when foreign
competitors are producing competing products in non-metric
units.
(2) Currently, many Federal agencies are requiring as a
condition of obtaining Federal construction contracts that all
bidders must agree to use products measured in round metric
units, materials which are known as ``hard-metric'' products.
This can require retooling, substantial capitalization costs,
and other expensive production changes for some suppliers to
physically change the size of the product.
(3) This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement has sometimes
been imposed without 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.
II. Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to provide for appropriate
implementation of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 in federal
construction projects.
III. Background and Need for the Legislation
The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-168), as amended
by the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act (P.L. 100-418), was enacted in
order to set forth the policy of the United States government
regarding 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.
Currently, many federal agencies are requiring as a
condition of obtaining federal construction contracts that all
bidders must agree to use products measured in round metric
units, materials which are known as ``hard-metric'' products.
This can require retooling, substantial capitalization costs,
and other expensive production changes for some suppliers to
physically change the size of the product.
This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement has sometimes
been imposed without appropriate regard to whether that method
is impractical or likely to cause significant costs or a loss
of markets to United States firms.
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.
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.
This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement has also
unnecessarily raised the cost to the Government of some
lighting and concrete masonry products, and there is a
consensus that relief is in order for these industries and the
taxpayer.
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.
The changes made by this Act will advance the goals of the
Metric Conversion Act of 1975 while eliminating significant
problems in its implementation.
While estimates of savings vary widely, one GAO analysis of
several projects indicates that hard metric conversion can cost
15-20% more to implement than if soft metric conversion, which
simply requires that building materials be measured in metric
units instead of being manufactured in round metric dimensions.
IV. Summary of Hearing
On May 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing entitled, ``Proposed Amendments to the Metric
Conversion Act.'' The Subcommittee reviewed H.R. 2779, the
Savings in Construction Act, introduced by Congressman Cox. The
witnesses discussed the need for flexibility in construction
metrication by using ``soft metric'' versus ``hard metric''
measurements, especially where there are cases of adverse
economic impact and barriers to competition. Witnesses
testified regarding the need for the bill and their concerns
with its implementation.
Presenting testimony at the hearing were: The Honorable
Christopher Cox (R-CA), Mr. William Fabbri, Vice-President and
General Manager of Lightolier, Mr. Rod Lee, Senior Vice
President of Marketing at Lithonia Lighting, Mr. Norbert Rappl,
President of Comac Building Supply, Mr. Donald Emich, President
of Binkley & Ober, Mr. Randall Pence, Director of Government
Relations for the National Concrete and Masonry Association
(NCMA), Mr. Mark Bohannon, Counsel for Technology at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Mr. William Brenner, Director of the
Construction Metrication Council, Mr. Tom Cunningham, Senior
Project Manager at R.M. Schoemaker, Mr. David Wright, Vice
President of United Masonry Inc. of Virginia, and Ms. Lorelle
Young, President of the U.S. Metric Association.
Panel 1: The Honorable Christopher Cox (R-CA) testified
regarding his bill H.R. 2779, ``The Savings in Construction
Act.'' He said he is a strong supporter of metric conversion,
and that metric is a vast improvement over the current U.S.
system. He stated that the question today is not about
converting to metric, it is about whether the government should
mandate that commerce must be conducted in round ``hard
metric'' numbers. He explained that his legislation has been
narrowly drafted to address only the unnecessarily burdensome
application of the existing law regarding federal construction
projects. He testified that his legislation will clarify the
current law and enable construction projects to be finished
more efficiently and quickly. He also stated that his
legislation will assist in reducing the costs to small business
and taxpayers.
Panel 2: Mr. William Fabbri, Vice-President and General
Manager of Lightolier, testified that when he started in the
fluorescent lighting fixture industry over 2500 companies
existed. Today due to automation and the capital investment
required, six manufacturers now make over 80% of the fixtures
sold. He said because of freight costs there are no imports or
exports of any of these products outside of North America. He
stated that his company would have no problem converting to
``soft metric,'' but ``hard metric'' would require their
products to be three-eighths of an inch narrower and three-
quarters of an inch shorter. He explained that since all of his
products are made with automated tooling, ``hard metric'' would
require a permanent change by retooling, which he estimated
would cost the company $15 million. He added that because
government jobs represent only 10% of his market, Lightolier
could not justify spending the money to retool.
Mr. Rod Lee, Senior Vice President of Marketing at Lithonia
Lighting, testified on behalf of National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) regarding the ``hard metric''
requirement for bidding on federal projects. He stated that the
lighting fixture industry cannot produce the ``hard metric''
fixtures using their current standardized tooling; therefore,
additional tooling is required to produce a non-standardized
product for only one customer--the federal government. He said
industry-wide adoption of hard metric will not make the
lighting industry more competitive internationally, since
exports are practically nonexistent due to shipping costs.
Mr. Norbert Rappl, President of Comac Building Supply,
stated that his concrete block company, which employs 25 people
and has only one machine, studied the costs of converting to
``hard metrics'' and found it would cost $183,000 to retool the
plant. Moreover, he said the company would also have to keep
double inventory, which he explained would cause errors in
handling because the blocks would be so close in size. He also
stated that due to the weight of the product they are confined
to a 50-mile trading radius. He said his company could not
afford to do the retooling and consequently could not bid on
federally-assisted projects.
Mr. Donald Emich, President of Binkley & Ober, stated that
his concrete block company is in the same situation as Mr.
Rappl's. He said there are no prospects for exporting their
products world-wide. He explained that the Canadians have been
producing hard metric blocks for almost 20 years and still have
to carry double inventories, and make investments for mold
parts in both English and metric.
Mr. Randall Pence, Director of Government Relations for the
National Concrete and Masonry Association (NCMA), testified
that NCMA supports the metric system, but is concerned with how
we convert to the metric system. Currently, he stated, only a
handful of block producers have the capability to make the
``hard metric'' blocks. He said that the current law forces a
niche market for federally-assisted construction projects, and
eliminates small and medium-sized producers who cannot afford
to immediately produce the blocks. He explained that this will
result in a tremendous amount of single-sourcing for government
projects, which runs completely counter to the current
initiatives to expand competition in the procurement area of
the Federal Government. He also said use of ``hard metric''
increases costs to the taxpayer by requiring production of a
specialty product.
Panel 3: Mr. Mark Bohannon, Counsel for Technology at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, presented the views of the
Undersecretary of Commerce, Dr. Mary Good. He stated that the
Administration's position is to support the procurement of all
commercially available products and pursue a strong metric
policy consistent with the international global marketplace. He
said the Administration is concerned with H.R. 2779 because it
believes it will prohibit the use of metric products in federal
construction projects. He said the current law provides
flexibility to exempt federal agencies from the use of metric
when it is impractical or causes significant inefficiency, and
therefore this legislation is not necessary.
Mr. William Brenner, Director of the Construction
Metrication Council, testified that almost all federal
construction projects have come in under budget, and to date
the government has had little trouble finding companies to
produce the modular metric products at a reasonable cost. He
said he would like to help develop an administrative remedy
which would address the problems of the block and lighting
fixture industries.
Mr. Tom Cunningham, Senior Project Manager at R.M.
Schoemaker, testified regarding the project his company is
currently working on with the General Services Administration.
He said the project is the largest metric construction contract
ever in the U.S., and currently is 95% complete. He said there
haven't been any extra costs or problems due to the metric
requirements.
Mr. David Wright, Vice President of United Masonry Inc. of
Virginia, said his organization's first metric project is
currently underway, and it was awarded at 1% below government
cost estimates. He explained that the layout process using
metric dimensions is actually simpler because metric uses a
base measurement of ten units. He added that if they had used
``soft metric'' in their current project, the cost of cutting
the ``soft metric'' blocks, so they would fit around the ``hard
metric'' door frames, would have exceeded any material cost
premium from switching to metric.
Ms. Lorelle Young, President of the U.S. Metric
Association, testified that Congressional interference will
only impede the conversion to metric. Instead of addressing the
problem it is attempting to solve, she stated, that H.R. 2779
is ``overkill'' and attempts to regulate all construction
products used in federal construction projects. She explained
that there are exceptions within the current law, they just
need to be discussed and used.
V. Committee Actions
On May 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Technology held a
hearing on H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act of 1996.
Testimony was received from Representative Christopher Cox (R-
CA), sponsor of the bill, as well as representatives of the
Administration, affected industries, and metric system
proponents.
The Subcommittee convened to mark up H.R. 2779 on June 19,
1996. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered,
which was adopted by voice vote. The amendment provides
specific relief for the concrete masonry and lighting
industries under the Metric Conversion Act of 1975. In
addition, it 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.
Subsequently in Subcommittee, an amendment to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute was offered, and adopted by voice
vote, that clarified a definition in Section 3 of the bill with
respect to ``hard'' versus ``soft'' metric. The Subcommittee
passed H.R. 2779, as amended, by voice vote and ordered the
bill reported, by voice vote, to the Full Committee for further
consideration.
The Full Committee met to mark up H.R. 2779 on June 26,
1996. The only amendment offered was a manager's amendment by
Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Morella to make technical
corrections. This amendment was adopted by voice vote. H.R.
2779, the Savings in Construction Act of 1996, was then passed,
as amended, by voice vote, and ordered reported, a quorum being
present, to the Full House for consideration.
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill
Provides specific relief for the concrete masonry and
lighting industries as affected by the Metric Conversion Act of
1975. The hearing record from the May 16, 1996 Technology
Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2779 was clear that these two
industries had suffered an adverse economic impact which
required relief.
Provides a mechanism, through the appointment of an
ombudsman in each executive branch agency, for other afflicted
industries to gain relief in the future. The ombudsman would be
obligated to objectively assess harm to industry, the cost to
the government, and apply the flexibility of the existing law
to alleviate hardship.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
Cites the Act as the ``Savings in Construction Act of
1996.''
Section 2. Findings
In its implementation of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975,
some agencies are requiring as a condition of obtaining federal
construction contracts that all bidders implement a hard-metric
conversion without regard to the costs to American industry to
retool and without appropriate regard to the limitations of
practicability or competitive disadvantage.
A hard metric conversion requires manufacturers to build
materials in round metric dimensions. In other words, all
building products used would have to be slightly altered from
their current dimensions.
Requiring hard metric products either forces some companies
to retool or to be effectively unable to bid on federal
government construction contracts. These federal requirements
for hard-metric contracts result in an unnecessary added cost
to industry and the federal government--especially for some
lighting and concrete masonry products.
There is a consensus that relief is in order for those two
industries. There is also a need for the creation of an
ombudsman process to ensure the appropriate implementation of
the Metric Conversion Act for other industries that can
demonstrate economic inefficiencies and impracticality and to
ensure that there is clear recourse for affected companies if
the exemptions are not correctly implemented.
Section 3. Definitions
Hard metric, hard metric conversion, converted product, and
small business are all defined for the application of the Act.
Section 4. Implementation exceptions
A federal agency may require, in its implementation of the
Metric Conversion Act, 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. A federal agency may also
not require that lighting fixtures be converted products unless
the predominant voluntary industry consensus standards are hard
metric.
Section 5. Ombudsman
The head of each executive agency that awards construction
contracts shall designate an existing senior agency official to
serve as a construction metrication ombudsman. This ombudsman
shall be responsible for reviewing and responding to complaints
from prospective bidders, subcontractors, suppliers, or their
designated representatives in matters relating to guidance or
regulation issued by an agency on the use of the metric system
of measurement in construction contracts.
The ombudsman may also review and respond to complaints
regarding the use of the metric system for products or
materials required for use in individual construction projects.
He or she shall be independent of the contracting officer for
construction contracts.
The ombudsman shall be responsible for ensuring that the
agency is not implementing the metric system in a manner that
is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies
or loss of markets to United States firms or is otherwise
inconsistent with guidance issued by the Secretary of Commerce
in consultation with the Interagency Council on Metric Policy.
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.
In such a recommendation, the ombudsman shall consider: the
availability of converted products and hard metric production
capacity of United States firms, or the lack thereof; retooling
costs and capital investment impacts; the impact on small
business; the impact on trade; the impact on competition for
federal contracts; the impact on jobs; the impact on the
competitiveness of United States firms; and the cost to the
federal Government.
After the head of the agency has rendered a decision
regarding the ombudsman's recommendation, 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 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 also be provided to affected parties and
made available to the public in a timely manner.
VIII. Committee Views
Advancing the increasing use in the United States of the
metric system of measurement is a goal established by Congress
in the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as amended.
Congressional intent regarding the mechanics of metric
conversion, however, was not to require conversion, no matter
what, and without regard to cost. To the contrary, the metric
law amendments passed into law in the 1988 Trade Bill are quite
clear that the nation's metrication conversion policy should
account for impracticality and situations which are likely to
cause significant costs or loss of markets to United States
firms.
Congress clearly established a number of considerations
which could, and should, vitiate the requirement to convert to
the metric system of measurement in federal matters involving
certain industries or products. While such cases should be
justified under the law's intent to ensure that the metrication
effort advances its goal, cases requiring exemptions,
nevertheless, do exist.
This Act is made necessary because in some cases federal
agencies and their employees have failed to consider these
issues. At times, this has been due to a lack of intra-agency
and inter-agency communication. At other times, this has been
due to a lack of knowledge of the exemption language in the
Metric Conversion Act, a misinterpretation or a confusion as to
the intent of Congress, or a general disregard for the caveats
in the metrication law.
Sometimes problems have also arisen in interpreting whether
metrication must include a physical change in product size, a
method known as hard-conversion. Existing metrication law is
silent on the issue of hard versus soft-metrication.
The Act clarifies and amplifies Congressional intent as to
these matters. It reasserts that there are conditions under
which metrication will not be required, and the Act provides
much greater specificity with regard to the issues that may
negate the requirement for metric conversion.
The Act specifies two types of construction products whose
manufacturers have conclusively shown suffer great hardship
when they are required to implement a hard-metric conversion in
order to compete for federally assisted projects. It also
provides a vastly improved procedure for addressing future
issues in a timely fashion.
The Committee stresses that it is acting to reduce the
negative impacts of metrication on industries, and it is doing
so based upon sound public policy considerations.
All federal agencies should take steps to make sure that
any exemption from metrication as a consequence of this Act
will not be used as a justification for reducing or eliminating
such classes of product use on federally-assisted projects. All
federal design, contracting, procurement and acquisition
personnel should be instructed accordingly by agency heads and
metric ombudsman.
In the Committee's view it is important that metric policy
be consistently developed, consistently applied and
consistently communicated. Different design, contract and
procurement specialists within agencies should not be in a
position to de facto implement their own personally held
metrication strategies where they conflict with federal policy
set forth in this legislation.
The implementation exemptions for concrete masonry and
lighting fixtures eliminate decision-making authority with
regard to these products because of the clear demonstration of
hardship that hard-metrication would create for their
manufacturers. The Committee expects that the Act will not only
settle this issue for these two classes of product, but it will
also formalize a higher level of review by senior agency
ombudsmen in a position to recommend agency-wide solutions for
future problems.
Heavy reliance is placed on the ombudsmen to consider the
criteria set forth in the Act, but it is equally important that
the ombudsmen develop recommendations that will have agency-
wide application to avoid a piecemeal, contract-by-contract
consideration per product. Many of the criteria, are by their
nature, national in scope. Many industries cannot afford to
raise complaints on each individual contract.
The ombudsmen should, therefore, seek to settle issues
agency-wide and nation-wide for their respective agencies. To
further promote the concept of a nationally consistent
metrication policy and to avoid time-consuming duplication of
effort, ombudsmen are encouraged to consider decisions reached
by other agency ombudsmen in their consideration of similar
products when industry-satisfying solutions have been obtained.
Equally important is the function of the ombudsman to
communicate the recommended solutions to all agency personnel
who have a role in determining building design and product
contracting, procurement and acquisition. This will entail
substantial follow-up with agency staff to ensure that the
policies are adequately communicated and implemented.
The Committee expects that the ombudsman should be selected
only from the existing FTE (full-time equivalent) personnel by
the head of each executive agency. A current high-ranking
employee of the agency, and not a new hire, should fulfill the
duties of the ombudsman. It is not the Committee's intent to
create additional agency hiring authority for this position.
In building construction, the ceiling system is installed
in an early phase of the construction which can be
significantly earlier than the actual installation of ceiling
tiles and lighting fixtures. This ceiling system consists of
metal grids attached to structural elements that must be spaced
according to the size of the recessed lighting fixtures being
specified, in inch-pound or the remeasured metric-equivalent
dimensions. Therefore, the design and installation of the
ceiling system must be compatible with the recessed lighting
fixtures. The Committee accepts NEMA Standard LE-4 as a current
example of a predominant voluntary industry consensus standard.
Finally, the Committee understands that many federally
assisted construction projects are currently in various stages
of progress. This Act would become effective immediately upon
its enactment. It is the Committee's intent that all federal
agencies apply the requirements of this Act to all federally-
assisted construction projects now underway for which contracts
have yet to be awarded regarding products and industries
affected by this legislation. Changes in design should be made
if significant schedule delays and significant additional costs
can be avoided.
IX. Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 7 of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee estimates that enactment of
H.R. 2779 would result in no cost to the federal government or
to state or local governments. Enactment of H.R. 2779 would not
affect direct spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply to the bill. The bill contains no
intergovernmental mandates as defined by P.L. 104-4. The bill
would not impose new mandates on the private sector.
X. Effect of Legislation on Inflation
In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation is assumed to
have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the
operation of the national economy.
XI. Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no
oversight findings.
XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight
Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and
recommendations made by the House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X,
whenever such findings have been timely submitted. The
Committee on Science has received no such findings or
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
XIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
METRIC CONVERSION ACT OF 1975
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4. As used in this Act, the term--
(1) ``Board'' means the United States Metric Board,
established under section 5 of this Act;
(2) ``converted product'' means a material or product
that is produced as a result of a hard-metric
conversion;
[(2)] (3) ``engineering standard'' means a standard
which prescribes (A) a concise set of conditions and
requirements that must be satisfied by a material,
product, process, procedure, convention, or test
method; and (B) the physical, functional, performance
and/or conformance characteristics thereof;
(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;
[(3)] (6) ``international standard or
recommendation'' means an engineering standard or
recommendation which is (A) formulated and promulgated
by an international organization and (B) recommended
for adoption by individual nations as a national
standard; [and]
[(4)] (7) ``metric system of measurement'' means the
International System of Units as established by the
General Conference of Weights and Measures in 1960 and
as interpreted or modified for the United States by the
Secretary of Commerce[.]; and
(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. 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.
(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.
* * * * * * *
XIV. Committee Recommendations
On June 26, 1996, a quorum being present, the Committee
favorably reported H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act
of 1996, by voice vote, and recommends its enactment.
XV. ADDITIONAL VIEWS
The Committee's actions have improved H.R. 2779
substantially. A chain of events, begun by a March 5 letter to
Under Secretary of Commerce Mary Good from Congressman John
Tanner and most of the other Committee Democrats, has led to a
more favorable atmosphere for the concrete block and recessed
lighting industries and to the legislative language that now
makes up the substantive portions of H.R. 2779 as reported from
the Committee on Science.
While the bill is now no longer harmful to the Federal
procurement process and while its potential damage to our
national policy of metric conversion has been minimized, there
is still some question as to why it is necessary. Dr. Good's
letter of June 25, 1996, which is attached in the markup
section of this report, elaborates effectively on this point.
As Congressman Ehlers has so eloquently pointed out in Full
Committee markup, our nation's failure to adopt the metric
system of measurement in a timely manner has cost United States
companies billions in lost trade opportunities. This situation
is ongoing and has the potential to get worse. There are only
two places in this world where the historic inch-pound system
of measurement is taken seriously: in the United States of
America and in the world's museums. All of the United States'
trading partners have converted to the metric system of
measurement which is undeniably the world standard for
measurement. They have recognized the simplicity, rationality,
and elegance of the system and we can increasingly expect them
to require the use of the SI metric system in American exports
to their countries. Moreover, exports now are as likely to be
components as finished products. American companies that are
unwilling or unable to manufacture these components in metric
will lose out to foreign companies that will. We need to be
careful of the message we are sending if we exempt companies
from metric usage rather than help them to convert to it.
I believe the case was made in our hearings that
substantial numbers of block manufacturers are unable to bid on
construction projects requiring concrete blocks dimensioned in
rational metric. While I agree that this is a problem, I feel
we could have come up with a better solution had we been
willing to try. Our bill represents a ``can't do'' rather than
a ``can do'' attitude. It is backward looking rather than
forward looking. If we had been more creative, we would 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, thereby increasing the number of
companies who have the wherewithal to bid in rational metric.
We could have funded research in the design of adjustable molds
which could be used for both metric and English-dimensioned
block. As a minimum, we could have sunsetted the metric block
exemption and thereby setting a time to renew the search for a
better solution to this problem.
The lighting industry's case was somewhat less compelling
but our solution is more appropriate. I expect in the next few
years that our lighting industry will be manufacturing metric
lighting products. This section at least, through its standards
trigger, will allow the exemption to go away when the reason
for it no longer exists.
The ombudsman concept is a dramatic improvement over the
bloated procurement bureaucracy which would have been created
by section 4 of H.R. 2779 as introduced, but the jury is still
out on whether it is really necessary. The government has built
close to 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
buildings already on the drawing boards or under construction.
I urge ombudsmen in these cases to use common sense. If
redesign in soft metric can be done easily with little or no
disruption to the construction project, then it is appropriate.
If on the other hand respecification in soft metric causes
either delays or increased costs, don't do it.
George E. Brown, Jr.
XVI. PROCEEDINGS FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP
SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 2779--TO PROVIDE FOR SOFT-METRIC
CONVERSION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1996
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m. in Room 2318 of the
Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Constance Morella,
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
[The text of the amendment roster follows:]
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
AMENDMENT ROSTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY MARKUP: JUNE 19, 1996
10:00 a.m.--2:00 p.m.
Room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act of 1995
As reported, amended: H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction
Act of 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Sponsor Description Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...... Mrs. Morella Amendment in the Passed--Voice Vote
nature of a
substitute
2...... Mrs. Morella Amendment to the Passed--Voice Vote
Amendment in the
nature of a Substitute
3......
4......
5......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Morella. The subcommittee markup will now commence.
This morning the Technology Subcommittee will be marking up
H.R. 2779, the Savings In Construction Act. It was introduced
by our colleague, Congressman Christopher Cox of California,
and currently cosponsored by 80 of our colleagues including a
number of members of this Subcommittee.
H.R. 2779 provides for the appropriate implementation of
the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 in federal construction
projects.
On May 16th, the Technology Subcommittee held a hearing on
proposed amendments to the Metric Conversion Act with a focus
on H.R. 2779.
We heard from the sponsor of the bill, the Administration,
affected industries, and metric system proponents on the need
for the bill and their concerns with its implementation.
And as we proceed with debate on the measure, I'll be
offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
2779.
This amendment reflects an agreement conducted through
months of negotiations and discussions, many which predate our
May hearing with Congressman Cox, the Majority Committee Staff,
the Minority Committee Staff, and affected industries.
I do want to thank all parties involved for being able to
come up with this compromise. Indeed, it has not been easy, but
I think we have forged that agreement.
Specifically, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered on behalf of Mr. Cox would, first of all, provide
specific recourse for the concrete, masonry and lighting
industries in the interpretation of the Metric Conversion Act
of 1975.
The hearing record from our May hearing is clear that these
two industries had suffered a demonstrated adverse economic
impact which necessitates immediate relief.
Secondly, the amendment would provide 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 needed.
The ombudsman would be obligated to balance harm to the
industry and objectively apply the flexibility of the existing
law to alleviate hardship.
As the Chair of the Subcommittee which has jurisdiction
over our nation's technology and competitiveness policy, I am a
strong supporter of promoting the use of metric.
The United States remains the only major industrialized
country which does not predominantly use metric as a standard
measurement system.
And I believe that rolling back our current metric efforts
is unwise and would only serve to ultimately impair our
nation's long term international competitiveness.
H.R. 2779, however, does not do that. There is a need for
flexibility in the implementation of our current metric law,
and this bill would provide for that.
H.R. 2779, as amended by this substitute, simply provides
for less costly and less intrusive ways of meeting the goals of
the Metric Conversion Act in federal construction projects.
I would urge all of my colleagues to support both my
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and favorably report
out H.R. 2779 to the full Science Committee.
[The text of H.R. 2779 follows:]
[H.R. 2779, 104th Cong., 1st Sess.]
A BILL To provide for soft-metric conversion, and for other purposes.
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-matric 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.''.
Mrs. Morella. Now I'd like to turn to the Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee, Mr. Tanner, for any comments he may have.
Mr. Tanner. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
I will be very brief.
I understand and sympathize with the problems that the
block and lighting fixture industries are facing due to the
federal policy in this area.
I had hoped, and think the better way to go is to resolve
this administratively. Unfortunately, the Administration has
not been as forthcoming as I think they should have been in
this area, and so I am prepared to support the substitute
amendment provided that the Chair is willing to further refine
the amendment if it looks like that might be necessary if it
comes before the Full Committee.
And certainly in this Subcommittee, there's precedent for
further amendments on the floor.
I would hope that the minority would be consulted if there
are further amendments to be offered, either in Full Committee
or on the floor in this instance.
Thank you.
Mrs. Morella. We will so accommodate.
Are there any other opening statements?
Mr. Calvert?
[No response.]
Mrs. Morella. Ms. Seastrand?
[No response.]
Mrs. Morella. Mrs. Myrick?
[No response.]
[The opening statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson
follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson
I thank the Chairwoman for recognizing me.
I am somewhat puzzled by the legislation which is before us
today. H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act, will
essentially exempt the concrete block and recessed lighting
fixture industries from the requirements of hard metric
measurements. While I do understand the need of the industry,
and have no objections to this taking place, I am confused by
the form the legislation will take.
The bill will create an ombudsman to make recommendations
concerning metric conversion for other industries. If a problem
does exist which would require such an ombudsman, I find it a
little strange that industry has not come forward, as the block
and lighting industries have done, to indicate a problem. The
bill by its terms exempts the block and lighting industries
from the requirements, and I thus find myself wondering what
the ombudsman, in his or her new office, will be making
recommendations about. Obviously, it won't be about concrete
block and recessed lighting fixtures.
Additionally, current law allows exemptions for industries
which are significantly hampered by metric requirements. It
therefore occurs to me that this entire problem might be better
addressed by an administrative solution, instead of
legislation. I thank the Chair and yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. Morella. I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2779,
introduced by Congressman Christopher Cox, entitled ``The
Savings in Construction Act of 1996'' be considered as read,
and open to amendment at any point.
I have an amendment, the Chair has an amendment at the
desk, in the nature of a substitute, and it is the only
amendment on the roster.
[The text of the amendment follows:]
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2779 Offered by Mrs.
Morella of Maryland
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Savings in Construction Act of
1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Metric Conversion Act of 1975 was enacted in order to
set forth the policy of the United States to convert to the
metric system. Section 3 of that Act requires that each Federal
agency use the metric system of measurement in its
procurements, grants and other business related activities,
unless that use is likely to cause significant cost or loss of
markets to United States firms, such as when foreign
competitors are producing competing products in non-metric
units.
(2) Currently, many Federal 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 can require retooling, substantial
capitalization costs, and other expensive production changes
for some suppliers to physically change the size of the
product.
(3) This ``hard-metric'' conversion requirement has sometimes
been imposed without 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 and design using the
metric system of measurement, but does not include design in
English system measurement units and remeasurement 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' 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. IMPLEMENTATION EXCEPTIONS.
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) In carrying out the policy set forth in section 3, as
required by subsection (a) of this 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.
``(c) In carrying out the policy set forth in section 3, as
required by subsection (a) of this 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 (15 U.S.C. 205j-1),
as amended by section 4 of this Act, is further amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(d)(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 as follows: ``A bill to provide for
appropriate implementation of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 in
Federal construction projects, and for other purposes.''.
Mrs. Morella. The Clerk will read the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
2779 offered by Mrs. Morella of Maryland.
Strike all after the enacting clause, and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
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:
Mr. Tanner. I would ask that the amendment be considered as
read, Madame Chairwoman.
Mrs. Morella. I have already explained the various parts of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
And I wonder if we have any further discussion on it by any
members of the Subcommittee?
[No response.]
Mrs. Morella. If not, the vote occurs on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor will say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mrs. Morella. Those opposed, no.
[No response.]
Mrs. Morella. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.
[The text of the amendment follows:]
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Morella to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute
Page 4, lines 1-5, amend paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(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;
Mrs. Morella. I have another amendment before me. This is
an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mrs. Morella to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Page 4, lines 1-5, amend paragraph [4] to read as follows:
``[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.''
Mrs. Morella. In the way of a simple explanation, what this
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute is to
define, give a redefinition of hard metric, as agreed to by all
of the parties.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute?
[No response.]
Mrs. Morella. If not, the vote occurs on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mrs. Morella. Those opposed, no.
[No response.]
Mrs. Morella. The amendment is agreed to.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Morella. This is the pause that refreshes until we
have two more people come to give us the appropriate number for
a quorum, so at ease.
[Pause.]
Mrs. Morella. The subcommittee markup will reconvene.
The question is on the Bill H.R. 2779, the Savings in
Construction Act of 1995, as amended.
And all those in favor will say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mrs. Morella. Those opposed will say no.
[No response.]
Mrs. Morella. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it.
I'd now recognize the Ranking Minority Member.
Mr. Tanner. Madam Chairwoman, I move that the subcommittee
report the bill H.R. 2779, as amended.
I furthermore move to instruct the staff to make technical
and conforming amendments, and let the Chairwoman take all
other necessary steps to bring the bill before the Full
Committee for consideration.
Mrs. Morella. The subcommittee has heard the motion, and
those in favor will say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mrs. Morella. Those opposed will say no.
[No response.]
Mrs. Morella. The motion is agreed to, and without
objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
And this concludes our Subcommittee markup on H.R. 2779.
Thank you all very much.
[Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., Wednesday, June 19, 1996, the
Subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
XVII. PROCEEDINGS FROM FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP
FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 2779--THE SAVINGS IN CONSTRUCTION ACT OF
1996
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1996
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:24 p.m. in Room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman of the Committee presiding.
The Chairman. Good afternoon.
Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting
today to consider the following matter: H.R. 2779, the Savings
in Construction Act of 1996.
I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess. If
there is no objection, so ordered.
This afternoon the Science Committee will be marking up
H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act, introduced by
Congressman Christopher Cox of California.
This bill is currently cosponsored by a bipartisan group of
80 Members, including a number of members of this committee.
H.R. 2779 also had been approved by the Speaker's Advisory
Group on Corrections, a group of six Democrats and six
Republicans, which aids the Speaker in determining which bills
are acceptable for the Corrections Day Calendar.
A number of Federal agencies, in compliance with the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975 and its 1988 amendments, are requiring
the use of the metric system in Federal construction projects.
However, there are two ways for the conversion process to
proceed, hard or soft metric conversion.
A ``soft'' metric conversion simply requires the use of
metric units in the design of the building and measurements of
its components. A ``hard'' metric conversion requires that
every brick, every concrete block, every lighting fixture,
every door and window, every piece of plywood, wallboard, rigid
insulation, floor tile, et cetera, everything be manufactured
in round metric units.
Hard metric conversion is not required anywhere in the law
but has been required in the bureaucrat's regulations. The
effect can be to force companies, including small businesses,
into a Hobson's choice: Retooling their production facilities
at great cost to produce products which are identical except
for a slight changes in size.
With H.R. 2779, we can achieve the goals of the 1975 Metric
Act without closing Federal project bids to U.S. businesses,
especially small manufacturers who cannot afford to retool or
who depend upon those contracts for their livelihood.
On May 16, the Technology Subcommittee held a hearing on
H.R. 2779. At that hearing we heard from a number of these
affected companies. These companies that manufacture basic
construction products have suffered by being forced to either
convert to hard metric production or be foreclosed from
effectively bidding on Federal projects.
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.
With H.R. 2779, we can also use the metric system on
Federal construction projects without adding 15 to 20 percent
to the cost of each project. We can open up our Federal
construction projects to all bidders and avoid raising the cost
of these projects to taxpayers, since the Federal Government is
often required to pay additional costs, known as a metric
premium, to procure unique hard metric products.
I would like to commend the Chairwoman of the Technology
Subcommittee, Mrs. Morella, for her efforts in reporting this
bill to the full committee.
At the subcommittee markup, Mrs. Morella offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2779 which
would do some changes in this. This is the type of corrective
legislation which we can all support from both sides of the
aisle.
I thank the members of the Minority who have cooperated on
this so that we can move forward with it.
I would like to recognize at this point Mr. Tanner, who is
the ranking member of the subcommittee, for any comments he
might have with regard to the legislation.
Mr. Tanner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We marked this up in our subcommittee on a unanimous vote,
and I understand there is an amendment which we have no
objection to.
I would ask at this point for unanimous consent to insert a
statement from Mr. Brown into the record. He has an amendment
pending on the Floor and is unable join us at the moment.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Opening Remarks of Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., H.R. 2779, Savings in
Construction Act, June 26, 1996
Mr. Chairman: As markets have become more global, successful
nations have paid more and more attention to international standards
and I am pleased to remind my colleagues that for the past decade, this
Committee has been the most important Congressional advocate of this
trend. We realized early on that U.S. businesses faced barriers of law,
regulation, custom, or knowledge to our designing and manufacturing
world-class products that they would lose business opportunities. Other
countries will refuse entry of non-conforming products to their
countries and if U.S. suppliers cannot deliver the product that their
customers need, businesses and consumers overseas will look to those
who can deliver.
While we have made great strides in the area of international
standards, we have one great failure and that is metric policy. By not
moving decisively to implement the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 until
passage of 1988 amendments to that Act, we have allowed ourselves to be
the odd man out internationally. There are basically two places left in
this world to see products made in non-metric measurements: museums and
the United States of America. We were the last industrialized nation in
the world to commit to metric conversion; we are the only one that is
still dragging its feet.
In 1987, when the U.S. and Japan sat down to discuss barriers to
trade, the number one problem they cited was our failure to convert to
metric; the 1988 amendments that are being amended once again today,
were in part, a response to that criticism. They established in no
uncertain terms that the metric system of measure is to be considered
the preferred system of measurement of U.S. commerce and that Federal
procurement is to be done in metric. They also provided an important
exception, which has worked well until recently: Federal procurement in
metric is not required ``to the extent that such use is impractical or
is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to
United States firms.''
Today, we are considering the impact of metric procurement on
Federal construction. Two industries, concrete masonry and recessed
lighting, feel they have not been getting appropriate treatment under
the 1988 exemption and through H.R. 2779, are, in effect, appealing
their case to the Congress. H.R. 2779 as introduced drew strong
opposition from the Office of Management and Budget which felt the
proposal would weaken the U.S. effort in metric conversion and add
major bureaucratic requirements to Federal procurement.
The Technology Subcommittee's version of the bill before us has an
unsung hero, Congressman John Tanner, the Ranking Democratic Member on
the Technology Subcommittee. John realized that the obvious solution to
the problems of the lighting and block industry was for the Executive
Branch to use its existing authority to grant exemptions. He got most
of the Democratic members of our Committee to sign a letter asking the
Commerce Department to intervene in the matter. The Administration
responded by meeting with representatives of the affected industries,
by promulgating a Federal Register Notice setting out guidelines for
the usage of metric regarding concrete masonry block and recessed
lighting, and by engaging in extensive discussions with Congressional
staff. The efforts John set in motion have led to the compromise
language we have before us today which provides specific relief for the
two industries and an ombudsman process for working out problems of
implementation.
The compromise language will allow buildings to be designed in
metric but will treat masonry as covering a specific metric surface
area. A company supplying masonry products to a Federal construction
project can supply either metric or non-metric products with the final
rows of non-metric products being trimmed to fit the overall metric
dimensions. Of course, metric products, if they are available, will be
acceptable, but cost will be the determining factor in whether metric
or non-metric product is used.
The compromise also creates agency ombudsmen to work out problems
related to metric usage in Federal construction. The ombudsmen should
prove especially valuable for projects under design on the date of
enactment. We expect them to look at the facts of each case to
determine whether redesign to comply with this Act makes economic sense
or whether the projects have progressed to the point where redesign in
soft metric would increase project costs.
A compromise, by definition, is not a perfect solution from
anyone's point of view. The Commerce Department, while not objecting to
House passage of the Technology Subcommittee's version of H.R. 2779,
feels that the bill is unnecessary and can be solved administratively
using existing law. This, of course, was what I hoped would be possible
when I signed Mr. Tanner's letter to the Department of Commerce. I
still hope we reach the point where the Executive Branch has obviated
the need for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this letter
appear at this point in the record of this mark-up.
In closing Mr. Chairman, I wish to complement Mr. Tanner, Chairman
Morella, and the other members of the Technology Subcommittee for their
hard work in improving this legislation.
Mr. Tanner. I guess either now or before or after the
amendment is offered, I would ask unanimous consent to insert a
letter from Dr. Mary Good into the record with regard to the
matter.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Tanner. Thank you.
[The letter referred to follows:]
U.S. Department of Commerce,
The Under Secretary for Technology,
Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
Hon. George E. Brown, Jr.,
Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear George: Thank you for your letter of June 17, 1996. On June
19, 1996, the Technology Subcommittee voted unanimously on a Substitute
Amendment to H.R. 2779, as originally introduced. We have been able to
review the changes in light of the concerns that the Administration has
previously raised. We will continue to monitor any additional changes
to the bill as it is considered by the Committee on Science and
subsequently by the full House and then the Senate.
With the changes embodied in the Substitute Amendment, the
Administration will not object to House passage. Nonetheless, the
Administration continues to believe that the legislation improperly
supplants an administrative solution as envisioned under the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975. As I indicated in my testimony before the
Subcommittee in May, the steps we have taken, working with the
Committee and the private sector, to issue policy guidance are the most
appropriate way to address the concerns of the recessed lighting and
concrete block industries.
Federal law and Administration policy both encourage use of the
metric system to promote U.S. competitive advantage in international
markets. The reality, as reflected in the hearings held in May, is that
American industry--including the vast majority of the construction
industry--is already moving toward using metric in its design,
engineering and product standards. It is certainly not the
Administration's intent to unduly burden American firms in this area,
but instead to pursue metrication for increased cost-effectiveness for
American business, efficiency in procurement, and greater access to
international markets.
As we previously indicated, H.R. 2779, as originally introduced, is
unnecessary. The Substitute Amendment is also unnecessary, because
current Federal law and Administration policy provide the flexibility
in the use of metric standards by exempting the use of metric
measurements where such use is impractical or is likely to cause
significant inefficiencies or loss of markets for U.S. firms.
The Administration is acutely aware that this endeavor requires a
close partnership between industry and government. Both the public and
private sectors are working to resolve building metrication issues. As
a result of this work, we issued Guidance to Federal Agencies in May
that provides the concrete block and recessed lighting industries with
a specific exemption from ``hard metric'' requirements. We will
continue to work with these industries to ensure that the policy
guidance that has been issued is effectively implemented by all
agencies.
Again, George, thank you for your leadership on this issue, and
support for the Administration's technology agenda.
Sincerely,
Mary L. Good.
The Chairman. Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the Chair of the Technology Subcommittee with
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 current law to promote the metric system, as we all
know, the United States still remains the only major
industrialized country in the world which does not
predominantly use metric as a standard measurement system.
Converting to the metric system is a goal that Congress has
already wisely decided with the passage of the Metric
Conversion Act of 1975, and it is an objective that I believe
most Members of Congress fully support. It may take time, but
American public acceptance of the metric system will eventually
come, albeit gradually, and lead ultimately to metric
conversion in the United States.
Any attempts to roll back our current metric efforts would
be unwise and would only serve to impair our Nation's long-term
international competitive interest.
So, with that being said, while I would oppose any efforts
to eliminate the Metric Conversion Act, I do support H.R. 2779,
as reported out of the Technology Subcommittee, because it
maintains the integrity of our current metric law while
providing flexibility in its interpretation.
H.R. 2779 simply provides for less costly and less
intrusive ways of meeting the goals of the Metric Conversion
Act in Federal construction projects.
The bill before us contains an amendment in the nature of a
substitute which, as was mentioned, I offered during our
Technology Subcommittee markup last week on behalf of
Congressman Cox of California, who is the sponsor of H.R. 2779.
That amendment reflected an agreement conducted through months
of negotiations and discussions with Congressman Cox, the
Majority committee staff, the Minority committee staff, the
administration, and affected industries.
As amended, H.R. 2779 is a bill which balances the need for
the Federal Government to maintain its current efforts to
promote metric while providing for appropriate implementation
of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 in Federal construction
projects. I believe it is worthy of the support of this full
committee. I would urge all my colleagues to favorably report
this bill to the House for its consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
We will now consider H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction
Act of 1996. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
The Chairman. I ask the members to proceed with amendments
in the order of the roster. I think we just have the one
amendment.
The Chair would recognize the gentlewoman from Maryland for
an amendment.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a
technical amendment.
The Chairman. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2779 offered by Mrs. Morella--
--
The Chairman. Does the gentlelady ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read?
Mrs. Morella. Indeed I do.
[The text of the amendment follows:]
Amendment to H.R. 2779 Offered By Mrs. Morella
Page 1, lines 16 through 18, strike ``construction contracting
officers are requiring as a condition of obtaining Federal'' and insert
in lieu thereof ``agencies are requiring as a condition of obtaining
Federal construction''.
Page 4, line 24, through page 5, line 4, amend paragraph (8) to
read as follows:
``(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).''.
Page 5, lines 5 through 19, amend section 4 to read as follows:
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.''.
Page 5, lines 21 and 22, strike ``(15 U.S.C. 205j-1), as amended''
and insert in lieu thereof ``as added''.
Page 6, line 1, strike ``(d)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(c)''.
The Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes to offer the
amendment. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Morella. Really, I don't need 5 minutes, I don't even
need 1 minute, Mr. Chairman, because this amendment reflects
the consensus that was arrived at when all parties came
together, and it ends up being a technical amendment, which I
believe all sides would approve of.
The Chairman. The gentlelady is correct. This is a
technical amendment.
Is there any further discussion of the amendment?
If not, the Chair will put the question. Those in favor of
the amendment say aye; those opposed, say no.
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I don't have an amendment, but I
wish to discuss the bill.
The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to offer some comments on this bill. I did
attend the first hearing that was held on this and participated
in the hearing and the questioning.
It is absolutely essential that our Nation continue to move
in the direction of the metric system. It has cost us
innumerable billions of dollars that we have not done so
before.
The history of this goes back to Thomas Jefferson, who
recommended to the Congress that we adopt the metric system. It
was a close vote. The Congress rejected it by a small margin
because the cost to the Nation would be $7 million. Since that
time, that action of Congress has cost us billions upon
billions of dollars.
What is often overlooked in talking about conversion to the
metric system and the discussions of the cost of the conversion
is the cost of not converting, the lost opportunities for
commerce abroad, which has plagued some major industries in the
past. Fortunately, industries are overcoming them by adopting a
metric system de facto and simply saying we have to do it to
compete. So when you go down to Sears and buy a tool box today,
you are as likely to get metric as you are to get the English
system. But that is a cumbersome and slow way to do it.
What concerned me about the testimony offered by the two
industries that are asking for this relief, the lighting
fixture industry and the cement block industry, is that they
don't want to change at all. And I would have no problem with
giving them some additional time, but I don't see a time
deadline in here for ending this particular action of going to
soft metric for a while.
As an example, the concrete block industry is arguing that
it would cost them a lot of money to change their molds to make
the small change that is needed in the size of the cement
blocks. But when I asked them, ``If we adopted this
legislation, would you--when your molds wear out and you have
to buy new molds anyway, will you put in metric molds?'' And
the answer is no, they want to keep things going the way they
are.
Similarly with the lighting appliance industry, if they do
not wish to make metric fixtures, they are thereby excluded
from the world market because the rest of the world uses the
metric system. I think that is something that the entire
lighting industry should get into if we hope to improve our
competitive position on that.
I don't have an amendment to offer, Mr. Chairman. I do plan
to vote against the bill but do want to raise my objections
simply because I think we have to be more aggressive in
adopting the metric system in this country. And if we are going
to give relief in cases where it is needed--and it does appear
it is needed here--it should be with a definite cutoff date to
ensure that the industries involved will eventually join the
rest of the world in using the metric system.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Volkmer. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ehlers. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. Volkmer. Did both of these industries feel then that
they do not have any export market in the future, even if you
change to metric?
Mr. Ehlers. I think it is fairly evident that the concrete
block would not have much of an export market except near the
Canadian and Mexican borders. The product is simply too heavy
to transport.
The lighting appliance industry, if they come up with
imaginative appliances, certainly could have an international
market. In fact, we are just completing some remodeling in our
house, and I am surprised at the number of fixtures that we
looked at that were made in other countries and shipped into
the U.S. So obviously that is an international market, and I
believe the lighting industry could meet that.
Mr. Volkmer. And that lighting industry in the other
markets is made by metric. It is metric. All the others you
looked at were all metric?
Mr. Ehlers. I cannot verify whether or not they were
metric. There is a lot of slop in construction, as you well
know, and typically they were marked in both systems of units.
Mr. Volkmer. Thank you.
Mr. Largent. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a
couple of questions.
First of all, I can tell you, I have some reservations. I
mean, when you think about converting things like an ounce of
precaution prevents a pound of cure, and you give an inch, you
take a mile, converting that to the metric I think is going to
be very confusing to a lot of us.
But beyond that, I was going to just ask Mrs. Morella about
the Section 5. It talks about the head of each executive agency
that awards construction contracts shall designate a senior
agency official.
Am I to understand then that we are not creating new
positions that will be--I mean, is there a cost to this bill? I
guess that is the bottom line.
Mrs. Morella. No, Mr. Largent, it would not involve any new
bureaucracy. It would be the existing personnel, and this would
be reflected--it is a good point--this would be reflected in
the report language.
The Chairman. And no additional cost, I would say to the
gentleman.
Are there any other statements?
If not, the Chair will put the question on H.R. 2779, the
Savings in Construction Act of 1996. Those in favor will say
aye; those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Mr. Tanner?
Mr. Tanner. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee report
the bill, H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act of 1996,
as amended.
Furthermore, I move to instruct the staff to prepare the
legislative report, to make technical and conforming
amendments, and that the chairman take all necessary steps to
bring the bill before the House for consideration.
The Chairman. The committee has heard the motion. All in
favor say aye; those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
The gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move, pursuant to clause 1 of
Rule XX of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that the
committee authorize the chairman to offer such motions as may
be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate
on the bill, H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act of
1996, or a similar Senate bill.
The Chairman. The members have heard the motion. Those in
favor will say aye; those opposed will say no.
The ayes have it.
This concludes the markup on H.R. 2779.
Before I adjourn today's markup though, I am going to make
a statement with regard to the need to cancel this morning's
hearing. That is all the business that we have before the
committee, and we will have no more votes.
But I must express my disappointment that the hearing to
examine research funding in the out years originally scheduled
for today had to be postponed.
I first would like to commend Dr. Albert Teich of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, who stood
ready to testify. I regret the cancellation but look forward to
his testimony at a later date in July.
However, I was surprised on Monday when three of the four
witnesses from the administration informed the committee that
they could not attend on their scheduled day of a two-part
hearing, after my staff had specifically scheduled these dates
to accommodate their calendars. My surprise turned to
frustration when I learned that OMB is not inclined at this
time to send anyone to testify.
A number of recent events led me to schedule this hearing.
On May 8, Dr. Martha Krebs, the director of energy research at
DOE, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment of the Science Committee. She stated that the
President's proposed reductions on energy research programs
were ``applied in a mechanical way and that they do not
represent policy.''
Understandably, her comments caught my attention.
Meanwhile, Dan Goldin, the NASA Administrator, testified in
the Senate and before our Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee
that he has been assured by OMB not to worry about the out-year
numbers.
These statements began to concern me.
Then, last week, NSF Director Neal Lane repeated in a
letter to me that, ``As the administration has acknowledged,
detailed program-by-program decisions had not been made at this
time, at the time that the budget was released.''
My concern was intensified.
At the same time, the former director of OMB, Alice Rivlin,
publicly maintains that the President did what the Congress
asked: Developed a budget which achieves balance by 2002, as
scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
However, in April CBO determined that the President's
budget relies on $67 billion in additional unspecified cuts in
discretionary spending in the last 2 years beyond the specified
but now disavowed cuts in 1998 through the year 2002.
Without these extra cuts, his budget leaves a deficit of
$81 billion in 2002, but the administration refuses to indicate
where those reductions will be made.
This is the pattern of inconsistency which led me to call
the hearing. Who are we to believe? Are the out-numbers real?
If not, I repeat the appeal of some of my colleagues in the
Senate who ask if the President's out-year numbers are not
real, and the Administration chooses to deny the additional $67
billion in cuts required to eliminate the deficit, ``then we
must respectfully suggest that you cease referring to the
President's plan as a balanced budget.'' That is a quote by the
Senate.
Or do we believe the President when he says his budget is
balanced? If so, the administration officials must acknowledge
the deep cuts President Clinton has already proposed in basic
research in the next 6 years and must specify where the
additional $67 billion in cuts will fall.
Despite today's setback, it is with optimism that I intend
to reschedule this hearing for July. Only after we are able to
sort through the conflicting claims made by agency heads and
the White House officials can we begin to examine the real
effect of the out-year numbers and what those out-year numbers
will mean in civilian research and development.
After all, if we are truly concerned about the future of
science, we must have a thoughtful planning about the future.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]